Improving leisure horse welfare

[stangs]

A more workable plan might be to insist animals have a certain footfall each day (like the recommended 10k steps for humans) which could be ridden/horsewalker, all-weather pen or field.

That would be a good idea, but a distinction has to be made between ridden work/horsewalkers and turnout/all-weather pens. The former doesn't provide horses the opportunity to socialise nor freedom in their movement. I appreciate that in some older styles of stabling, horses can interact with each other more freely but, as paddy555's post touched on, the vast majority of modern stabling doesn't permit this.

And yes, the normalising of individual turnout is another big issue in horse welfare.

From your lack of response to my question regarding how often you have taught in riding schools - I assume you haven't. Again, just because you can't get a RS moving forward doesn't mean the horse doesn't know the aids...
Also - I don't know where you are going for lessons but 'kicking' and 'chasing with a lunge whips' are not methods I've ever used/seen used. You need to find a better quality RS (ask Teapot - she knows a LOT about riding schools).

I didn't reply because I would like to maintain my anonymity. But, yes, I taught novice children for around 3 years until I couldn't take it any longer. The yard I worked at was owned by money-grabbing non-horsey management with seriously school sour horses. There is a distinction between a horse who's not motivated to trot on in a kid's lesson, and those horses. They knew the aids; they just despised every second they spent in an arena unless ridden by a select few members of staff. One got to the point that even the best of the staff couldn't get him to work well in the arena - and they were seriously good riders.

It's not a riding issue at that point, it's a management issue. That yard was a sh*tty horrible place for horses and staff, but the lessons were always fully booked. Non-horsey parents sent their kids to wherever was cheapest, not to where there was quality instruction and happy horses. They also didn't know enough to know that the methods certain instructors used were unacceptable. Those were people that couldn't just find a better quality RS because they wouldn't know where to begin.

(ETA: this place was BHS approved. Which tells you a lot the quality of the approval system.)

I'm going to ignore your rudeness- although I note it's the last resort of someone whose arguments lack rigour.
What incidentally is a 'riding college'?
My idea is that people who have no qualifications and no expertise are perhaps not best placed to opine on UK horse owners/keepers and their diverse management choices and needs. I include both of us, in this - as I have quals, but no expertise particularly in welfare, unlike perhaps the RCVS or charities.
If only there was an organisation that brought such experts together....Linky

Apologises, didn't mean to be rude. I'm just frustrated that many of the most experienced posters on here have no ideas for improving horse welfare, yet complain about it in the same breath. I note that criticising someone's English is the last resort of someone whose arguments lack rigour too

Agreed that neither you nor I would be suitable if Bojo suddenly decided he'd be revamping all the laws regarding horse welfare. But, as people involved in the sport, I should think we both see the effects of poor horsemanship. The issue isn't that it isn't known what is best for horses - that's what the RCVS, charities and academia is for - it's that there's a severe disconnect between that knowledge and how people treat their horses. As another poster put it, there remain many who 'kill with kindness'. The point of this thread was to discuss how to lessen the numbers of people like this.

Thank you for the link; I'd never heard of this organisation before. Which is part of the problem, I suppose.

As an aside, I also don't feel great about paving the countryside with plastic mud control mats - in environmental terms. They must reduce the surface area for water absorption, and also presumably eventually degrade releasing more plastic into the soil.

An interesting thing I've been seeing is track communities is the use of sheep/alpaca wool to help with mud control. Biodegradeable, cheaper, and appears to be lauded as effective.

 

[stangs]

My point is really that the five freedoms are reductive, and whilst they might be a useful guide for the general public keeping an animal in a pet situation, they are not the be all and end all of animal welfare, and in the real world, we have to acknowledge competing needs and that not all freedoms can be met all of the time.

This is why we have the 3Fs of freedom/friends/forage, no?

 

[Wishfilly]

I didn't reply because I would like to maintain my anonymity. But, yes, I taught novice children for around 3 years until I couldn't take it any longer. The yard I worked at was owned by money-grabbing non-horsey management with seriously school sour horses. There is a distinction between a horse who's not motivated to trot on in a kid's lesson, and those horses. They knew the aids; they just despised every second they spent in an arena unless ridden by a select few members of staff. One got to the point that even the best of the staff couldn't get him to work well in the arena - and they were seriously good riders.

It's not a riding issue at that point, it's a management issue. That yard was a sh*tty horrible place for horses and staff, but the lessons were always fully booked. Non-horsey parents sent their kids to wherever was cheapest, not to where there was quality instruction and happy horses. They also didn't know enough to know that the methods certain instructors used were unacceptable. Those were people that couldn't just find a better quality RS because they wouldn't know where to begin.

.

FWIW I agree with you- there are some really shoddy riding schools out there (also some which neglect rider safety, which is a separate issue) and given the level of demand placed on these horses, I do think riding schools need more oversight.

BUT

This then makes riding schools more expensive to run, which then leads to people thinking buying their own is more affordable, which in turn means more novice horse owners.

I think everything has to be a balance.

But I do think way more oversight of riding schools and instructors is needed.

 

[Wishfilly]

This is why we have the 3Fs of freedom/friends/forage, no?

I'm not a fan of pithy slogans when it comes to complex issues like animal welfare.

I think the 3 Fs are a massive oversimplification also. I'm about to go out to do my horse, but will address this later.

