The quote is attributed to the RSPCA's equine consultant. He knows the score. It was reported in a New Zealand publication (which, being online, will allow millions of people access to it). More's the pity that the mainstream Tory press don't get on the case in greater number. Most of the proprietors would probably be hob-nobbing with the Cuntryside Alliance and royalty in the VIP enclosure, so I won't be holding my breath. But never mind; if the journos care to look, they'll see that they have plenty to write about after this death-ridden 2016 edition. How many deaths? Seven? Eight? More?
The quote is attributed to the RSPCA's equine consultant. He knows the score. It was reported in a New Zealand publication (which, being online, will allow millions of people access to it). More's the pity that the mainstream Tory press don't get on the case in greater number. Most of the proprietors would probably be hob-nobbing with the Cuntryside Alliance and royalty in the VIP enclosure, so I won't be holding my breath. But never mind; if the journos care to look, they'll see that they have plenty to write about after this death-ridden 2016 edition. How many deaths? Seven? Eight? More?
The quote is attributed to the RSPCA's equine consultant. He knows the score. It was reported in a New Zealand publication (which, being online, will allow millions of people access to it). More's the pity that the mainstream Tory press don't get on the case in greater number. Most of the proprietors would probably be hob-nobbing with the Cuntryside Alliance and royalty in the VIP enclosure, so I won't be holding my breath. But never mind; if the journos care to look, they'll see that they have plenty to write about after this death-ridden 2016 edition. How many deaths? Seven? Eight? More?
The Cheltenham 'Festival': Digging its own grave.
The main trouble with that post, Anna, is that it comes across as a criticism of horse racing for being the preserve of the elite rather than an animal welfare issue. I respect your opinion, albeit differ from it, but you are better placed in my humble opinion to keep it to welfare issues rather than a pop at the Tory press, landed gentry and the Countryside Alliance!
There's something in what you say, Bob. I agree with you in part. But horse racing isn't called The Sport of Kings for nothing, is it? Premiereship footballers, eastern european oligarchs, Royalty, friends in high places with friends in high places. Cheltenham, here, Ascot there, the Grouse moors, Henley; The Establishment. And, yes, lots of Joe Public, either in attendance, watching on TV, or in the bookies. I find the whole thing nauseating. I started this thread because there was no criticism on the 'official' thread and when I tried to put an alternative view, I was asked to desist. Upset at the deaths in the 2014 edition, when Ruby Walsh said something to the effect that a horse is a horse, and you can get another (for which he was criticised), I started this thread last year and revived it this. I didn't set out to antagonise, and stated that I wouldn't get into slanging. I've provided a reportage of numerous deaths (and had I not done so, who would have?) and hope that this will influence some others to think about the welfare issue and the drivers behind the festival; power and money.
I appreciate your point of view Anna_Kissed even if I don't agree with it. Ruby Walsh's comments were taken out of context. He was trying to say that it would have been worse if it had been a jockey that had been killed. I've asked a couple of times what changes would satisfy you. Can you not just admit that only a total ban of racing would suffice?
