PETA is suing Totilas' owners and rider

Pedantic said:
Horses are not designed to be stabled for hours at a time, they are an outdoor creature, just because something has been done for years doesn't make it right, we don't send little boys up chimneys any more, maybe it's time it was law that horse's are turned out for so many hours in every 24, if a yard can't provide that then maybe it's not a suitable property for keeping horses at, just a thought.

The fields at the yard I am at occasionally flood when the rain is really really bad, but they all get a shared time in the large paddock on higher ground, they don't just keep them in 24/7.
Click to expand...

So then we can't go to show or move horses from one end of the country to another in case it gets in the way of turnout.
Oh injured horses no box rest for them just a life time of lameness .
What about horses that hate turnout we had one came to us at eight yo liked to go out roll graze for twenty minutes then stand and stick her leg though the gate/ fence until someone brought her in.
So she had twenty minutes twice a day and was well exercised she was very settled and happy.
Icey weather field an ice rink all horses in slippy metal shoes never mind turn em out anyway.
Horse an lamininic got EMS can't graze just turn it out for x hours don't worry it's the law.
 
Goldenstar said:
What about horses that hate turnout we had one came to us at eight yo liked to go out roll graze for twenty minutes then stand and stick her leg though the gate/ fence until someone brought her in.
Click to expand...
You seem to be arguing that, just because such horses exist, it is perfectly okay to confine horses that would be happier with more extensive turnout (counterexample fallacy). That doesn't make sense to me, sorry. :(

Obviously, a good law would not be so inflexible.
 
Goldenstar, I cant help feeling that you have some sort of axe to grind here. You surely cannot imagine that anyone would deny a horse box rest if that was what was needed, or turn horses out in dangerous conditions to risk injury. If a horse has to stay in short-term for whatever reason, the so be it, I am talking about (as I'm sure you know in your heart) horses who are routinely kept in, come rain or shine, summer or winter because "that is just how it is done". This practice is barbaric and should be legislated against.
 
My friend's dog has done a ligament in one of his legs and is currently having to be kept in a crate with 'in hand' walking several times a day...as far as I know the welfare charities haven't come knocking ;)

I'm not sure where I stand on 24/7 stabling, i've worked on several yards that do this during competition season however the horses do get chucked out for their 'holidays' each year for several weeks.On the other hand Rolkur shouldn't be allowed to continue. I wish it wasn't the crazies bringing it in to the limelight but something needs to be done.
 
Charem said:
My friend's dog has done a ligament in one of his legs and is currently having to be kept in a crate with 'in hand' walking several times a day...as far as I know the welfare charities haven't come knocking ;)

I'm not sure where I stand on 24/7 stabling, i've worked on several yards that do this during competition season however the horses do get chucked out for their 'holidays' each year for several weeks.On the other hand Rolkur shouldn't be allowed to continue. I wish it wasn't the crazies bringing it in to the limelight but something needs to be done.
Click to expand...

Oh well thats ok then isn't it?:rolleyes:

If Tortillas was injured then of course the responses on this thread would be in support of and understanding confinement to a stall with walking in hand. As it is 'box rest' is not the same as confinement of a perfectly healthy horse to a stall 24 hrs a day. :(
 
hollybear said:
I am talking about (as I'm sure you know in your heart) horses who are routinely kept in, come rain or shine, summer or winter because "that is just how it is done". This practice is barbaric and should be legislated against.
Click to expand...

What do you propose would happen to police horses if it were legislated against. What about city riding schools? What about work horses? Army horses? The Queens horses? The Household Cavalry? Please tell me what you would do with all of these horses above who do live in stables/ standing stalls?
 
I can't believe there are so many people who think riding a horse in a very round shape amounts to cruelty. To say Anky is cruel is ridiculous. How come her horses are able to compete at Olympic level at the ripe age of 16/17 if they have been subjected to years of cruel training methods? Indeed her horses are in much better shape than most leisure horses of that age.

