I am addressing a portion of the debate, one also raised by Callum in a different way.
No you're not, you're company black people to horses
No I am not. I am addressing the notion that horses wouldn't exist in such numbers if there was no horseracing. I am not sure racing is established as a contribution to horse conservation, I believe there are other reasons for racing. It is the weakness of the argument, which would have been weak coming from slave owners. I didn't mention the colour of any slaves (what colour(s) were slaves in Roman times?), It says something about your preoccupation rather than mine that you differentiate it down to 'black people'.
Then the answer for that is pretty simple, and Peanuts put it best earlier - most of us who enjoy horse racing accept the 0.2% fatality rate per runner (1% of horses) as a price to pay for thoroughbreds to exist.
So lets get this right @paddyP17, you're quite happy for horses to die, so long as you and others can continue to enjoy and get pleasure from horse racing?
Thank you for your questions, which I will do my best to answer.
I have been out all day and I do not possess a phone with the internet. I have just read through the thread (75 posts).
Thank you to those who have stuck to the issue.
I have experienced problems with the new 'quote' function. (I got a red box advising that the 'Body of text is XXXXX characters too long').
Instead, I have reproduced your questions in italics.
AK - please let me
know if I get any of this wrong. I presume you would like to see an outright
ban of horse racing, both over obstacles and on the flat. I also presume that
you feel it necessary to pressure NH authorities and courses first, because
they pose the most danger to horses.
To that end, you campaign; write to race courses about
certain obstacles (including the aforementioned Cheltenham fence, and likely
some of the Grand National course fences); petition; and so on. Right?
And this is in the quite understandable name of animal
welfare. (To clarify, none of this is actually a "point" I'm
trying to make, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
I oppose the use of animals being used in entertainment and / or for monetary gain when their safety and welfare is compromised. This includes the racing of horses. I am particularly opposed to jump racing, as the risk to the participating animal is (probably) higher than in ‘flat’ racing.
If one seeks to reduce the risk to zero, the cessation of these activities is the logical answer. A ban is not the only way to achieve this. Society can evaluate the situation and, perhaps, achieve a cessation.
Semantics, perhaps. But people do bang on about banning this, or that. A decent society might call for an end to X, or Y, and see to it that it ceases without the need for legislation or punitive measures.
Essentially, domination, exploitation and cruelty are the factors that I consider. If society values true freedom, for all, ‘sports’ than harm non-consenting beings should be ended, one way or another.
Such an eventuality will not, I think, happen for, perhaps, a long time - if at all – so, in the meantime, I do what I can to influence meaningful change. I do this by challenging the conservative status quo, e.g. writing letters / emails, education / awareness-raising, and removing myself from activities that cause harm to animals.
-------------------------
I have following to say, and if we disagree, then we disagree:
1) I value human life above that of horses, or indeed any other animal. (We almost certainly disagree on this.) To that end, I am prepared to accept deaths of race horses as the price to pay for them to exist, and to enjoy a sport I love.
2) As ideologically consistent as you most likely are (which is admirable, of course, and I don't mean that to sound patronising), you must concede that there are thousands of jobs related to horse racing - and billions of pounds to boot. I would posit, therefore, that you're putting the welfare of circa 20,000 active horses (there are roughly that amount in training) above the livelihoods of thousands of humans?
Why?
Someone more mean-spirited than I would argue, heavy-handedly, it's because you view yourself as morally superior to those who work in this industry, so you value their human livelihood less than those of the horses and other animals you strive to protect, ideologically.
A socialist, I do not consider myself ‘morally superior’ to others. I have my principles and I try my best to live my life by them.
Many people work in industries which entail practices with which I am uncomfortable. For example, hunt kennels. As concerns horse racing, I acknowledge the breeders,the trainers, the stable-hands, etc. I do not value them less than horses.
There is a telling difference between human and horse. By and large, people are not coerced and, all being well, they can make informed choices. I have concern for the animals – the non-consenting, the frightened. Care in abundance might be available. But, on race day, the horse is led to the starting pen. The rider has a whip. The ground might not be to the liking of the horse.
This is not free-will. This is organised exploitation - and for mega-money. I object to this.
You write of people who are ‘mean-spirited’. Your good self aside, there are a several people on this forum who could be described as such.
3) I find your tactics, especially with the petition, underhand.
"We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with
horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop
horses dying."
"To stop horses dying" means an end goal, ultimately, of one thing -
stopping the sport in its entirety. That said, even then you could have been
more clear, as we could be debating horse immortality (which would be amazing
of course) right now.