 

[Goldenstar]

Stopping the car while a large herd of cows were being brought in across the lane for milking a couple of days ago was . Not my local farm, but one a few miles away. Most were lame to some degree, and maybe 20% were properly hobbling on at least one leg.

Grim.

Who does one report lame cattle to? Think my dash cam footage of the cows limping will have been overwritten now, unfortunately.

Used to be trading standards not sure now .

 

[paddy555]

I wasn’t sure about the Bodmin, Dartmoor and some of the Welsh ponies.

yes they all have owners. Unlike conservation grazing they are not handled and not checked. The areas they live on are too large and some too rough.
For example I was going to take on a feral mare who had lived on the common all her life. She was old. I wasn't allowed to take her in the Nov when I wanted to. She lived in the area (with her herd) where we rode daily. I kept a look out for her every ride, did a fair amount of checking the area. By the following March I presumed she had died. Then one day she just appeared with the rest. I have no idea where they had been hiding. There was very little of the area that I didn't ride over and I did stop and check pony herds to see if she was OK. So that was a small herd and a mare I was actively looking for. It is very difficult to check them or sometimes even to find them.

If they are close to the road or to very regularly ridden or walked areas then people do look out for them but in some areas there are ponies that will not have seen a person for months on end.

 

[paddy555]

If the ponies have an owner, even if they are on common grazing, that makes the issue even simpler though. Their owner should be making sure they are generally safe and healthy. They are already legally required to have microchips, if they are considered someone's property, no? And if they have a role in the ecosystem, if they are doing a job, I would argue that gives them even more of a right to basic welfare, not less. I am not saying they need to be taken in and kept as pets, they can have basic herd management procedures if they are basically well adapted to where they are. But to leave them to fend completely for themselves while also restricting them from migrating or mixing bloodlines with other herds as would happen in a truly wild situation just isn't right to me. Just to shrug and say "its too hard, let nature take its course" is of course the reality but I dont have to like it.

And believe me I know there are not enough homes for feral ponies, even less the ones with permanent health problems from inbreeding, overbreeding, injury, chronic heavy worm burdens and god knows what else.

they have owners. They are not microchipped. Why shouldn't they be left to fend for themselves? They are a feral animal living a feral/wild existence. That is probably a better lifestyle than some leisure horses have. Why do you think they are restricted from migrating or mixing bloodlines? Do you not understand the areas involved and that it would be impossible to check some of them? What herd management procedures do you suggest? How are you going to carry any procedures out on loose ponies you cannot catch? Are you going to continually gather the herds to do what, check their teeth? do you have any idea of the work involved in that and more importantly the distress to the ponies.

The reality of nature is that it is harsh. We can't take every animal out of a natural environment because people don't like the harshness of reality.
No one is shrugging and saying it is too hard. That is how they are kept.

I'm not sure what all these permanent health problems are. The only one really is worms. The herds I ride through daily seem perfectly healthy and in fact the real problem is when they come off the moor and are sold. As they go into domestic homes with grass etc then the normal horse problems, overweight etc start.

Can I ask if your comments are based on experience with these ponies in their native areas, the procedures and how they are kept or if it is simply based on your comments from a computer with no local experience of the ponies? The latter is how it is coming across but it could well be the former.

 

[Wishfilly]

they have owners. They are not microchipped. Why shouldn't they be left to fend for themselves? They are a feral animal living a feral/wild existence. That is probably a better lifestyle than some leisure horses have. Why do you think they are restricted from migrating or mixing bloodlines? Do you not understand the areas involved and that it would be impossible to check some of them? What herd management procedures do you suggest? How are you going to carry any procedures out on loose ponies you cannot catch? Are you going to continually gather the herds to do what, check their teeth? do you have any idea of the work involved in that and more importantly the distress to the ponies.

The reality of nature is that it is harsh. We can't take every animal out of a natural environment because people don't like the harshness of reality.
No one is shrugging and saying it is too hard. That is how they are kept.

I'm not sure what all these permanent health problems are. The only one really is worms. The herds I ride through daily seem perfectly healthy and in fact the real problem is when they come off the moor and are sold. As they go into domestic homes with grass etc then the normal horse problems, overweight etc start.

Can I ask if your comments are based on experience with these ponies in their native areas, the procedures and how they are kept or if it is simply based on your comments from a computer with no local experience of the ponies? The latter is how it is coming across but it could well be the former.

Sorry, I'm the one who said they had to be microchipped- I didn't realise there was still an exception in the legislation for them.

 

[paddy555]

I also raised the point about strangles on the moors, which is a major issue for both the ponies, and people who keep horses around the moor, and absolutely ought to be dealt with- but there would be distress involved to the ponies.

.

not sure if you are Dartmoor or Bodmin but in our area it has been a total effing nightmare. It was all around us for a couple of years

There was one forest we were asked not to ride in not that I would have gone near it. No information as to the areas it was in, it was like pulling teeth to get info. We normally allow the riding horses to stop and eat on the way round and if we stop for lunch we let them loose on the common to graze. Every time one put it's head down it got dragged back up in case a feral had snotted on something.
In lockdown we were trying to avoid people because of covid and ferals because of strangles.

did Bodmin have it as well?