I personally like my horses turned out every day but I appreciate turning out stallions is a different matter altogether. Laura doesn't turn Alf out because he is always injuring himself but I don't see anyone calling her cruel or prosecuting her so why pick on Totilas?
 
hollybear said:
Goldenstar, I cant help feeling that you have some sort of axe to grind here. You surely cannot imagine that anyone would deny a horse box rest if that was what was needed, or turn horses out in dangerous conditions to risk injury. If a horse has to stay in short-term for whatever reason, the so be it, I am talking about (as I'm sure you know in your heart) horses who are routinely kept in, come rain or shine, summer or winter because "that is just how it is done". This practice is barbaric and should be legislated against.
Click to expand...

But the law has no heart so you set out to draft a turnout law then everyone says yes but xyz and abcde etc so the law ends up complicated a nightmare interpret and therefore openly ignored because people do not hold it in respect and ends up a waste of time and money.
I never stable twenty four hours unless horse is on box rest but then say like today vet came at 9 sedated a horse it was clipped it took to 10.20 then bathed rugged up tail detangled taken for a walk put in stable at about 11.20 allowed some time to dry off and eat some haylage .
At twelve we hacked out i lead him from the horse i rode at one ten we got back it was raining and at two twenty I left with him for a lesson at five I got back by the time he was cooled off and comfy and I caught up the horse in his field sorted the others it was six so he did not go in the field today he will tomorrow do I think I have compromised his welfare no I don't ,do I think the law has any role in micromanaging my day no.
I just use that as an example of showing why it would so hard to draught a workable law.

However I do think there may be an argument to say that livery yards must provide daily turnout and they should be licensed and those without enough grazing denied licences but that would leave homeless horses and what then would happen to them and livery cost would rise and people are stretched at the minute as it is.
It would not affect me as my horses are at home with lots of space but not many livery yards can offer more than four acres per horse which is what mine have .
The axe I have to grind is say this is complicated the law would not be a good tool to solve these issues .
 
tallyho! said:
.

They don't think horse should roam free. They think they should be kept humanely and sympathetic to their needs. Not ours and I wholeheartedly agree.
Click to expand...

Actually, they DO want horses to roam free. They do not believe animals should be kept. Full stop. "Humanely and sympathetic to their needs" are just words which have nothing to do with their brief.

I have a link to Germany's Animal Welfare Act:

http://www.animallaw.info/nonus/stat...tdeaw1998.htm.

One of PETA's attorneys has said that PETA's complaint against Totilas' owners and rider, is based on specific articles and sections of the Act. I haven't read the entire contents of the Act, but given that PETA is holding the Act up to scrutiny, they should be very wary of Article 3, Section 4.
 
No I couldn't keep a horse in 24/7 no matter what it's worth moneywise, they do need to wind down and grazing is the best thing. Box rest is a differant matter and should be taken 1 day at a time, as in how the horse takes it,sometimes if you can rig a small pen outside their stable so they can see what's going on is great for their mental attitude. I once mistakenly made a one off payment to PETA for the bears and have regretted it ever since as they give you no peace.And I honestly don't think they have any animals welfare on their agenda.
 
Agree with everything Goldenstar said. Yes, I think horses should have turnout, but legislation is the *wrong* tool in every way to deal with it. It's not agile enough. It will, as Goldenstar argued, create more problems than it solves. It will either be so overbroad as to negatively affect the entire industry, including all of us, or a useless waste of time, since in order to be agile enough to deal with all the contingencies of horse ownership, it would have to be toothless and virtually unenforceable.

Then there's the practical problems. What would happen to all the thousands of horses who live in places with no or very limited turnout. It's not as if more land would magically become available.

Don't know what the solution is, but this ain't it.
 
some of these ideas are absolutely nuts.

What organisation is going to monitor each and every domestic horse's turnout time? How on earth will that happen...?

The real elite horses are man made. You won't see them trotting over hill and dale
 
Posted too soon*

They do however have a basic right to turnout and I believe they need it mentally.

But what can we do? How would you convince owners of multi million pound animals that their horses need time to just be horses? Even when most believe that they give their horses the best of everything e.g veterinary care. No expense is spared at the top level.

Is there any organisation to truly enforce the importance of turnout at elite level??! And monitor it??
 
FionaM12 said:
People here often say that, but as I've said before, on their website they make it clear they are not against pet keeping.
Click to expand...

