Question Should racing or even riding horses be banned?

[applelover]

I am a big racing fan and yet I've been affected by the deaths of three of my favourite horses in the last six weeks. I'm starting to feel that jump racing in particular has an uphill task justifying its continued existence. The grand national has reinforced these feelings.

However the argument on banning racing is not as black and white as strong critics of racing often like to make out. Furthermore many animal rights activists would like to see a ban on riding horses as well.

Here are some of my thoughts on the issues:

(i) by banning the industry you are actually taking away the chance of life of horses born in the future. Horse populations in the UK are almost entirely reliant on their use for human leisure. Ban riding and racing and you are left with a few wild ponies in exmoor.

(ii) anyone who's seen frankel, big bucks, sea the stars, kauto star etc knows that many horses love racing and they get treated exceptionally well

(iii) I think that those in the industry do get a pretty raw deal from animal rights campaigners. On the whole people in the industry are obviously extremely emotionally attached to their animals. To charicature them as callous monsters does a huge disservice to these genuine feelings.

(iv) I am approaching a view that jump racing is extremely difficult to justify. A wrong step whilst galloping is one thing, but can the history and excitement of beechers brook be worth the life of such majestic animals? I don't think so anymore.

I'm torn on the issue at the moment and look forward to reading your opinions.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I'd be happy to see it banned just to **** the royal family and aristocracy off.

Then again I am a small petty man in some ways.

 

[SupaBlues]

If we ban racing where do we draw the line? Do we also ban football because of what happened in Italy at the weekend or ban people from driving in case they cause an accident??

 

[MK Shrimper]

If we ban racing where do we draw the line? Do we also ban football because of what happened in Italy at the weekend or ban people from driving in case they cause an accident??

But the horses didn't have a choice to race. Personally I'm done with the National unless the get rid of Beechers and reduce the field.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

But the horses didn't have a choice to race. Personally I'm done with the National .

Edited for accuracy. If there was a smaller field, and no Beechers, it just wouldn't be the Grand National.

So, where do we go from here? I'm a bit of a traditionalist, and I'd hate us to lose the national, but I have to confess that I'm finding it hard to justify the dangers we put the horses through. Water down the race, and it'll lose it's prestige, so what's the answer? My heart says keep it, it's part of tradition. My head says it's time to seriously consider its future

 

[applelover]

Synchronised died in unsatisfactory circumstances. Not good enough. Scotsirish's death at the Cheltenham festival was also unacceptable.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Horses that are hacked around countryside or take part in hunting often jump worse than what there is at the National. The big difference is that they are not in a "race" as such. I don't agree with the National, horses are pressured to perform in a race with too many runners and over a succession of fences that are "challenging" at least.

You'll never get jump racing banned, it has far too big a following but I think races such as the National definitely need to be looked at - too many horses have died during it, particularly in more recent times.

 

[steveo]

But the horses didn't have a choice to race. Personally I'm done with the National unless the get rid of Beechers and reduce the field.

I dont really know much aobut the sport - except I usually lose money on it, but if a horse can refuse to start and nohing will get him moving if thats what he wants.
Horer racing people seem to have a view that the horses love it. If they didnt like it surely the ones that throw their jockeys would stop but a lot seem to carry on running.

 

[Uncle Leo]

But the horses didn't have a choice to race. Personally I'm done with the National unless the get rid of Beechers and reduce the field.

The problem with Becher's is less the fence itself, but the drop. The RSPCA top equine vet is in favour of reducing the drop, which should help.

Interesting to note that another race last week over the same course had only 23 runners and no fatalities. 40 runner fields in the National have become very much the norm in recent years but this hasn't always been the case, so reducing the maximum field to (say) 30 runners seems prudent.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I dont really know much aobut the sport - except I usually lose money on it, but if a horse can refuse to start and nohing will get him moving if thats what he wants.
Horer racing people seem to have a view that the horses love it. If they didnt like it surely the ones that throw their jockeys would stop but a lot seem to carry on running.

This.

The problem with Becher's is less the fence itself, but the drop. The RSPCA top equine vet is in favour of reducing the drop, which should help.

Interesting to note that another race last week over the same course had only 23 runners and no fatalities. 40 runner fields in the National have become very much the norm in recent years but this hasn't always been the case, so reducing the maximum field to (say) 30 runners seems prudent.

Isn't reducing the field just reducing your sample size: ie if you run two races with 20 in each you'll probably still get the same number of broken legs* as if you run one race with 40 riders, but splitting it up just creates less of a story.


