Horse Racing...... ? Cruel or Not ?

Racing greyhounds have their ears tattoed. There have been quite a few reports of them being abandoned with their ears cut off if they don't make the grade.

Please think of a brilliant little horse, Kauto Star, who had a fantastic racing career, was retired and went to retrain as a dressage horse, had a lovely retirement until he had an accident jumping out of his exercise paddock and had to be put down.

Horses will run, and some are inclined to jump.

With regard to the whip, there are currently rules in place, and these are due to be revised.

In my opinion ALL horse racing is cruel, yes wild horses like galloping around and maybe they can go a few miles BUT they don’t have anything (7/8/9 stone) on their backs, they don’t have horrible cruel metal things in their mouths and they don’t have a human with a whip yes it’s called a whip not a ‘tapper’ it’s designed to sting to make them go faster
In answer to your question baggs wouldn’t training and breeding make a difference yes I m sure but that doesn’t mean it’s right and whose to say the training isn’t cruel there is such big money resting on these races that to get them faster the training could well be cruel
I personally consider dog racing is cruel too and I don’t believe animals are here to entertain us in this kind of way

Ohh Phoenix, this is terrible to read. Why do they need to have their ears cut off? I assume it is so that no one can be held to account .

I agree Bluebell.

I think it is cruel. I will never enter the office sweepstake for that reason. I know they all think me weird, but I don't want to support it.

To be a true ‘Sport’ the horses should be ridden bareback with just a halter, no bits, reins and certainly no whips.
Then, if the horse wants to run or jump for miles with someone on its back it would be more of a sport.

Until then, it’s cruel as are all animal ‘sports’

I woul n ever bet on horses - or greyhounds for that matter - as both sports are cruel and dismissive of the suffering of the animals. Pam Ayres wrote a lovely very sad poem about a horse that died during one of the big races - one of several, who was whipped and forced to race on the hottest day of the year, and unsurprisingly collapsed and died. This is never mentioned by commentators, who always rattle on about the 'jockeys and owners' winning; never the poor animal pushed beyond endurance and then discarded.

Horses in the wild may well gallop for long distances but that’s their own choice. Afaik they wouldn’t normally race against each other, I can’t think of any creature that does that.

It is the use of racing as entertainment that raises questions for me. We no longer have animals in circuses and many zoos have repositioned themselves as conservation centres. Some vegans believe we should not even have domestic pets (companion animals) because we are exploiting them and repressing their natural instinct.

Regarding my own cats, the last thing they’d want is to catch their own food or sleep outside but I do see the vegan argument.

Forgot the link. www.plantbasednews.org/opinion/should-vegans-have-companion-animals

Cruel !!

I think it would be a huge improvement to the sport if none of the jockeys were allowed to use a whip. That way it would also be a fairer race. Why should a jockey and owner end up in the winning enclosure just because they were more ruthless with the whip. If no rider was allowed to carry one they would all have the same chance of winning with less stress to the horses. If the horses are natural runners and jumpers there shouldn't be a problem. I am guessing that racing in the flat would be able to continue but not sure about jumps in a race.

Horses in the wild may well gallop for long distances but that’s their own choice.

I guess escaping from predators is a choice in a way. You could just stand there and get eaten. But somehow I don't think choice is the right word here. There has been a need to gallop. A need that, if it didn't work, would be curtains for the species.

I'm not suggesting every wild horse gallop is about escape. I think much of it may well be about instinctively keeping in training, so to speak, for when escape is the only option.

Why should a jockey and owner end up in the winning enclosure just because they were more ruthless with the whip.

This is an interesting question. It had never occurred to me that it was all about the whipping rider encouragement. And the fitness/athleticism of the horse. Being sarcastic there.

I wish some horse racing supporters would join in this discussion, just to get points of view from the other side, you understand?

I believe it's all cruel. What other 'sport' uses mouth bits, whips and spurs?

RSPCA page about racehorse welfare is interesting.

No, you’re right, Baggs choice wasn’t the correct word to use. I was trying to convey that when a horse in the wild galloped, it would be for a reason, be it escaping a predator or simply for fun. In racing, it’s being caused unnaturally to gallop, whether by training or by inflicting pain.

Of course skill is involved Baggs but surely just as much skill ...or even more would be needed if the whip was withdrawn. I'm not against horse racing at all. In fact I think it would be quite interesting to see which horses/trainers/jockeys were the most successful under new rules which forbid the whip. Might even be the same ones. There is no doubt thought that some jockeys go beyond what the current laws allow. A complete ban would surely be both better for the horses and give an equal playing field to all jockeys and trainers.