Of course they're not! That's why they put down 95.9 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2011 rather than spend some of their millions of dollars a year in donations trying to rehome them! :rolleyes:
 
Whilst I don't support PETA in general as I think their ethics for animal rights/freedoms go way beyond my own, some of the attitudes/misinformation being spread on this thread are pretty scary.

1) PETA will be SPENDING an awful lot of money on legal fees etc. to bring the case, and given that (I expect even they believe) they are unlikely to win they will also be on the hook for the defendants fees. In the event that they did win, as it is not them who have suffered damage they will not be entitled to any financial benefit from the case. The best they can hope for financially is to get their fees in bringing the case covered.

2) Whether PETA as an organisation want you to be allowed to keep/ride horses or not, all they are doing here is seeking to enforce/clarify written legislation through the courts which are an unbiased third party with jurisdiction only so far as the law goes. As long as the law can't reasonably be interpreted as banning pet keeping, riding etc they will be unable to bring similar legal claims to progress their cause any further. What they are doing here is what many on the forum have expressed a wish for other equine/animal welfare bodies to do in trying to actually do something to get welfare legislation enforced or clarified regarding whether activities such as Rolkur are in fact cruelty under the law.

3) Yes, they picked a very high profile horse/breeder deliberately and wouldn't deny it. The evidence is easier to get and much more importantly, they probably dont expect to win the claim at this stage. Rather I would interpret the move as a combined publicity effort to raise the profile of the Rolkur controversy with the general public, and also to serve as a warning to other high profile competitors that they are being watched, and the fact that the FEI seem unwilling to enforce their own rules doesn't mean that you can get away with it forever.

4) Having turnout/no Rolkur mandated by law in this case wouldn't mean we have to set up a special body to monitor it, or that anyone is suggesting it would be practical to do so. What it does do is set a clear line that says this is no longer such a grey area, it is just wrong and unacceptable. It stops people continuing to do it in the collecting ring at large shows without any real fear of consequences. It perhaps makes owners of large, high profile studs consider whether their practices are really up to scratch. And in turn, those ideas filter down through the horse industry. No, it won't stop everyone doing everything straight away, but through changing the public acceptability of these ideas and taking away the defence to ourselves of "its what everyone does" things will start to move in the right direction, and sets a clear basis for enforcement of the most blatant breaches of the rule. Its impossible to 100% monitor/prevent drink driving (and within certain social groups the "everyone else is doing it" defence would still stand), but that doesn't mean we should just decide it is acceptable and never prosecute.

I agree it would have been better if a similar case had been brought (to serve the purposes above) by a less radical organisation, but this has to be better than nothing, which appears to have been the alternative. I worry that part of the reluctance, particularly within the industry, to enforcing these rules is the concern as evidenced in this thread that it is a slippery slope from banning rolkur and mandating some turnout for a fit horse where it could easily be provided to banning any use of whips and riding horses. I strongly believe that there is a common sense line at some point between these two extremes (its how I justify riding and carrying a stick but wouldn't be willing to beat a horse or pull its head into its chest for an extended period) and as a riding community we do ourselves far more favours by acknowledging that and defining/enforcing the line than we do by saying "it's not what I would do, but each to their own, where do we draw the line" etc and waiting for radical groups to come in and help draw the line for us!
 
Last edited:
gnubee said:
Whilst I don't support PETA in general as I think their ethics for animal rights/freedoms go way beyond my own, some of the attitudes/misinformation being spread on this thread are pretty scary.

1) PETA will be SPENDING an awful lot of money on legal fees etc. to bring the case, and given that (I expect even they believe) they are unlikely to win they will also be on the hook for the defendants fees. In the event that they did win, as it is not them who have suffered damage they will not be entitled to any financial benefit from the case. The best they can hope for financially is to get their fees in bringing the case covered.

2) Whether PETA as an organisation want you to be allowed to keep/ride horses or not, all they are doing here is seeking to enforce/clarify written legislation through the courts which are an unbiased third party with jurisdiction only so far as the law goes. As long as the law can't reasonably be interpreted as banning pet keeping, riding etc they will be unable to bring similar legal claims to progress their cause any further. What they are doing here is what many on the forum have expressed a wish for other equine/animal welfare bodies to do in trying to actually do something to get welfare legislation enforced or clarified regarding whether activities such as Rolkur are in fact cruelty under the law.