Well, that's a value judgement, and I'd call him a Speciesist. You know the thing; Humans are better than animals. Animals are subordinate to people. Well, some of us don't agree with that. We're all important. As to what I seek? Compassion for animals, as well as compassion for other people, is what I seek. There's a riding school not far from where I live, and I like to see youngsters riding about. People like to ride horses, and I'm happy with that. The race horse, however, is a construct of man's interference with nature; selective breeding. Be it the farmed cow, pumped full of growth hormone and in difficulty when standing, pining for its calf - soon be on a lorry destined for southern Italy. Or the overly-fattened chicken, bloated and heavy and unable to see the sunlight. The transgenic monkey, isolated and depressed in the bunker of a research laboratory. And the race horse; bred for stamina, bred for speed, bred to make money. I wrote about this earlier in the week. Scheming man, greedy man, always looking for more. And more. Numerous people have expressed an interest in my view on x, y and z - largely, I suspect, because my views threaten their orthodoxy. Anyway, enough philosophising. We can only know what we know at a given time. If you want to have an insight into how I, and other animal advocates, think, may I suggest that you watch the film 'Earthlings' ? I know several people who've seen it and say that it changed their whole outlook. Here it is: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3fRIUnKJk1w
There's something in what you say, Bob. I agree with you in part. But horse racing isn't called The Sport of Kings for nothing, is it? Premiereship footballers, eastern european oligarchs, Royalty, friends in high places with friends in high places. Cheltenham, here, Ascot there, the Grouse moors, Henley; The Establishment. And, yes, lots of Joe Public, either in attendance, watching on TV, or in the bookies. I find the whole thing nauseating. I started this thread because there was no criticism on the 'official' thread and when I tried to put an alternative view, I was asked to desist. Upset at the deaths in the 2014 edition, when Ruby Walsh said something to the effect that a horse is a horse, and you can get another (for which he was criticised), I started this thread last year and revived it this. I didn't set out to antagonise, and stated that I wouldn't get into slanging. I've provided a reportage of numerous deaths (and had I not done so, who would have?) and hope that this will influence some others to think about the welfare issue and the drivers behind the festival; power and money.
So I suppose it boils down to whether it is ethical that animals should be manipulated to race. Which is different to the argument I was suggesting - animals are not of equal value to humans. Hard one to decide.
I appreciate your point of view Anna_Kissed even if I don't agree with it. Ruby Walsh's comments were taken out of context. He was trying to say that it would have been worse if it had been a jockey that had been killed. I've asked a couple of times what changes would satisfy you. Can you not just admit that only a total ban of racing would suffice?
It wouldn't have been worse if a jockey died. They choose to be in horse racing. Horses are forced to be there. So the death of horses is far worse. Personally I'd ban all sports that exploit animals.
There's something in what you say, Bob. I agree with you in part. But horse racing isn't called The Sport of Kings for nothing, is it? Premiereship footballers, eastern european oligarchs, Royalty, friends in high places with friends in high places. Cheltenham, here, Ascot there, the Grouse moors, Henley; The Establishment. And, yes, lots of Joe Public, either in attendance, watching on TV, or in the bookies. I find the whole thing nauseating. I started this thread because there was no criticism on the 'official' thread and when I tried to put an alternative view, I was asked to desist. Upset at the deaths in the 2014 edition, when Ruby Walsh said something to the effect that a horse is a horse, and you can get another (for which he was criticised), I started this thread last year and revived it this. I didn't set out to antagonise, and stated that I wouldn't get into slanging. I've provided a reportage of numerous deaths (and had I not done so, who would have?) and hope that this will influence some others to think about the welfare issue and the drivers behind the festival; power and money.
Cheltenham, and indeed National Hunt racing in general, is nothing like Royal Ascot or Henley Regatta in terms of the people involved or even those who attend.
Set up a thread separate, people want to discuss/argue, please, do it there.
The point (as I see it); the other thread wasn't a debate thread, but to discuss the results/outcome of a completely legal sport, so stifling it with this discussion was gonna get messy and ruin that thread.
This thread is to discuss the other view of the same sport, which is obviously gonna start a bit of debate.
We can't just start a new thread when we don't agree with a point on another.