The fundamental cruelty of horse racing is that the horses are raced at a far too early age. They are not mature and the stress on their developing bodies can cause all sorts of physical and developmental problems. You would not dream of breaking in a 'normal' horse until it was at least age 3 and then it would be only lightly ridden away (or even turned away for a long period) and introduced to more strenuous work over a period of years, racehorses are raced as 2yr olds. As far as I know, flat racers don't have a very long career. Jump racers are trained and run at a later age, I think. Jumping places huge stresses on developing bones and joints.

I don't think the actual racing is cruel to the horse. They're running with the herd. I'm not sure about the 'whipping', jockeys can be fined or banned for misuse of the whip. I believe it's more a ritual than beating a tired horse home...
Oh, and they are very fit.. It's not like dragging it out of a field, shoving a saddle on and making it gallop for miles. Racehorses are very, very fit..

I could say more about the fate of unsuccessful racehorses etc..

I also dislike racing because few of the punters have any interest in the horses themselves, only in how much money they might win by betting on them. At least in every other branch of horse sports the owners, riders and spectators are knowledgeable and care about the horses..

I think it's cruel.

This article was written in 2006 and things may have changed since then but I doubt there has been that much improvement:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/01/horseracing.sport

An extract:

"For thousands of British thoroughbreds that are too old, too slow or not good enough jumpers, the end is brutal: a bullet through the temple or a metal bolt into the side of the brain. Then their carcasses are loaded on to freezer lorries and driven to France, where their flesh is sold as gourmet meat.

"This mass disposal of thoroughbreds is the side of the multi-billion-pound British racing industry that is rarely mentioned and even more rarely seen. It is not illegal. But animal welfare charities are demanding that more money be spent to provide sanctuaries where horses can live in retirement, and that the massive breeding programme that provides the sport with its horses be scaled back. Most of the animals, which could live on average more than 30 years, are killed before their fifth birthday." [my emphasis].

If you are interested in the subject of animal welfare, read the whole - fairly lengthy - article and it may make you consider whether the "sport of kings" is an admirable one.

I think the RSPCA page is damning with faint praise.

But animal welfare charities are demanding that more money be spent to provide sanctuaries where horses can live in retirement

If the statistic in the Animal Aid article is right, some 7,000+ horses leave the industry every year. A horse lives to its late 20s, early 30s. Where on earth would all those thousands and thousands of horses go? And who would pay for their upkeep? Regular foot trimming (every 6 - 8 weeks) at £25 -£30 per horse; winter hay and feed? They are not cheap to keep, even when not in work.

Some racehorses are rehomed as pleasure horses. With a knowledgeable new owner they can have useful and happy lives. But they are very highly strung and not at all a ride for a novice. They could lead awful lives if they end up in the wrong 'home'.

I absolutely agree that breeding should be scaled back; but the money in the business is the driving force.

I think the fundamental problem is that from very early on in human development, survival even, people have made use of various animals in an effort to make their own survival a tiny bit easier. Other animals do this too, as do plants and fungi —think symbiotic relationships. Over thousands and thousands of years, human uses of other animals have refined and extended and that's why, among other things, we have stuff like horse-racing. It has various attractions and excitements from betting to the whole industry of breeding and training.

Which is why we can't just shut it down quickly, even if it is cruel. I presume the horses that are euthanised are eaten — dog meat — though I wouldn't be averse to eating compassionately grown horse meat. People do in other countries.

If the RSPCA has not seen fit to revise its article since 2006, perhaps that's because they didn't think it needed revising. That, if it is the case, would be encouraging, meaning that things are not getting worse and increased care of race horses is being effective. On the other hand, RSPCA could be in the pay of race horse breeders. Take your pick.

Or perhaps the RSPCA haven’t revised it because they are keeping a low profile on the case it’s a very Divisive subject and as they say the it’s the sport of the rich (look at Ascot) The RSPCA have let me down considerably a few times that I ve contacted them once over concerns for a dog once a cat and once a swan none of those these three incidents were handled well at all I have little confidence in them

An underlying point that perhaos I'd better spell out is that race horses wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for human beings. One could regard that as a good thing but you've still got to get over thousands of years of human fighting-to-survive history. Working horses made a humungous difference to human lives until little over a century ago.

It's not such a big leap from working horses to pleasure horses. I don't think the basic idea of horse racing is cruel, nor am I convinced that breeders, trainers, and riders are cruel to the animals they interact with. Whips and spurs (which are not sharp like those in cowboy films) are not designed to hurt the horse, only to spur it on.