Seems an awful lot of deaths.

[MrVelvet]

I got into this discussion as a result of someone saying they had seen horses exhausted at Haydock, someone else said it was the heat. Then the question of horses having to have oxygen after races came up.
Now, I don't want to ban racing or any other sport, but, if something can be improved, made safer, both for horses and people, then I'm all for it.
No one surely can condone any horse dying in a sport, any sport if it can be avoided. From what I've read from the really pro racing people on here, racing can be improved.
No one likes changes, more rules and regulation but that's what has to happen for things to carry on.
I am coming round to the opinion that the industry needs to make itself more horse friendly, if it doesn't it will be done in spite of them.
Just slagging of the people who compile damaging statistics is stupid. You need to give them nothing to compile.

Ok I actually see your point. what would you change then? just out of interest?

 

[Changes]

I got into this discussion as a result of someone saying they had seen horses exhausted at Haydock, someone else said it was the heat. Then the question of horses having to have oxygen after races came up.
Now, I don't want to ban racing or any other sport, but, if something can be improved, made safer, both for horses and people, then I'm all for it.
No one surely can condone any horse dying in a sport, any sport if it can be avoided. From what I've read from the really pro racing people on here, racing can be improved.
No one likes changes, more rules and regulation but that's what has to happen for things to carry on.
I am coming round to the opinion that the industry needs to make itself more horse friendly, if it doesn't it will be done in spite of them.
Just slagging of the people who compile damaging statistics is stupid. You need to give them nothing to compile.

Erm, I don't think anyone said it was the heat at Haydock??? And did you even look at the link I put up to show the race the OP on the Haydock thread referred to?

You are seriously missing the point. Horses sometimes die because of how we use them, in ALL aspects of equine sport/work. They also die because some of them are also pretty hot at attempting to kill themselves in fields, stables out hacking etc.
They even die in the wild, from self inflicted injuries, predators, hunger, old age etc.

One major aspect of racing is the high intensity research done into horses to create veterinary knowledge which every equine will benefit. No other sport does that.

The racing industry is the ONLY industry that makes itself accountable, and then eejits like the failed bookie (anyone spot the agenda there?) who runs the Animal Aid anti-racing site that you refer to on here pick up on the statistics and manipulate them.

Statistics are just that, numbers and records. It's how they're presented that tells differing stories.

If you are uninformed enough to propagate to the AA distorted version without researching any further then you haven't the first clue about the industry you chose to denigrate.

Friends of mine have horses listed on there. One of them was devastated to read that someone who didn't know her or her horse, used her (homebred) horse's death to pointscore against racing. The site said she was 'raced to death' along with all the others. She was in fact a 6yo mare, having her second run in a bumper as she had gone down the event training route before hand so that if she wasn't fast enough to race, she had a second career ready line up.

AA is run by a sick individual who is more concerned about his self importance than horse welfare.

 

[dressagelove]

Ugh what a grim page! horrible reading, and awful picture, gong to give me nightmares

 

[Jesstickle]

Jesstickle,,,, sorry for your loss, that is a horrid thing to happen.

Did you read all my post ? My point was that we can not wrap our selves up, and there is risk in every thing that we do xxxx

Sorry, didn't use nearly enought smilies. I was being deeply sarcastic. I totally agree with you. Bad things happen occasionally. It doesn't mean we should just go out and ban everything! And my dog was hit by a car years ago don't worry, it was just meant as an example of how things go wrong in all spheres of life really.

 

[Tnavas]

Their mats is not too hot - I worked it out that there are 163 horses lost per year - not 420!

The picture is horrific - what they fail to realise is that for every race horse there are hundreds of other horses in the country and some of them each day will die as a result of different types of accidents, paddock, on the road, falls at competitions.

One of th emares I used to look after broke her cannon - spiral fracture - working on the track at home. Another I used to look after broke a leg out hunting, I've lost three of my own one after the other in freak accidents.

It is awful to see these horses break down at anytime but what would happen to horses if all racing and all competitions where a horse might be injured were banned. We would eventually lose all our beautiful horses - extinct because they were no longer needed.

Accidents happen - the horses are carefully prepared before races, they get the right food and supplements -

 

[fburton]

The racing industry is the ONLY industry that makes itself accountable, and then eejits like the failed bookie (anyone spot the agenda there?) who runs the Animal Aid anti-racing site that you refer to on here pick up on the statistics and manipulate them.

Is there a reliable and unbiased source of these statistics on the web?

 

[Changes]

Is there a reliable and unbiased source of these statistics on the web?

You can go through the Racing Post or Attheraces site and count how many horses run every day for the year. They have the numbers of horses in each race, their finishing position and usually write down in the comments under the results pages if they were fatally injured on the track.

This is the link on ATR for all todays UK runners.

http://www.attheraces.com/todaysrunners/

If you want to see a percentage of deaths to runners, then go through the cards mentioned and see what the results say.

 

[Merry Crisis]

You can go through the Racing Post or Attheraces site and count how many horses run every day for the year. They have the numbers of horses in each race, their finishing position and usually write down in the comments under the results pages if they were fatally injured on the track.

This is the link on ATR for all todays UK runners.

http://www.attheraces.com/todaysrunners/

If you want to see a percentage of deaths to runners, then go through the cards mentioned and see what the results say.

Why would you want to?

 

[Changes]

Why would you want to?

Because fburton asked if the statistics were on the web?

FWIW, I just did for today, 143 horses ran at 2 meetings in the UK, no fatalities or severe injuries apparent. That's not a lot of runners for a day, being only two meetings. I'd say that amount of horses at least run most days.

I've done the UK only, as that's all that AA deal with on that disgusting site.