You were asking for people to vote for motherhood and apple pie. This was
disingenuous at the very least and I find these methods at odds with an
otherwise morally righteous and noble cause (again, not intending to be
patronising - I legitimately admire your moral consistency).
This is your view
on it. You have made similar comments before.
I did not compose the
petition and agree that its wording might have been better. I have stated on
here (in a previous thread) that the aim of the petition was not a ban – that
would, at present, be unlikely to the point of impossibility. What it sought
was to remove the conservative British Horseracing
Authority and replace it with a truly independent body.
The
aim, in the short term, was to secure a debate at the highest level, in Parliament. It succeeded.
I never thought for a moment that the government would agree to the
establishment of a new, independent body. There was very little chance of that happening. But a
debate of the issues, at the highest level? It happened. And, as I wrote in my opening post on this thread, the status quo was rattled by it.
The changes we see now - with more to come, I think - are a result not of the BHA's benevolence, but of opposition to its inaction hitherto. Which is not to say that it has done nothing in the past. But it has not done enough.
The numbers of dead horses listed on Animals Aid's http://horsedeathwatch.com/ since it was started in March 2007 speak for themselves.
4,352 days: 1,857 deaths on British racecourses. 27 dead so far in 2019.
Those who oppose horseracing (and greyhound racing) will not give up. Change is often resisted.
But change will come.
4) ... Well, this is where I run out a bit. Anna_Kissed has never once
engaged me, or what I have to say, directly on the above. I've repeated it
several times (thus running perilously close to a well-worn phrase on these
threads) and am yet to receive a meaningful response.
Either way,
I await a considered and thoughtful reply.
Over to you
AK.
I reproduce a response that I sent to you, to your Charlton Life Inbox, in March 2017, following
your question to me on another animal-welfare thread. (I have no record of an acknowledgment
of receipt, or reply, from you, to this).
Hello.
I intended to respond to your question about pets yesterday evening, but got
involved in another matter.
I think of them as 'companion animals'. For the most part, pets / companion
animals are not a money-making situation. Breeding for commercial gain -
especially regarding owners' status and oneupmanship - is an issue, as are
'Shows' (e.g. Crufts...although this has improved in recent times, due to the
ridicule and opposition heaped upon it).
As long as the animal is well-cared for and is not exploited, I see more
benefits (for both the animal and the human carer) than negatives.
I assist at an animal sanctuary and presently have no companion animal.
Cheers.
-----------------------------------------
Here's hoping that the horses recover from the 'flu and have a decent rest during this hiatus.
The logical conclusion to your beliefs may be that horses would come fairly close to extinction. Presumably you don’t believe in recreational riding, or zoos, or military ceremonial or police use, so where would any remaining horses go? I know there are some wild horses in the U.K. but not very many. Who would be responsible for their welfare, or should they be left to fend for themselves?
It would seem to me that they might be heading towards extinction as a species. Or do you think we should breed a few just to remind us what a great species they once were? In a way, wouldn’t we be wiping them out just so that some don’t feel guilty that we’re exploiting them?
@Anna_Kissed thank you. First off, many apologies for my lack of response to your message. This evidently slipped my mind, and it's both remiss and inconsiderate of me.
I am currently soaking up the matchday and will furnish a response either this evening or tomorrow morning. I have read your response above, and there are myriad just and valid concerns, of course, many of which I share. But at the root of it is that I (and others) want racing to continue and our moral values differ, which is at the crux of it.
I'd like to thank you by the way for being so consistently level headed - it's people who approach life (and Internet debates!) like you that engenders civility and cohesion, I suppose. Even though we disagree!
Here's hoping for three points today - let's bring home the bagels
This type of thread is aimed at those of us on here who like horseracing in order, I suspect, to wind us up. As others have stated, when questions are asked of those who want to ban the sport, answers are not forthcoming. They claim to love animals. Why then, do none of them start threads on halal meat and its production. In fact in a discussion on that topic in April 2018, none of the anti horseracing brigade even posted on it. But they soon jump in on here. Probably because they know they have few, if any, Muslims posting on here. Whereas, there are plenty of horseracing fans to have a dig at. As well as not wanting to offend, in their eyes, a religious group. Why do these threads only appear at the same time of year ? Close to the big NH festivals perhaps ? Several post on here but they never answer questions put to them - at least 3 of us have stated as much.
Didn’t someone say earlier that the vast majority of animals slaughtered in this country in compliance with Halal requirements are actually stunned? Why do you keep bringing it up?