*If I understand correctly the horses don't die, they just break their leg and are then put down. I'd have thought what needs to be looked at is therefore not the jumps but the care for injured horses. Is it really necessary to put them down, or is that just an economic decision? I don't think people put down dogs and cats when they hurt their legs. Why can't you have horses running around the field with plaster casts on? Has no-one invented a horse wheel-chair yet?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Keeping it as it is for the sake of tradition only really counts for those in the know - most punters bet on the national and that is their traditional one bet a year, they will continue to do that but maybe more one off punters will get involved once this stigma of the death race is removed. I never bet on it because of the high injury rate but if that wasn't an issued I'd get sucked into work sweepstakes or whatever.

 

[C C Csiders]

The authorities have amended the course time and time again over the last 20 years or so to appease the animal right's campaigners. Any further amendments, particularly to Becher's Brook, which is a shadow of what it was 20+ years ago, wuill render this spectacle as little more than a long-distance Handicap Chase with fluffy bits.

 

[OldBlueLady]

*If I understand correctly the horses don't die, they just break their leg and are then put down. I'd have thought what needs to be looked at is therefore not the jumps but the care for injured horses. Is it really necessary to put them down, or is that just an economic decision? I don't think people put down dogs and cats when they hurt their legs. Why can't you have horses running around the field with plaster casts on? Has no-one invented a horse wheel-chair yet?

I know it's fiction, but one of Jilly Cooper's books is based around the theme of an injured steeplechaser who is owned by a village syndicate and how the whole village rallies round to support the costs of her having full treatment after a leg break.

In reality, I'm guessing it's the economics of the situation, but would have thought it might be worth considering using horses with good track records who suffer leg breaks, made well even if only for future breeding purposes. It does seem extraordinarily callous to extinguish the life of horses who suffer leg breaks in races.

 

[Uncle Leo]

This.



Isn't reducing the field just reducing your sample size: ie if you run two races with 20 in each you'll probably still get the same number of broken legs* as if you run one race with 40 riders, but splitting it up just creates less of a story.


*If I understand correctly the horses don't die, they just break their leg and are then put down. I'd have thought what needs to be looked at is therefore not the jumps but the care for injured horses. Is it really necessary to put them down, or is that just an economic decision? I don't think people put down dogs and cats when they hurt their legs. Why can't you have horses running around the field with plaster casts on? Has no-one invented a horse wheel-chair yet?

Accidents are more likely to happen when a greater number of horses are involved.

In terms of quality of life, a horse's lot (I understand) would be a very miserable one with a broken leg. The physiology of a horse is such that a broken leg probably does mean they need to be put down (or 'destroyed' as Ian Bartlett so eloquently put it on the BBC on Saturday). I'll admit to not fully understanding it though. Any vets in the house?

Incidentally, interesting to note that Synchronised didn't get put down after his fall at Becher's. He carried on and it was only after a fall five fences later that he received the fatal injury. steveo's point about them often wanting to keep going is a very fair one.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Incidentally, interesting to note that Synchronised didn't get put down after his fall at Becher's. He carried on and it was only after a fall five fences later that he received the fatal injury. steveo's point about them often wanting to keep going is a very fair one.

No one can possibly say that they enjoy it - it could be pure instinct to run in a pack, especially if Synchronised was already injured at the first fall.

 

[Uncle Leo]

In reality, I'm guessing it's the economics of the situation, but would have thought it might be worth considering using horses with good track records who suffer leg breaks, made well even if only for future breeding purposes. It does seem extraordinarily callous to extinguish the life of horses who suffer leg breaks in races.

Not applicable to male National Hunt horses as they are invariably geldings.

However, on the rarer occasions that flat horses break legs (they are more often 'entires'), they still tend to get put down, suggesting that there's little hope of saving them. Giving the stud value of some flat horses, it would invariably be in the interest of the owners to keep them alive.

 

[Napster]

Accidents are more likely to happen when a greater number of horses are involved.

In terms of quality of life, a horse's lot (I understand) would be a very miserable one with a broken leg. The physiology of a horse is such that a broken leg probably does mean they need to be put down (or 'destroyed' as Ian Bartlett so eloquently put it on the BBC on Saturday). I'll admit to not fully understanding it though. Any vets in the house?
.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/23/claims-five-broken-leg-horse

 

[Jam_Man]

I thought both incidents werent at Bechers?

 

[Mad Cyril]

I don't think there is anything cruel or inhumane about horse racing.

Then again I spend a lot of my leisure time attending illegal dog fights on industrial estates.

 

[Davros]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/23/claims-five-broken-leg-horse

What a very good article that is. I recommened everyone who is going to comment any further on this thread to read that first!

I wonder what the statistics are like for Three Day Eventing, especially the X-Country stage.