 

[honetpot]

As an aside, I also don't feel great about paving the countryside with plastic mud control mats - in environmental terms.
They must reduce the surface area for water absorption, and also presumably eventually degrade releasing more plastic into the soil.

The Mud Control mats are made of recycled plastic, and are movable, and water permeable, so better than concrete or digging up fresh limestone in environmental terms. With the right foundation they are made to withstand HGV's so compared to some products they are going to be usable for a long time.
http://www.inbsystem.com/index.php/en/inb-system-en/inb-for-animals
When you compare them to the financial cost and environmental cost of using an outdoor school for turn out, which also needs planning, they are a quick fix for making a usable turnout area on land with poor drainage.

 

[Wishfilly]

not sure if you are Dartmoor or Bodmin but in our area it has been a total effing nightmare. It was all around us for a couple of years

There was one forest we were asked not to ride in not that I would have gone near it. No information as to the areas it was in, it was like pulling teeth to get info. We normally allow the riding horses to stop and eat on the way round and if we stop for lunch we let them loose on the common to graze. Every time one put it's head down it got dragged back up in case a feral had snotted on something.
In lockdown we were trying to avoid people because of covid and ferals because of strangles.

did Bodmin have it as well?

I'm not either any more but used to ride over Bodmin moor a while back- but I know people who keep horses (and other equines) near Dartmoor as well. It hasn't been on Bodmin that recently, I don't think- but it has popped up several times on Bodmin in the last few years, and I know it's been an issue on Dartmoor too.

The last time it was an issue on Bodmin, a yard I know had real issues because walkers would sometimes touch the hill ponies, and then come and also scratch their ponies over the fence etc (and it made a lot of their hacking difficult too). When it was last on Bodmin, it was in an area that's very popular with both riders and walkers, and it's an absolute nightmare, because obviously people local to the area know, but others don't- and a lot of people box up to that part of the moor and hack out because it's lovely riding.

I know Dartmoor has had issues more recently- at least on Bodmin they were pretty clear about the area it was in- perhaps because it's so popular.

 

[Wishfilly]

This is why we have the 3Fs of freedom/friends/forage, no?

Expanding on my previous post about this, I don't love the 3Fs either- they're not self contradictory like the 5 freedoms can be, but I don't think they go far enough. After all, feral ponies have the 3Fs, and we've discussed a lot on this thread that their welfare is pretty imperfect.

I think even if you're going to oversimplify things you MUST have something about pain/discomfort/seeking vet help when needed- freedom, friends and forage are no good if you're permanently in pain due to lameness, right?

I honestly think one of the biggest problems for pet animal welfare is that people don't seek vet help fast enough (actually even more so for animals other than horses). I think this is probably because it's often expensive, and it needs to be emphasised so hard that vet bills are an inevitable part of keeping an animal (this goes double for smaller animals, like rabbits etc actually).

But to be honest, I don't think you can provide well for the welfare of any animal without spending a lot of time researching its needs and best practices for keeping it- and I think if people think, oh well, I'm providing the 3Fs, that's good enough- well no, it's not if your pony is crippled by laminitis, or your horse is colicing or actually your "freedom" has allowed it to get out on the road and get seriously injured by a car.

I think with any animal, not just horses, we need to emphasise to people that providing good welfare is complex and they need to educate themselves, and keep educating themselves, not just do things a certain way because "that's how it's always been done" and to accept that best practice changes over time. I also think that keeping domestic animals is often about compromise, and deciding which compromises you can accept- and that's a big part of keeping animals successfully.

 

[Parksmum3]

it’s a difficult one and I appreciate what your saying however all horses are individual and should all be treated as individuals. What works for one horse may not work for another. I haven’t read all the posts on here but someone said they travel a lot further then they have to to have the perfect set up for their horse which I really admire them putting their horses needs first over easyness for themselves. i No of a riding school which clearly have way to many horses for the amount of land they have, resulting in extremely limited turnout time (litlery turned out in ménage whilst stable mucked out then straight back in and that’s where they stayed until the next day unless being ridden that day) and for some horses this was enough and they were waiting at the gate to come in, others where clearly very unhappy and became very grumpy in the stable, difficult to catch when turned out for their 10mins a day. Mine are all turned out together and all love each other but some horses like their own space.

 

[Nudibranch]

The sheep fleece thing seems to be very popular on a certain Facebook group (run by someone who seems rather controlling and who appears to use their entirely unrelated PhD to try and give themselves more authenticity). Anyway that aside, I have never seen anyone prove it works long term. It can't, fleece degrades (it makes excellent compost), soaks up water like a sponge and after a while you're just going to have to dig out the whole stinking, rotten mess and replace it.

Mud control mats are permeable and allow drainage just as well as the ground underneath. More so once you've stopped the churning and compacting from hooves.

 

[YorksG]

The thought of the felted mess that fleece would end up is quite shudderingly horrible!!
Plus it could well provide a nasty trip hazard for horses and people

 

[Shilasdair]

I remain concerned about plastic particulates from mud control (and other makes) of mats.