This type of thread is aimed at those of us on here who like horseracing in order, I suspect, to wind us up. As others have stated, when questions are asked of those who want to ban the sport, answers are not forthcoming. They claim to love animals. Why then, do none of them start threads on halal meat and its production. In fact in a discussion on that topic in April 2018, none of the anti horseracing brigade even posted on it. But they soon jump in on here. Probably because they know they have few, if any, Muslims posting on here. Whereas, there are plenty of horseracing fans to have a dig at. As well as not wanting to offend, in their eyes, a religious group. Why do these threads only appear at the same time of year ? Close to the big NH festivals perhaps ? Several post on here but they never answer questions put to them - at least 3 of us have stated as much.
Didn’t someone say earlier that the vast majority of animals slaughtered in this country in compliance with Halal requirements are actually stunned? Why do you keep bringing it up?
This type of thread is aimed at those of us on here who like horseracing in order, I suspect, to wind us up. As others have stated, when questions are asked of those who want to ban the sport, answers are not forthcoming. They claim to love animals. Why then, do none of them start threads on halal meat and its production. In fact in a discussion on that topic in April 2018, none of the anti horseracing brigade even posted on it. But they soon jump in on here. Probably because they know they have few, if any, Muslims posting on here. Whereas, there are plenty of horseracing fans to have a dig at. As well as not wanting to offend, in their eyes, a religious group. Why do these threads only appear at the same time of year ? Close to the big NH festivals perhaps ? Several post on here but they never answer questions put to them - at least 3 of us have stated as much.
Didn’t someone say earlier that the vast majority of animals slaughtered in this country in compliance with Halal requirements are actually stunned? Why do you keep bringing it up?
Because no one ever bloody answers.
I did. And you ignored it. Go figure.
You did, eventually, but then I had to repeat my point in at least 3 posts. In recognition that you eventually replied, I actually liked your post too.
Richard Fahey, race horse trainer - the horses he trained won more than £3m in prize money last year, according to the racing press - was quoted in The Guardian on 10th February: “The BHA are being praised for containing this [virus], well, what are they containing? It’s only in Donald McCain’s yard. They’re containing nothing. If we’ve got 1,500 clear tests, let’s get back racing.”
Late on Sunday night, more positive tests for equine 'flu were reported, at a different location to the initial cases.
An article in The Guardian this morning stated: Many racing professionals are keen for the sport to get back on its feet and start earning money once more and they are likely to say that 10 cases in only two yards should not becalm an entire industry.
'Only two'. But what if, in resuming racing, the virus spreads? Where will 'Welfare' rank in that?
Another trainer, Nigel Twiston-Davies has called the shut-down an 'overreaction' and "a total knee-jerk reaction". He said: "All horses are vaccinated, and so when they do get it ['flu], it's not really anything to worry about. They get sick, but not that sick – just a snotty nose and temperature".
Such views and comments do not surprise me.
What is of greatest importance to the horse racing industry - the welfare of the horses, or a swift resumption of business? ('Both', they'll say). If the horses' welfare is as important as claimed by the BHA, should not caution be observed and the 'stop period' be extended?
Hi AK - I've read through your response more thoroughly and apologies for the delay in my response. Life gets in the way sometimes.
I don't really think I have a fulsome reply that would further our points of view any more, and I am grateful for the elaboration you provide. We disagree and I suspect our discussion would become rather cyclical if I carried on further. But, your point of view is completely understandable and I appreciate your reasoning and philosophy in your approach to animal welfare.
As for my question on pets - again, I don't think I had a response because your view is essentially in line with mine. I find for-profit puppy mills and the like abhorrent, and indeed there are a lot of concerns I have about certain breeds being selectively bred (pugs for instance, who I understand can't really breathe properly). I don't know enough about Crufts per se to make a judgement call, though, but I would hope and presume that (much like horse racing) training comes from a place of love, as well.
When it comes to the equine influenza situation, I think the BHA are doing an excellent job, and their daily reports and re-evaluations are the best way of going about this, given their mutual interest in both ensuring livelihoods and horse welfare.
Richard Fahey has got it wrong, absolutely. And I think the recent positive tests in Crisford's yard can be concerning, given he is based at Headquarters (the name of course given to Newmarket given its importance to horse racing).
I'd be happy to see a stop period extended should further cases in other stables arise before this evening, but otherwise, racing should continue.
A money-making business, under pressure from those keen to recommence racing, ponders the issue. And the chosen option is...to recommence racing. An 'acceptable' risk. 'Twas ever thus. The 'flu aside, 27 horses have died on British courses this year. Appalling.
Comments
Hello @PaddyP17
Thank you for your questions, which I will do my best to answer.
I have been out all day and I do not possess a phone with the internet. I have just read through the thread (75 posts).
Thank you to those who have stuck to the issue.