Well, that's a value judgement, and I'd call him a Speciesist. You know the thing; Humans are better than animals. Animals are subordinate to people. Well, some of us don't agree with that. We're all important. As to what I seek? Compassion for animals, as well as compassion for other people, is what I seek. There's a riding school not far from where I live, and I like to see youngsters riding about. People like to ride horses, and I'm happy with that. The race horse, however, is a construct of man's interference with nature; selective breeding. Be it the farmed cow, pumped full of growth hormone and in difficulty when standing, pining for its calf - soon be on a lorry destined for southern Italy. Or the overly-fattened chicken, bloated and heavy and unable to see the sunlight. The transgenic monkey, isolated and depressed in the bunker of a research laboratory. And the race horse; bred for stamina, bred for speed, bred to make money. I wrote about this earlier in the week. Scheming man, greedy man, always looking for more. And more. Numerous people have expressed an interest in my view on x, y and z - largely, I suspect, because my views threaten their orthodoxy. Anyway, enough philosophising. We can only know what we know at a given time. If you want to have an insight into how I, and other animal advocates, think, may I suggest that you watch the film 'Earthlings' ? I know several people who've seen it and say that it changed their whole outlook. Here it is: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3fRIUnKJk1w
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I wouldn't put horse racing anywhere near the other activities that you quote. Racehorses are extremely well looked after from the moment that they are born. That might be because the breeder is hoping to make a profit on them but it's no different to the breeders of cats and dogs. I would like to see the racing world set up something to ensure that all racehorses are looked after when their career is over, whatever their ability (I know that a lot is already done but I would like it to be compulsory and documented). I'll have a look at that link when I get the chance. I'm sure that it will make for uncomfortable viewing
Setting aside the argument that horse racing is elitist (don't agree - I know loads of 'real' people that love it) or that the people involved in it are evil (again, don't agree - I know plenty of people who look after horses, in some cases they love them and care for them better than their own families, and I don't know a single one who abuses or mistreats them)
However, it's a ridiculous argument to say they're 'doing what they love'. If they were they'd be out doing it in the wild, not being ridden into the ground by humans. If horse racing didn't exist, horses wouldn't just rock up at the same place every year en masse and have a sports day would they?
My argument against horse racing is exactly the same as my argument against Fox hunting. It belongs in an era where we weren't perhaps as bothered about exploiting animals for our own entertainment and, like bullfighting, dogfighting, pigeon racing and similar pasttimes, is an anachronism in more enlightened times.
Setting aside the argument that horse racing is elitist (don't agree - I know loads of 'real' people that love it) or that the people involved in it are evil (again, don't agree - I know plenty of people who look after horses, in some cases they love them and care for them better than their own families, and I don't know a single one who abuses or mistreats them)
However, it's a ridiculous argument to say they're 'doing what they love'. If they were they'd be out doing it in the wild, not being ridden into the ground by humans. If horse racing didn't exist, horses wouldn't just rock up at the same place every year en masse and have a sports day would they?
My argument against horse racing is exactly the same as my argument against Fox hunting. It belongs in an era where we weren't perhaps as bothered about exploiting animals for our own entertainment and, like bullfighting, dogfighting, pigeon racing and similar pasttimes, is an anachronism in more enlightened times.
Pigeon racing? Falconry perhaps, but pigeon racing...
I totally agree that some quotes are out of order and maybe posted to wind up certain people. The questions that I ask, however, are genuine, as I'm interested to know exactly what people want to happen to racing for them to be satisfied. It is obvious that a complete ban will never happen and I worry that the concessions that have been given will only make matters worse and, therefore, increase the furore surrounding racing. If, for instance, we have dry weather in the next couple of weeks then the going at Aintree may be good. The race will then be run at a faster pace because the modified fences are not such a challenge as they once were. This increased pace will undoubtedly lead to more falls and the possibility of higher fatalities. Sometimes changes are not are not always for the best.
What would satisfy me would be a situation where there are no more deaths. My belief is that the races are just too gruelling an my immediate reaction would be to say that races should be shorter with lower (or possibly no) jumps. Perhaps there are issues with the number of horses all going for the same fence at the same time, perhaps there are visibility issues. I don't know if it's still the case, but there used to be a problem in racing with horses being unable to see the landing ground after jumping. Perhaps this is still something that needs to be addressed.