And yes - not sure fleece would be all that great long term although it is quite slow to biodegrade.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

I think the idea of of the sheep fleece is that it works somewhat like a floating platform-and if it degrades that’s fine, sustainable resource and all that. I am thinking of using it for a gateway but there are a couple of people who have used it for quite long sections of track. It must be well layered with branches and afraid I don’t worry about trip hazards with native ponies lol. I confess to having jelka mats in the corner feeding stations of my sand arena/track-despite having 6 acres for two ponies it’s often too wet to use for a couple of months a year.

a big thing in environmental enrichment for all species, whether farm animal/pet/zoo/experimental species is to give animals the ability to mke choices-so a hen (for example) should be given a variety of nest boxes so that she can fulfill nest seeking behaviour. With horses I guess it would be the choice to be in/out, choice of different types of forage, choice to be close to friends or not (mine always have company but I often find them out of eyesight of each other, they have the space to go to different areas) -stabling for any amount of time kind of robs them of many choices.

eta fleece has been used to repair pathways on the Cumbrian Fells, NI, Skye and the Brecon Beacons, often with soil or stone on top. For horses, it’s layered with small branches and old straw-some have let the vegetation grow through, others have put stone on top. It’s not to be dismissed out of hand we should be encouraging people to think a bit outside the box imho.

 

[Goldenstar]

There’s no need for hardstanding to be places where horses can’t socialise they need to be big enough for horses to share .
I used to turn mine out in the school however I had to stop doing this as they damaged the school digging .
I used to put two or three out together depending on how they went together .
They used to groom each other and play ,two played with sticks they where hilarious
However the best thing is turnout in fields combined with work including hacking in fact I would say mainly hacking .
Lack of exercise is at root of may welfare issues

 

[Goldenstar]

The ancients used fleece under their wooden walkways .

 

[teapot]

Nonsense. You either source a field to turn them out in, or rotate horses in and out of the city, or turn them out in the arena with haynets. These are all methods currently in use by various RS in London. Then supplement with holidays out of the city. If horses in Lambeth in Lambeth and Camden get all year turnout, albeit limited, there's no excuse. That's about as inner-city as you get.

What’s the quality of that turn out though? Because standing in fetlock deep mud with crap fencing, no shelter etc is no better than keeping a horse in 24/7. How do you ‘rate/approve’ grazing that an inspector/approval bod may have to travel miles to view? How do daily checks fit into yard schedules? What happens if fencing breaks, or worse, a horse does, effort/cost to move horses…

Turnout in arenas also comes with business issues that many never consider - surface damage, arena availability, security, planning permissions…

There’s also the impact on chucking a horse out for two weeks, and in a riding school setting, bringing it straight back in to work without any tuning up. Could be arguably better for the horse to stay in routine suppling work, and get limited turnout, than do itself damage having weeks off.

I have zero issues with horses moving around (it works very well for the Met & City police for example), but knowing the approvals system as I do, it becomes a LOT harder to get the ratings a yard may be looking to get, if turnout was to become a key criteria of tighter approval/licensing inspections. The idea is great, the practicality and reality is far less so, sadly, in the 21st century/modern world.

I worked somewhere that had such well-maintained, hand poo-picked 24/7 grazing people on here would kill for. First hand, hand on heart, it is not the be all and end all for all horses.

As I said in my original post, the root of a lot of problems in the industry is the lack of business sense - the sooner people realise corners cannot be cut, and I include welfare in that, and that financial planning is a necessity, every party will benefit.

 

[Morgan123]

I'm so surprised at all the comments about lack of scientific evidence about ideal horse lives. Have you guys looked/where are you hoping to find it? there's stacks out there - whole conferences devoted to it, and I know all the main magazines (incl H&H, BHS etc) try adn promote research on this topic whenever possible. For example, H&H quite recently covered a study showing that horses turned out more have lower levels of injury. There's tonnes out there. Quality of sleep. Time-budgeting (i.e what do stabled horses DO all day). How horses constantly stabled (e.g. army) react to temporary "holidays", and the impact it has when they have to be re-stabled. Here is an open access literature review: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/6/1798 - here is a big study looking at bheavioural issues compared with management: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2015/00000024/00000001/art00003 - I mean I could go on forever.
Really intrigued in where people would like to see this scientific info shared so that they can more readily access it? The magazines cover it, there's coverage on the webinars (e.g. WHW's excellent ones, references earlier), David MArlin's webinars, etc etc.

I can tell you for sure that people working in welfare (who are familiar with all the scientific studies) don't subsequently choose to keep horses in a way that means they need to be stabled more than necessary - generally they try and provide free choice (e.g. open stables, or field shelters). However, those who've said that type of turnout is key are also totally right. A bare, square paddock with lawn-length grass and not even a scratching post or shade, that's also not good welfare. Turnout in a herd with horses who are unsettled and constantly changing - tha'ts not good welfare. Of course, some horses cope well in challenging environments, just like some people cope well with stress and others don't - and we all have to make compromises becuase we live in the real world.

I think the best thing we can do is not be reductionist - that leisure horse welfare is "good" or "bad", feral horse wlfare is "good" or "bad", stables are "good" or "bad" etc. Instead it will be individual, and even vary through the day - probably for all of us, there are aspects of the things we do for our horses which mean they have some aspects of positive and negative welfare, so if we reflect on our own situations and promote the good stuff as far as possible, that's much better than assuming we're OK because our horses appear to be coping and anyway, other people are doing it worse.....