I have experienced problems with the new 'quote' function. (I got a red box advising that the 'Body of text is XXXXX characters too long').
Instead, I have reproduced your questions in italics.
AK - please let me know if I get any of this wrong. I presume you would like to see an outright ban of horse racing, both over obstacles and on the flat. I also presume that you feel it necessary to pressure NH authorities and courses first, because they pose the most danger to horses.
To that end, you campaign; write to race courses about certain obstacles (including the aforementioned Cheltenham fence, and likely some of the Grand National course fences); petition; and so on. Right?
And this is in the quite understandable name of animal welfare.
(To clarify, none of this is actually a "point" I'm trying to make, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
I oppose the use of animals being used in entertainment and / or for monetary gain when their safety and welfare is compromised. This includes the racing of horses. I am particularly opposed to jump racing, as the risk to the participating animal is (probably) higher than in ‘flat’ racing.
If one seeks to reduce the risk to zero, the cessation of these activities is the logical answer. A ban is not the only way to achieve this. Society can evaluate the situation and, perhaps, achieve a cessation.
Semantics, perhaps. But people do bang on about banning this, or that. A decent society might call for an end to X, or Y, and see to it that it ceases without the need for legislation or punitive measures.
Essentially, domination, exploitation and cruelty are the factors that I consider. If society values true freedom, for all, ‘sports’ than harm non-consenting beings should be ended, one way or another.
Such an eventuality will not, I think, happen for, perhaps, a long time - if at all – so, in the meantime, I do what I can to influence meaningful change. I do this by challenging the conservative status quo, e.g. writing letters / emails, education / awareness-raising, and removing myself from activities that cause harm to animals.
-------------------------
I have following to say, and if we disagree, then we disagree:
1) I value human life above that of horses, or indeed any other animal. (We almost certainly disagree on this.) To that end, I am prepared to accept deaths of race horses as the price to pay for them to exist, and to enjoy a sport I love.
2) As ideologically consistent as you most likely are (which is admirable, of course, and I don't mean that to sound patronising), you must concede that there are thousands of jobs related to horse racing - and billions of pounds to boot. I would posit, therefore, that you're putting the welfare of circa 20,000 active horses (there are roughly that amount in training) above the livelihoods of thousands of humans?
Why?
Someone more mean-spirited than I would argue, heavy-handedly, it's because you view yourself as morally superior to those who work in this industry, so you value their human livelihood less than those of the horses and other animals you strive to protect, ideologically.
A socialist, I do not consider myself ‘morally superior’ to others. I have my principles and I try my best to live my life by them.
Many people work in industries which entail practices with which I am uncomfortable. For example, hunt kennels. As concerns horse racing, I acknowledge the breeders,the trainers, the stable-hands, etc. I do not value them less than horses.
There is a telling difference between human and horse. By and large, people are not coerced and, all being well, they can make informed choices. I have concern for the animals – the non-consenting, the frightened. Care in abundance might be available. But, on race day, the horse is led to the starting pen. The rider has a whip. The ground might not be to the liking of the horse.
This is not free-will. This is organised exploitation - and for mega-money. I object to this.
You write of people who are ‘mean-spirited’. Your good self aside, there are a several people on this forum who could be described as such.
(More to follow)
(Continuation)
3) I find your tactics, especially with the petition, underhand.
"We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying."
"To stop horses dying" means an end goal, ultimately, of one thing - stopping the sport in its entirety. That said, even then you could have been more clear, as we could be debating horse immortality (which would be amazing of course) right now.
You were asking for people to vote for motherhood and apple pie. This was disingenuous at the very least and I find these methods at odds with an otherwise morally righteous and noble cause (again, not intending to be patronising - I legitimately admire your moral consistency).
This is your view on it. You have made similar comments before.
I did not compose the petition and agree that its wording might have been better. I have stated on here (in a previous thread) that the aim of the petition was not a ban – that would, at present, be unlikely to the point of impossibility. What it sought was to remove the conservative British Horseracing Authority and replace it with a truly independent body.
The aim, in the short term, was to secure a debate at the highest level, in Parliament. It succeeded.
I never thought for a moment that the government would agree to the establishment of a new, independent body. There was very little chance of that happening. But a debate of the issues, at the highest level? It happened. And, as I wrote in my opening post on this thread, the status quo was rattled by it.
The changes we see now - with more to come, I think - are a result not of the BHA's benevolence, but of opposition to its inaction hitherto. Which is not to say that it has done nothing in the past. But it has not done enough.
The numbers of dead horses listed on Animals Aid's http://horsedeathwatch.com/ since it was started in March 2007 speak for themselves.
4,352 days: 1,857 deaths on British racecourses. 27 dead so far in 2019.