I was very interested that in your opinion such changes would make races more dangerous because of the increased speed. I can see there's a certain logic behind this argument, but can I ask is it just a hunch or are there any facts to back it up? It seems to me that it's only be certain courses/festivals where there is this high fatality rate. What is it that they do differently to the rest that causes such accidents? I can't help but suspect that any serious study would find that it's gruelling distances combined with high fences that are the real killers.
I'm not holding my breath though for any serious study, because as an industry, I don't see the slightest indication that they care. As long as the courses and the bookies make their money things we carry on as ever. As an indication of this, I just went on the Sporting Life's listing page for racing news. Of the 37 stories listed there, not one of them concerned horse deaths. I didn't click on the stories, so to be fair the death's could have been mentioned. But if they were it was in passing and not the main item they were reporting. Can you imagine that? A website whose staple diet is one particular sport and they cannot even report properly on a situation where competitors in that sport are dying at a rate of almost two a day. This, if ever there was one, is a sign of an industry that just doesn't care.
Anyway, I'd like to congratulate Anna Kissed for doing a grand job of keeping us informed, and not rising to the bait of many who sought to undermine and ridicule without adding to the debate. BTW, that's not aimed you Superclive, I thought you posts were the right spirit and made interesting points.
Chief veterinary officer Jenny Hall has made the following comments as regards the death of seven horses at Cheltenham "It's notable that four of the fatal injuries this week were not related to a fall over a fence or hurdle Horses are at risk of serious injury throughout their lives,regardless of the type of equestrian activity they participate in,even when turned out in a field or exercising at home. It's not possible to eradicate risk completely from any activity in which horses are involved. She also added that the fatality rate on racecourses has reduced by a third in the past twenty years and that she will work with Cheltenham to assess all of the incidents."
Set up a thread separate, people want to discuss/argue, please, do it there.
The point (as I see it); the other thread wasn't a debate thread, but to discuss the results/outcome of a completely legal sport, so stifling it with this discussion was gonna get messy and ruin that thread.
This thread is to discuss the other view of the same sport, which is obviously gonna start a bit of debate.
We can't just start a new thread when we don't agree with a point on another.
Can I just say that the quality of this post clearly demonstrates mod potential?
Chief veterinary officer Jenny Hall has made the following comments as regards the death of seven horses at Cheltenham "It's notable that four of the fatal injuries this week were not related to a fall over a fence or hurdle Horses are at risk of serious injury throughout their lives,regardless of the type of equestrian activity they participate in,even when turned out in a field or exercising at home. It's not possible to eradicate risk completely from any activity in which horses are involved. She also added that the fatality rate on racecourses has reduced by a third in the past twenty years and that she will work with Cheltenham to assess all of the incidents."
Jenny Hall, Chief Veterinary Officer of the BHA, also said: “We will work with Cheltenham to assess all of the incidents that took place this week. We have a good relationship with the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare, and, as always, we will work with them to ensure we continue to do all we can to make racing as safe as possible.”
Sounds positive, doesn't it? I hope that she is successful in her efforts. Modern history, however, paints a different picture. If you type 'Cheltenham race horse deaths' into a search engine, you'll find pages of reports about deaths of horses, year after year. If the Chief Veterinary Officer of the BHA wants to make her hope come true, she might consider recommending that a) jumps are removed from race courses and b) the use of the whip is resigned to the history books. The current restrictions on the use of the whip are a fairly recent thing, and came about due to pressure from animal advocacy groups. When proposed, the would-be restrictions were opposed by most jockeys, but the racing authorities pushed the changes through because they were in danger of losing the PR battle and had to show that they'd acted in some way. A similar thing occurred with the reduction in size of fences at Aintree; were it not for groups such as PETA and Animal Aid, and anxious individuals writing letters of protest to newspapers, the conservative racing industry would happily have continued in its ways.
One wonders if Jenny Hall has a good relationship with David Muir, the equine consultant of the RSPCA. The latter was, according to Horsetalk.co.nz at the Cheltenham Festival this week to monitor standards of welfare and is reported to have remarked that the horse deaths "...show the unacceptable face of horse racing. Any death on any racecourse simply cannot be justified".