Just as a last thing, the 5 freedoms is considered an absolute basic minimum standard in welfare sciences now - definitely not the gold standard unattainable thing people are making it out to be here. It's not that you're signing a contract saying "my horse will never be injured, hungry etc" - obviously that's unrealistic. The idea is that you aim, as far as possible, to make sure your animals are kept in a way that makes sure they are not injured, hungry, thirsty, can express natural behaviours such as grooming and play - etc etc. Of course sometimes there's compromise needed there but it's very basic. In fact, welfare science has now moved on from this towards thinking how we can provide GOOD lives for animals rather than just avoiding them being miserable - giving them positive experiences, choice, enrichment. Maybe the horse world is lagging behind here....

 

[Wishfilly]

I'm so surprised at all the comments about lack of scientific evidence about ideal horse lives. Have you guys looked/where are you hoping to find it? there's stacks out there - whole conferences devoted to it, and I know all the main magazines (incl H&H, BHS etc) try adn promote research on this topic whenever possible. For example, H&H quite recently covered a study showing that horses turned out more have lower levels of injury. There's tonnes out there. Quality of sleep. Time-budgeting (i.e what do stabled horses DO all day). How horses constantly stabled (e.g. army) react to temporary "holidays", and the impact it has when they have to be re-stabled. Here is an open access literature review: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/6/1798 - here is a big study looking at bheavioural issues compared with management: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2015/00000024/00000001/art00003 - I mean I could go on forever.
Really intrigued in where people would like to see this scientific info shared so that they can more readily access it? The magazines cover it, there's coverage on the webinars (e.g. WHW's excellent ones, references earlier), David MArlin's webinars, etc etc.

I can tell you for sure that people working in welfare (who are familiar with all the scientific studies) don't subsequently choose to keep horses in a way that means they need to be stabled more than necessary - generally they try and provide free choice (e.g. open stables, or field shelters). However, those who've said that type of turnout is key are also totally right. A bare, square paddock with lawn-length grass and not even a scratching post or shade, that's also not good welfare. Turnout in a herd with horses who are unsettled and constantly changing - tha'ts not good welfare. Of course, some horses cope well in challenging environments, just like some people cope well with stress and others don't - and we all have to make compromises becuase we live in the real world.

I think the best thing we can do is not be reductionist - that leisure horse welfare is "good" or "bad", feral horse wlfare is "good" or "bad", stables are "good" or "bad" etc. Instead it will be individual, and even vary through the day - probably for all of us, there are aspects of the things we do for our horses which mean they have some aspects of positive and negative welfare, so if we reflect on our own situations and promote the good stuff as far as possible, that's much better than assuming we're OK because our horses appear to be coping and anyway, other people are doing it worse.....

Just as a last thing, the 5 freedoms is considered an absolute basic minimum standard in welfare sciences now - definitely not the gold standard unattainable thing people are making it out to be here. It's not that you're signing a contract saying "my horse will never be injured, hungry etc" - obviously that's unrealistic. The idea is that you aim, as far as possible, to make sure your animals are kept in a way that makes sure they are not injured, hungry, thirsty, can express natural behaviours such as grooming and play - etc etc. Of course sometimes there's compromise needed there but it's very basic. In fact, welfare science has now moved on from this towards thinking how we can provide GOOD lives for animals rather than just avoiding them being miserable - giving them positive experiences, choice, enrichment. Maybe the horse world is lagging behind here....

I don't agree that the second study you've linked there is especially useful. In my personal experience/opinion survey based welfare studies on pet animals tend not to actually paint the most valid picture of what is actually happening because of both selection bias and bias in self reporting. I don't think we're saying that there is no research out there- I think what I'm personally saying is that if you were going to legislate that livery yards have to provide certain types of turnout for X hours a day etc, which I think we all agree is the gold standard, then you have to balance that against the number of horses that become essentially "homeless" because of that legislation- and to do that you need to demonstrate evidence of really severe suffering, in my opinion.

It's, for example, probably the reason why tethering is still legal- because if tethering became illegal, and welfare charities were expected to remove any horse that is tethered, things would quickly become pretty difficult- it's not practical to enforce.

I actually do think, compared to a lot of pets which are often still kept in inappropriate social groups (whether isolated when they should be social, or socially when they should be isolated) or more exotic pets where very basic husbandry needs are not met, more and more horses in the UK are getting basic needs met- which I agree is the floor standard, BUT

When you start talking about choice and freedom to make decisions, I do think this is where horse welfare arguably massively falls down- and I think it's something the horse community is not really ready to confront, because a lot of that school of thought on animal welfare, probably, really is antiethical to riding, or certainly certain horse sports at the very least.

I think, and please feel free to correct me on this, a lot of the research you're talking about applies to zoo animals, and whilst obviously people do train zoo animals using R+ methods to e.g. make vet treatment easier, in general the world has moved on from zoo animals performing "tricks"- but a large amount of horse sport is basically based around this. And I think that's probably an ethical problem that the horse world isn't ready to grapple with yet.

I do think there is definitely a case for completely reconsidering how we keep horses in the UK though, and that the traditional stable yard with some turnout model is outdated, and we need to explore new/different methods of horse keeping where possible.