3) Yes, they picked a very high profile horse/breeder deliberately and wouldn't deny it. The evidence is easier to get and much more importantly, they probably dont expect to win the claim at this stage. Rather I would interpret the move as a combined publicity effort to raise the profile of the Rolkur controversy with the general public, and also to serve as a warning to other high profile competitors that they are being watched, and the fact that the FEI seem unwilling to enforce their own rules doesn't mean that you can get away with it forever.

4) Having turnout/no Rolkur mandated by law in this case wouldn't mean we have to set up a special body to monitor it, or that anyone is suggesting it would be practical to do so. What it does do is set a clear line that says this is no longer such a grey area, it is just wrong and unacceptable. It stops people continuing to do it in the collecting ring at large shows without any real fear of consequences. It perhaps makes owners of large, high profile studs consider whether their practices are really up to scratch. And in turn, those ideas filter down through the horse industry. No, it won't stop everyone doing everything straight away, but through changing the public acceptability of these ideas and taking away the defence to ourselves of "its what everyone does" things will start to move in the right direction, and sets a clear basis for enforcement of the most blatant breaches of the rule. Its impossible to 100% monitor/prevent drink driving (and within certain social groups the "everyone else is doing it" defence would still stand), but that doesn't mean we should just decide it is acceptable and never prosecute.

I agree it would have been better if a similar case had been brought (to serve the purposes above) by a less radical organisation, but this has to be better than nothing, which appears to have been the alternative. I worry that part of the reluctance, particularly within the industry, to enforcing these rules is the concern as evidenced in this thread that it is a slippery slope from banning rolkur and mandating some turnout for a fit horse where it could easily be provided to banning any use of whips and riding horses. I strongly believe that there is a common sense line at some point between these two extremes (its how I justify riding and carrying a stick but wouldn't be willing to beat a horse or pull its head into its chest for an extended period) and as a riding community we do ourselves far more favours by acknowledging that and defining/enforcing the line than we do by saying "it's not what I would do, but each to their own, where do we draw the line" etc and waiting for radical groups to come in and help draw the line for us!
Click to expand...

A VERY GOOD POST and makes a very valid point.As we are unable to enforce the rules ourselves via say the FEI we have left room for PETA to do it for us! or them.
 
As an aside, in Italy its now the law that all domestic dogs must have at least half an hours exercise a day.No it won't change things overnight BUT it will over a period of time aspeople will come to realize that its cruel not to give domestic dogs some exercise.I don't think anyone is interested in prosecuting someone not taking an ill dog out or anything silly like that.
 
Goldenstar said:
Having been a welfare officer I think is fair to say I was present at the birth of the five freedoms at first reading they seem very sensible on second look however it's less clear cut.
Freedom four if I remember correctly is freedom to express normal behaviour ,
Mmmmm so if your wishes to fight other dogs that is a normal behaviour or chase and eat a cat that's normal,:mad: for dogs to chase and kill prey , keep the cat in a few days because you have baby's birds just by the the back door.
Live a short life and die of starvation when you can't catch your own food.
Stop a stallion getting into a fight with another stallion or trying to cover a mares randomly .Castrating and spaying dogs and bitches clearly interferes with their freedom to express normal behaviour but few would say it is wrong.
Now the five freedoms are not a law thankfully because we would be in an awful muddle if they where.
Click to expand...

I BELIEve , correct me if I am wrong, that in Sweden it is against the law to castrate animals because it interfers with normal behaviour patterns,You can sterilize them.I think the main thing is that society is gradually becoming more humane and is trying to legislate for animal welfare.Maybe people don't always get it quite right but the general idea is a good one.
 