Risk cannot be fully removed, but it can be reduced. I hope that the seven horse deaths during this festival week will focus the hearts and minds of the racing authorities. Sadly, one need only look at the horsedeathwatch.com website to see that horse racing - and jump racing especially - is another manifestation of mankind's insatiable habit of seeking domination over animals.
For such an emotive subject, this thread has been pretty respectful actually. Consider we have an animal rights champion and a race horse owner. And I've learned from both
Set up a thread separate, people want to discuss/argue, please, do it there.
The point (as I see it); the other thread wasn't a debate thread, but to discuss the results/outcome of a completely legal sport, so stifling it with this discussion was gonna get messy and ruin that thread.
This thread is to discuss the other view of the same sport, which is obviously gonna start a bit of debate.
We can't just start a new thread when we don't agree with a point on another.
Can I just say that the quality of this post clearly demonstrates mod potential?
For such an emotive subject, this thread has been pretty respectful actually. Consider we have an animal rights champion and a race horse owner. And I've learned from both
Like learning that the "animal rights champion" [sic] likes to spell Countyside Alliance "Cuntryside Alliance"? Oh yes, pretty respectful.
Try taking a look at just one example of the benefits to humankind of the racehorse that has absolutely nothing to do with MONEY.
For such an emotive subject, this thread has been pretty respectful actually. Consider we have an animal rights champion league 1, and a race horse owner. And I've learned from both
Comments
The Cheltenham 'Festival': Digging its own grave.
Dan {AFKA} I tried.
And, yes, lots of Joe Public, either in attendance, watching on TV, or in the bookies.
I find the whole thing nauseating. I started this thread because there was no criticism on the 'official' thread and when I tried to put an alternative view, I was asked to desist. Upset at the deaths in the 2014 edition, when Ruby Walsh said something to the effect that a horse is a horse, and you can get another (for which he was criticised), I started this thread last year and revived it this. I didn't set out to antagonise, and stated that I wouldn't get into slanging. I've provided a reportage of numerous deaths (and had I not done so, who would have?) and hope that this will influence some others to think about the welfare issue and the drivers behind the festival; power and money.
I've asked a couple of times what changes would satisfy you. Can you not just admit that only a total ban of racing would suffice?
As to what I seek? Compassion for animals, as well as compassion for other people, is what I seek. There's a riding school not far from where I live, and I like to see youngsters riding about. People like to ride horses, and I'm happy with that. The race horse, however, is a construct of man's interference with nature; selective breeding. Be it the farmed cow, pumped full of growth hormone and in difficulty when standing, pining for its calf - soon be on a lorry destined for southern Italy. Or the overly-fattened chicken, bloated and heavy and unable to see the sunlight. The transgenic monkey, isolated and depressed in the bunker of a research laboratory. And the race horse; bred for stamina, bred for speed, bred to make money. I wrote about this earlier in the week. Scheming man, greedy man, always looking for more. And more.
Numerous people have expressed an interest in my view on x, y and z - largely, I suspect, because my views threaten their orthodoxy. Anyway, enough philosophising. We can only know what we know at a given time. If you want to have an insight into how I, and other animal advocates, think, may I suggest that you watch the film 'Earthlings' ?
I know several people who've seen it and say that it changed their whole outlook.
Here it is:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3fRIUnKJk1w
Personally I'd ban all sports that exploit animals.
This thread is to discuss the other view of the same sport, which is obviously gonna start a bit of debate.
We can't just start a new thread when we don't agree with a point on another.
I would like to see the racing world set up something to ensure that all racehorses are looked after when their career is over, whatever their ability (I know that a lot is already done but I would like it to be compulsory and documented).