 

[ycbm]

I

I'm so surprised at all the comments about lack of scientific evidence about ideal horse lives. Have you guys looked/where are you hoping to find it? there's stacks out there - whole conferences devoted to it, and I know all the main magazines (incl H&H, BHS etc) try adn promote research on this topic whenever possible. For example, H&H quite recently covered a study showing that horses turned out more have lower levels of injury. There's tonnes out there. Quality of sleep. Time-budgeting (i.e what do stabled horses DO all day). How horses constantly stabled (e.g. army) react to temporary "holidays", and the impact it has when they have to be re-stabled. Here is an open access literature review: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/6/1798 - here is a big study looking at bheavioural issues compared with management: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2015/00000024/00000001/art00003 - I mean I could go on forever.
Really intrigued in where people would like to see this scientific info shared so that they can more readily access it? The magazines cover it, there's coverage on the webinars (e.g. WHW's excellent ones, references earlier), David MArlin's webinars, etc etc.

I can tell you for sure that people working in welfare (who are familiar with all the scientific studies) don't subsequently choose to keep horses in a way that means they need to be stabled more than necessary - generally they try and provide free choice (e.g. open stables, or field shelters). However, those who've said that type of turnout is key are also totally right. A bare, square paddock with lawn-length grass and not even a scratching post or shade, that's also not good welfare. Turnout in a herd with horses who are unsettled and constantly changing - tha'ts not good welfare. Of course, some horses cope well in challenging environments, just like some people cope well with stress and others don't - and we all have to make compromises becuase we live in the real world.

I think the best thing we can do is not be reductionist - that leisure horse welfare is "good" or "bad", feral horse wlfare is "good" or "bad", stables are "good" or "bad" etc. Instead it will be individual, and even vary through the day - probably for all of us, there are aspects of the things we do for our horses which mean they have some aspects of positive and negative welfare, so if we reflect on our own situations and promote the good stuff as far as possible, that's much better than assuming we're OK because our horses appear to be coping and anyway, other people are doing it worse.....

Just as a last thing, the 5 freedoms is considered an absolute basic minimum standard in welfare sciences now - definitely not the gold standard unattainable thing people are making it out to be here. It's not that you're signing a contract saying "my horse will never be injured, hungry etc" - obviously that's unrealistic. The idea is that you aim, as far as possible, to make sure your animals are kept in a way that makes sure they are not injured, hungry, thirsty, can express natural behaviours such as grooming and play - etc etc. Of course sometimes there's compromise needed there but it's very basic. In fact, welfare science has now moved on from this towards thinking how we can provide GOOD lives for animals rather than just avoiding them being miserable - giving them positive experiences, choice, enrichment. Maybe the horse world is lagging behind here....

I will look at the studies you are pointing to later but I have not yet seen any studies about restricted turnout (part time stabling) which have been done over long enough time scales, with sufficient numbers of horses or with control groups which I would consider provide basic scientific rigour.
.

 

[Morgan123]

Fair enough - I mean I just picked those two at random. You can search for ones that specifically look for the thing you're interested in, if you feel necessary. My point is there's certainly enough out there that the people who study this for a living, feel like we need to change what we do, avoid no-choice stabling and improve the way we keep horses more broadly in relation to having more enriched turnout, stable herds, etc etc. If you disagree with that outcome based on the scientific evidence we have available, that's your choice, but it goes against the overall interpretation of the science by people who study this stuff. As an example, the forward thinking equine colleges, such as Writtle, have completely redesigned their management systems so that horses can choose indoor/outdoor space and live in stable herds. The behaviourist Justine Harrison has some useful posts about this, based on the scientific evidence, fi you want to follow. I believe actually Princess anne has done something similar to Writtle.

Wishfilly - I agree with most of your post but just a note about that survey. Fair enough if you don't like survey studies but this one was part of a PhD level study (I'm not affiliated to it btw, just pointing this out) - it's not just some college one - and hence has been past MULTIPLE expert reviewers and is good enough to overcome the biases you're concerned about - the author is one of the key experts in welfare science and recently did a webinar for David Marlin if you're interested (she's a great speaker). Obviously healhty cynicisim is always good but just so you know this is going to be one of the higher quality studies. Also, even if you disregarded all the survey studies because you dislike them, there's plenty of other types of studies out there including observational behaviour etc etc etc etc.

Otherwise agree with most of what you said - we are sort of between a rock and a hard place where most people feel we need some sort of reform, but nobody knows how to do it because the system keeps us doing what we've always done. Which is quite uncomfortable.

 

[stangs]

Really intrigued in where people would like to see this scientific info shared so that they can more readily access it? The magazines cover it, there's coverage on the webinars (e.g. WHW's excellent ones, references earlier), David MArlin's webinars, etc etc.

As much as I hate to admit it, we need more influencers on the job. Realistically, a small majority of the equestrian population read the magazines - and definitely not the younger generation - and you only find out about the webinars if you go looking, or are following accounts of charities/businesses that do them. Having an Instagram influencer with 500k followers posting about it will provide a lot more reach into a new audience that HHO can't do.

The general inaccessibility of science is also to blame, I think. I thoroughly enjoy spending my afternoons reading through articles on ScienceDirect, but if you don't have a university account, you just can't do that without spending heaps of money.

I think, and please feel free to correct me on this, a lot of the research you're talking about applies to zoo animals, and whilst obviously people do train zoo animals using R+ methods to e.g. make vet treatment easier, in general the world has moved on from zoo animals performing "tricks"- but a large amount of horse sport is basically based around this. And I think that's probably an ethical problem that the horse world isn't ready to grapple with yet.