Those who oppose horseracing (and greyhound racing) will not give up. Change is often resisted.
But change will come.
4) ... Well, this is where I run out a bit. Anna_Kissed has never once engaged me, or what I have to say, directly on the above. I've repeated it several times (thus running perilously close to a well-worn phrase on these threads) and am yet to receive a meaningful response.
Either way, I await a considered and thoughtful reply.
Over to you AK.
I reproduce a response that I sent to you, to your Charlton Life Inbox, in March 2017, following your question to me on another animal-welfare thread. (I have no record of an acknowledgment of receipt, or reply, from you, to this).
Hello.
I intended to respond to your question about pets yesterday evening, but got involved in another matter.
I think of them as 'companion animals'. For the most part, pets / companion animals are not a money-making situation. Breeding for commercial gain - especially regarding owners' status and oneupmanship - is an issue, as are 'Shows' (e.g. Crufts...although this has improved in recent times, due to the ridicule and opposition heaped upon it).
As long as the animal is well-cared for and is not exploited, I see more benefits (for both the animal and the human carer) than negatives.
I assist at an animal sanctuary and presently have no companion animal.
Cheers.
-----------------------------------------
Here's hoping that the horses recover from the 'flu and have a decent rest during this hiatus.
I’m very tired and need to go to bed.
Goodnight.
@Anna_Kissed
The logical conclusion to your beliefs may be that horses would come fairly close to extinction. Presumably you don’t believe in recreational riding, or zoos, or military ceremonial or police use, so where would any remaining horses go?
I know there are some wild horses in the U.K. but not very many.
Who would be responsible for their welfare, or should they be left to fend for themselves?
It would seem to me that they might be heading towards extinction as a species. Or do you think we should breed a few just to remind us what a great species they once were?
In a way, wouldn’t we be wiping them out just so that some don’t feel guilty that we’re exploiting them?
I am currently soaking up the matchday and will furnish a response either this evening or tomorrow morning. I have read your response above, and there are myriad just and valid concerns, of course, many of which I share. But at the root of it is that I (and others) want racing to continue and our moral values differ, which is at the crux of it.
I'd like to thank you by the way for being so consistently level headed - it's people who approach life (and Internet debates!) like you that engenders civility and cohesion, I suppose. Even though we disagree!
Here's hoping for three points today - let's bring home the bagels
In recognition that you eventually replied, I actually liked your post too.
“The BHA are being praised for containing this [virus], well, what are they containing? It’s only in Donald McCain’s yard. They’re containing nothing. If we’ve got 1,500 clear tests, let’s get back racing.”
Late on Sunday night, more positive tests for equine 'flu were reported, at a different location to the initial cases.
An article in The Guardian this morning stated: Many racing professionals are keen for the sport to get back on its feet and start earning money once more and they are likely to say that 10 cases in only two yards should not becalm an entire industry.
'Only two'. But what if, in resuming racing, the virus spreads? Where will 'Welfare' rank in that?
Another trainer, Nigel Twiston-Davies has called the shut-down an 'overreaction' and "a total knee-jerk reaction". He said: "All horses are vaccinated, and so when they do get it ['flu], it's not really anything to worry about. They get sick, but not that sick – just a snotty nose and temperature".
Such views and comments do not surprise me.
What is of greatest importance to the horse racing industry - the welfare of the horses, or a swift resumption of business? ('Both', they'll say).If the horses' welfare is as important as claimed by the BHA, should not caution be observed and the 'stop period' be extended?
I don't really think I have a fulsome reply that would further our points of view any more, and I am grateful for the elaboration you provide. We disagree and I suspect our discussion would become rather cyclical if I carried on further. But, your point of view is completely understandable and I appreciate your reasoning and philosophy in your approach to animal welfare.
As for my question on pets - again, I don't think I had a response because your view is essentially in line with mine. I find for-profit puppy mills and the like abhorrent, and indeed there are a lot of concerns I have about certain breeds being selectively bred (pugs for instance, who I understand can't really breathe properly). I don't know enough about Crufts per se to make a judgement call, though, but I would hope and presume that (much like horse racing) training comes from a place of love, as well.
Richard Fahey has got it wrong, absolutely. And I think the recent positive tests in Crisford's yard can be concerning, given he is based at Headquarters (the name of course given to Newmarket given its importance to horse racing).
I'd be happy to see a stop period extended should further cases in other stables arise before this evening, but otherwise, racing should continue.
And the chosen option is...to recommence racing. An 'acceptable' risk.
'Twas ever thus.
The 'flu aside, 27 horses have died on British courses this year. Appalling.