Spring Feather said:
What do you propose would happen to police horses if it were legislated against. What about city riding schools? What about work horses? Army horses? The Queens horses? The Household Cavalry? Please tell me what you would do with all of these horses above who do live in stables/ standing stalls?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but if you don't have the facilities to keep horses in a humane way, then don't keep horses, its not rocket science. But most of the examples you choose are not really typical of the problem. Police horses, for instance, spend a long time out on patrol and are certainly not in their stables for 23 hours a day, they also (i believe) have long periods on holiday every year where thay are out 24/7 with companions. I don't know about the Queens horses, Household cavalry etc, but if they are not getting similar breaks and holidays then shame on them!
When are we ever going to start accepting that these horses have a hard and un-natural life! I despair at the arrogance of us humans who feel that we can do as we please to animals, keep them badly, lock them up etc and it is deemed acceptable. If the will was there, things would change, but sadly for the horses, the needs and wants of the humans must come first. We KNOW we can keep horses more humanely, if people refuse to do it of their own volition, then MAKE them.
 
sporthorseP said:
some of these ideas are absolutely nuts.

What organisation is going to monitor each and every domestic horse's turnout time? How on earth will that happen...?

The real elite horses are man made. You won't see them trotting over hill and dale
Click to expand...

Enforcing welfare laws (well any laws actually) is very difficult, I agree, but does that really mean we should't bother to try?
Should we really just be throwing our hands up in despair and saying it can't be done? Small animal charities cannot possibly moniter every cat and dog, but surely that doesn't mean that there should be no legislation regarding welfare of said animals? For that matter, we cant go to every house checking that people aren't commiting ANY type of offence, does that mean we shouldn't bother to have any laws?

If everyone had this attitude then we would still be in the dark ages regarding animal welfare. Most people seem to agree that horses should be given turnout and yet the will to do something concrete about it seems to be lacking.

A horse is a horse, elite or not, same physiology, same physcology, same needs. :)
 
hollybear said:
Small animal charities cannot possibly moniter every cat and dog, but surely that doesn't mean that there should be no legislation regarding welfare of said animals? For that matter, we cant go to every house checking that people aren't commiting ANY type of offence, does that mean we shouldn't bother to have any . :)
Click to expand...

So how do you think that a turnout law would work?
Farriers late we kept horses we are at work oh no they have missed there x hours Er broke the law .
It's pouring the horses are sick they are standing at the gate oh they are kicking each other no x hours is not up yet leave them to it.
We have four feet of snow each horse is going out for an hour alone for a wander and a roll sorry you can't do that it's agaisnt the law bung them out together oh ones broken its leg never mind it's the law I could go on and on and on.
However I would be prepared to consider that something needs to be done about DIY livery yards I have heard several people telling the same story that there are big yards quite near here where in winter the owners stable the horses day after day after with no exercise or extremly limited and no turnout that is wrong but what to do many yards don't have enough land if we close them down where will the horses in go ?
It easy for me to say my horses are a home and have 4 acres each but more stringent law would make horse keeping more expensive and people would struggle.
If I had the chance to try to draught a law a turnout law is not where I would start there's far more awful things happening .
I would try to do something to restrict the bottom end breeding of horses I would make it an offence to or use a stallion for breeding that was not registered and assessed with compulsory castration ordered for horses belonging to people who disobeyed it .
Or some thing around transport and keeping for the meat trade
Neither of these things would be easy to get to work but would do more good than a impossible to enforce meddling turnout law .
 
sporthorseP said:
The real elite horses are man made. You won't see them trotting over hill and dale
Click to expand...

Man made? :confused: However well bred and intensively trained, they're still horses. Not many horses roam "hill and dale", but we can give them regular time in fields with little herds so they get to act like horses. Why are "elite" horses any different?
 
I personally think turnout law is a grand idea!!!!! :)

People would spend money on groundwork e.g. drainage, drystanding areas, trees and shrubbery (as windbreaks/shelter/excess water sponge), and also rotation schedule and grassland management e.g. better grass.

Instead of mountains of RUGS.

Right now, all I see in the english countryside is boggy fields, crappy electric fencing, horses standing in square patches with nothing to eat because they have trampled the grass (not their fault) whilst being rugged up to the earholes even though it's 15degrees C.
 
I agree with Hollybear, which at the end of the day is just common sense, but lets face it, we live in a country where the law is applied where they can arsed to enforce it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top