Horse owners do need to make use of work done with zoo animals more though: both in terms of improving horse welfare and learning about the science behind animal cognition, stress, etc. If you're going to stable a horse for long periods of the day, you ought to be using enrichment - and the kind of enrichment marketed for horses is vastly inferior to the various inventions used in zoos (many of which would be applicable to horses, albeit with some tweaks). Not to mention, how many people use R+ to prepare horses for potential stressful husbandry situations like receiving an injection, worming, etc? Very few, I'd have thought. Even fewer using it correctly. And this has been proven to be better for animal stress levels than using negative reinforcement for the same training, even if the animal learns to stand still with R- too (will go find the article).

R+ is something zoos are excelling in, and there's lots of articles available on how husbandry procedures can be done with the animal's consent and in a low-stress way. People just need to read them, rather than thinking no zoo animal work is applicable to horses.

I suspect a lot of people take the approach of "all riding is unethical" and "riding always causes the horse some discomfort" because, if they didn't, they'd have to a) acknowledge wrongdoings that they've done to horses in the past, or still do, b) put a lot more work into ensuring the horse gets a say in what's going on and maintaining comfort levels, and c) respect the horse's no, even if it irritated them (e.g. the horse doesn't really feel like being ridden, but you want to ride because it's a sunny day).

The issue with that approach is that it gives you a scapegoat to not trying to make things more ethical. I recall ycbm having earlier posted that one of the issues with the 5Fs was that a horse will always experience some discomfort when ridden. An attitude like that would let people* get away with not having a perfectly fitting saddle, not using a good bit, not improving their own position to make it easier for the horse to carry them, etc. If there's always going to be discomfort, why pay extra for a better saddle?

*(not saying this is what ycbm does).

 

[Morgan123]

Excellent point about influencers! I was mulling this over on my dog wlk today (excellent discussion btw Stangs! I've really enjoyed reading it) and also thinking, in the magazines and social media stuff there's lots of examples of them promoting the rsearch but in a "hey this enirchment thing is nice for horses" and "horses like being in fields" type posts - but it's really only the behaviour crew who actually overtly say "we do not think that XYZ is ok anymore".
But yes, influencers are probably key, agreed. I do think e.g. This Esme does a cracking job and often promotes the work of WHW and others - but there's a lot more to do.

100% agree with scapegoating, like saying "5 freedoms are rubbish, so never mind, let's not worry about them". I guess the thing is, many people are being forced, by the system, to do things that they know are not ideal - so that leaves us with that horrible cognitive dissonance and people have to find a way out of it. But really, it seems like the majority of people know change needs to happen, we just don't know how to do it! I guess it's a start anyway.

 

[Tiddlypom]

As an example, the forward thinking equine colleges, such as Writtle, have completely redesigned their management systems so that horses can choose indoor/outdoor space and live in stable herds.

Does Writtle still keep their own horses, then? I thought they'd stopped.

As someone who took on a former working livery at Writtle direct from coming from them, I would not be touting that college as a beacon of equine welfare, far from it. She was crooked, she was muscularly asymmetric, she was sore, and her mouth was a dental nightmare. Unless they have had a complete culture and practice change since 2016?

There was no hacking, either.

ETA It seems that Writtle now have a stud, but no riding school as such. Students can keep their own horses on diy livery.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

The use of R+ etc, is becoming more popularly and it’s more socially acceptable to have unriddens is growing (or maybe that is just what I look at online).

we have to stop labelling people interested in these techniques as fluffies and instantly disparaging people who try something different without actually having direct experience of it ourselves. I also think if people started giving their horses some choices, they would be generally surprised at how powerful this is in training.

I am not sure I agree that riding a horse necessarily has to equal discomfort nor that if we give our horses the choice that they will choose to not be ridden.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

That is encouraging about Writtle-I wasn’t much impressed last time I was there but it was 12 years ago.

 

[Wishfilly]

Fair enough - I mean I just picked those two at random. You can search for ones that specifically look for the thing you're interested in, if you feel necessary. My point is there's certainly enough out there that the people who study this for a living, feel like we need to change what we do, avoid no-choice stabling and improve the way we keep horses more broadly in relation to having more enriched turnout, stable herds, etc etc. If you disagree with that outcome based on the scientific evidence we have available, that's your choice, but it goes against the overall interpretation of the science by people who study this stuff. As an example, the forward thinking equine colleges, such as Writtle, have completely redesigned their management systems so that horses can choose indoor/outdoor space and live in stable herds. The behaviourist Justine Harrison has some useful posts about this, based on the scientific evidence, fi you want to follow. I believe actually Princess anne has done something similar to Writtle.

Wishfilly - I agree with most of your post but just a note about that survey. Fair enough if you don't like survey studies but this one was part of a PhD level study (I'm not affiliated to it btw, just pointing this out) - it's not just some college one - and hence has been past MULTIPLE expert reviewers and is good enough to overcome the biases you're concerned about - the author is one of the key experts in welfare science and recently did a webinar for David Marlin if you're interested (she's a great speaker). Obviously healhty cynicisim is always good but just so you know this is going to be one of the higher quality studies. Also, even if you disregarded all the survey studies because you dislike them, there's plenty of other types of studies out there including observational behaviour etc etc etc etc.