I'll have a look at that link when I get the chance. I'm sure that it will make for uncomfortable viewing
However, it's a ridiculous argument to say they're 'doing what they love'. If they were they'd be out doing it in the wild, not being ridden into the ground by humans. If horse racing didn't exist, horses wouldn't just rock up at the same place every year en masse and have a sports day would they?
My argument against horse racing is exactly the same as my argument against Fox hunting. It belongs in an era where we weren't perhaps as bothered about exploiting animals for our own entertainment and, like bullfighting, dogfighting, pigeon racing and similar pasttimes, is an anachronism in more enlightened times.
I was very interested that in your opinion such changes would make races more dangerous because of the increased speed. I can see there's a certain logic behind this argument, but can I ask is it just a hunch or are there any facts to back it up? It seems to me that it's only be certain courses/festivals where there is this high fatality rate. What is it that they do differently to the rest that causes such accidents? I can't help but suspect that any serious study would find that it's gruelling distances combined with high fences that are the real killers.
I'm not holding my breath though for any serious study, because as an industry, I don't see the slightest indication that they care. As long as the courses and the bookies make their money things we carry on as ever. As an indication of this, I just went on the Sporting Life's listing page for racing news. Of the 37 stories listed there, not one of them concerned horse deaths. I didn't click on the stories, so to be fair the death's could have been mentioned. But if they were it was in passing and not the main item they were reporting. Can you imagine that? A website whose staple diet is one particular sport and they cannot even report properly on a situation where competitors in that sport are dying at a rate of almost two a day. This, if ever there was one, is a sign of an industry that just doesn't care.
Anyway, I'd like to congratulate Anna Kissed for doing a grand job of keeping us informed, and not rising to the bait of many who sought to undermine and ridicule without adding to the debate. BTW, that's not aimed you Superclive, I thought you posts were the right spirit and made interesting points.
"It's notable that four of the fatal injuries this week were not related to a fall over a fence or hurdle
Horses are at risk of serious injury throughout their lives,regardless of the type of equestrian activity they participate in,even when turned out in a field or exercising at home.
It's not possible to eradicate risk completely from any activity in which horses are involved.
She also added that the fatality rate on racecourses has reduced by a third in the past twenty years and that she will work with Cheltenham to assess all of the incidents."
Sounds positive, doesn't it? I hope that she is successful in her efforts. Modern history, however, paints a different picture. If you type 'Cheltenham race horse deaths' into a search engine, you'll find pages of reports about deaths of horses, year after year. If the Chief Veterinary Officer of the BHA wants to make her hope come true, she might consider recommending that a) jumps are removed from race courses and b) the use of the whip is resigned to the history books.
The current restrictions on the use of the whip are a fairly recent thing, and came about due to pressure from animal advocacy groups. When proposed, the would-be restrictions were opposed by most jockeys, but the racing authorities pushed the changes through because they were in danger of losing the PR battle and had to show that they'd acted in some way. A similar thing occurred with the reduction in size of fences at Aintree; were it not for groups such as PETA and Animal Aid, and anxious individuals writing letters of protest to newspapers, the conservative racing industry would happily have continued in its ways.
One wonders if Jenny Hall has a good relationship with David Muir, the equine consultant of the RSPCA. The latter was, according to Horsetalk.co.nz at the Cheltenham Festival this week to monitor standards of welfare and is reported to have remarked that the horse deaths "...show the unacceptable face of horse racing. Any death on any racecourse simply cannot be justified".
Risk cannot be fully removed, but it can be reduced. I hope that the seven horse deaths during this festival week will focus the hearts and minds of the racing authorities. Sadly, one need only look at the horsedeathwatch.com website to see that horse racing - and jump racing especially - is another manifestation of mankind's insatiable habit of seeking domination over animals.
horsedeathwatch.com/
Try taking a look at just one example of the benefits to humankind of the racehorse that has absolutely nothing to do with MONEY.
http://www.thehorsecomesfirst.com/news/item/judi-dench-s-racehorse-smokey-oakey-provides-therapy-to-the-disabled
Thank me later.