Otherwise agree with most of what you said - we are sort of between a rock and a hard place where most people feel we need some sort of reform, but nobody knows how to do it because the system keeps us doing what we've always done. Which is quite uncomfortable.

Just to be clear, my first job out of university involved working on a major lab study relating to farm animal welfare and I studied animal welfare related modules on my degree- albiet several years ago now. I know people who still work in the field of both farm animal welfare and zoo animal welfare. I believe I have a reasonable understanding of what makes good research in this field, and I, personally, am critical of all survey based research (I also have a bit of a background in psychology, which may be relevant to this). I'm not saying there's no place for surveys, but I think we need to acknowledge the weaknesses of them. I don't think it's enough to say "we can overcome the bias of them"- that actually makes me more sceptical, I'm afraid. I read as much of the study as was available to me without paying, I didn't just assume it was flawed from your description of it.

ETA: The abstract says it is a self selection survey. There are issues around who will select to participate in such surveys, that's an acknowledged issue with using surveys in scientific research. Is the abstract not correct?

To be clear, I'm not saying there is nothing to be taken from the study. I do, however, think that there needs to be a really high bar for research that informs legislation which may have serious unintended consequences.

I'm not trying to say I know better, I haven't worked in this field for a long time, but I'm not just talking out of my arse either. And I think anyone who knows anything about research accepts that research is open to criticism and that we don't stop, and decide that actually, yes, we've found the solution and then don't move on.

I'm also not arguing that a good amount of high quality turnout with contact with other equids is not best practice.

I appreciate where you are coming from, and if I could design the perfect stables, I would love one where horses can make choices and live in small stable herds.

I do think we need basic standards for livery yards, and actually I have read some posts on here which really concern me around horses getting no turnout for months on end- which shocks me, because I thought we were long past that (not talking about horses on box rest etc etc).

As much as I hate to admit it, we need more influencers on the job. Realistically, a small majority of the equestrian population read the magazines - and definitely not the younger generation - and you only find out about the webinars if you go looking, or are following accounts of charities/businesses that do them. Having an Instagram influencer with 500k followers posting about it will provide a lot more reach into a new audience that HHO can't do.

The general inaccessibility of science is also to blame, I think. I thoroughly enjoy spending my afternoons reading through articles on ScienceDirect, but if you don't have a university account, you just can't do that without spending heaps of money.


Horse owners do need to make use of work done with zoo animals more though: both in terms of improving horse welfare and learning about the science behind animal cognition, stress, etc. If you're going to stable a horse for long periods of the day, you ought to be using enrichment - and the kind of enrichment marketed for horses is vastly inferior to the various inventions used in zoos (many of which would be applicable to horses, albeit with some tweaks). Not to mention, how many people use R+ to prepare horses for potential stressful husbandry situations like receiving an injection, worming, etc? Very few, I'd have thought. Even fewer using it correctly. And this has been proven to be better for animal stress levels than using negative reinforcement for the same training, even if the animal learns to stand still with R- too (will go find the article).

R+ is something zoos are excelling in, and there's lots of articles available on how husbandry procedures can be done with the animal's consent and in a low-stress way. People just need to read them, rather than thinking no zoo animal work is applicable to horses.

I suspect a lot of people take the approach of "all riding is unethical" and "riding always causes the horse some discomfort" because, if they didn't, they'd have to a) acknowledge wrongdoings that they've done to horses in the past, or still do, b) put a lot more work into ensuring the horse gets a say in what's going on and maintaining comfort levels, and c) respect the horse's no, even if it irritated them (e.g. the horse doesn't really feel like being ridden, but you want to ride because it's a sunny day).

The issue with that approach is that it gives you a scapegoat to not trying to make things more ethical. I recall ycbm having earlier posted that one of the issues with the 5Fs was that a horse will always experience some discomfort when ridden. An attitude like that would let people* get away with not having a perfectly fitting saddle, not using a good bit, not improving their own position to make it easier for the horse to carry them, etc. If there's always going to be discomfort, why pay extra for a better saddle?

*(not saying this is what ycbm does).

I'm not suggesting that zoo animal work isn't applicable to horses- I think I phrased my post badly around that. I actually know someone who does amazing work with large ungulates around accepting veterinary interventions and hoof work without sedation, and I would LOVE her to be able to work with my pony around some of the things he finds stressful.

But she would never train a zoo animal to do something purely for entertainment purposes.

And yes, we can definitely take the good bits of R+ and the good bits of enrichment and apply that to horses. But it's a very different environment, with ultimately very different goals- and I do think there are questions to be asked about using this sort of training with animals that may be used in release programs (but that is a whole separate thread).

I'm not saying we should tolerate discomfort to ridden horses at all- but I am saying if you take this viewpoint/theory/school of thought to its conclusion then I actually do think the conclusion would be that a lot of things we do with horses are unethical- as an example, if you say "horses should get an element of choice in how they are ridden" how does that fit in with doing a dressage test, or a cross country course, where the horse's choice might be to miss out spooky number 12, even if he enjoys the rest of the course?

My point is just that a) this is one school of scientific research around welfare, I don't want to call it the "fashion" as such and I think there is lots that is useful to take from it- and b) I do actually believe if you follow this school of thought to its logical conclusion, no-one would ever back a young horse. I think once backed, horses can get enjoyment/pleasure/positive experiences out of being ridden, but I am not sure any would choose to be backed per se.