 

[fburton]

You can go through the Racing Post or Attheraces site and count how many horses run every day for the year. They have the numbers of horses in each race, their finishing position and usually write down in the comments under the results pages if they were fatally injured on the track.

This is the link on ATR for all todays UK runners.

http://www.attheraces.com/todaysrunners/

If you want to see a percentage of deaths to runners, then go through the cards mentioned and see what the results say.

Seems like a lot of work, potentially. I'd have thought a statistics site - showing the good as well as the bad! - run by the industry, not some biased pressure group, would be a positive sign of accountability and openness. For example, it could show how fatalities have decreased over the years (if they have), or highlight particular problems with a racecourse (if there were any).

 

[AMH]

I believe the BHA keeps some stats on its website. They're not down to an individual level, but do give actual numbers.

Thing is, it's likely that more animals suffer fatal injuries on the gallops at home than on the track - the numbers are pretty meaningless really.

One thing the BHA does, I believe, is give details of track fatalities as a proportion of race starters, and it's miniscule.

 

[fburton]

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/injuries-fatalities.asp

is actually quite helpful, though I think it could be improved.

 

[Changes]

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/injuries-fatalities.asp

is actually quite helpful, though I think it could be improved.

How would you improve it?

 

[Pale Rider]

You can go through the Racing Post or Attheraces site and count how many horses run every day for the year. They have the numbers of horses in each race, their finishing position and usually write down in the comments under the results pages if they were fatally injured on the track.

This is the link on ATR for all todays UK runners.

http://www.attheraces.com/todaysrunners/

If you want to see a percentage of deaths to runners, then go through the cards mentioned and see what the results say.

I agree with fbuton, this link seems to be the sort of research and monitoring that needs to be done, rather than the subject be hijacked and sensationalized, by others outside the industry.

The fact that fatalities are decreasing over all is positive, and supports the view that this aspect of racing can be improved and is on going. This in my view can only be in the industries best interest.

 

[Changes]

I agree with fbuton, this link seems to be the sort of research and monitoring that needs to be done, rather than the subject be hijacked and sensationalized, by others outside the industry.

The fact that fatalities are decreasing over all is positive, and supports the view that this aspect of racing can be improved and is on going. This in my view can only be in the industries best interest.

I agree. However, contrary to perceived opinion, they have been doing so for years. Such a shame no other equine sport does the same, so racing cops flak for being transparent.

The site also has the exact numbers of horses in training every year, and in which code, as well as the races run etc.

Since 1999/2000 (can't remember which) every foal born to race MUST be microchipped, with proof of covering, before that foal can be registered with Wetherbys to allow it to run in races.

THe RP and ATR sites give the breeding, form and winnings of every horse, along with a simple breakdown of all races, the trainer and jockey for each race, and the current owners are listed. Most horses can be traced.

This info is all publicly available.

It's about time EVERY horse bred was subject to the same scrutiny.

 

[Wishful]

To put numbers into context, I'd guess that the average vet dealing with horses would see 50 to 100 horses pts or otherwise dead in a year (just leisure horses for things ranging from old age, heart failure, colic, laminitis, field accidents and the like).

 

[fburton]

How would you improve it?

Sorry for late reply - I've been away.

What would, in my opinion, improve the web page would be:

1) To include absolute numbers of fatalities as well as percentages. Nowhere on that page are total runners given, so it's harder than necessary to work out how many horses died than necessary (one would need to try and retrieve that info from somewhere else). Quoting low % figures gives the impression the problem is very small - which of course it is, relatively speaking. Quoting numbers acknowledges that ever life lost is a (potential) tragedy. Both should be included.

The statement "Over the past few decades, despite a substantial increase in the number of runners, the average number of fatalities in a year has decreased" cannot be accurately gauged without the actual figures. From the graph, it looks like the % rate of fatalities decreased slightly over the last decade and a half. Was there a "substantial increase" in runners over this period? If so, did the number of horses dying every year decrease, increase or stay the same? It's impossible to say without the actual figures. Since they are making the statement and have plotted a graph, they have the raw data (totals) and could easily provide a link to them in the form of a table or Excel spreadsheet.

2) What is the blue barchart and why is it there?? Sloppy, at best.

3) The pages says "General information on individual horses is publically available" and provides a link (via a FAQ section) to the Wetherbys website. However, it isn't obvious how to get at the information there. There is a "Statistical Services" page, but it isn't helpful. So how does one find the numbers about which "The Authority is thus open ..." (or claims to be)??

4) Someone should have proofread the page. The last sentence is a repeat of an earlier one and doesn't make sense where it is.

Minor criticisms, which wouldn't take much effort to put right.

 

[Miss L Toe]

Sorry, but I feel you are coming in with a lot of bias, tbh we could never have any comparative figures for horses born in the UK v horses which die, and some do die or at put down for economic necessity, I don't think it is helpful to take these figures and say "too many deaths" if racing were to be banned there would be many more deaths, and more horses struggling to survive in the face of recession hit owners.
Accidents happen, and will continue to happen, but believe me things have changed in the last 100 years and all for the better.

 

[Miss L Toe]

1) it's harder than necessary to work out how many horses died than necessary

Really, what you are saying is that horses in training should not be raced, in order to reduce fatalities on course to nil?

 

[fburton]

MrsD123, I may actually have less bias against racing as a whole than you have for it! I'm certainly not arguing for banning racing, although I am in favour of continually pressing for improvements in safety and welfare (as is the BHA).

Really, what you are saying is that horses in training should not be raced, in order to reduce fatalities on course to nil?

No, I'm not saying that at all! I simply would like to see the facts and figures myself, and have them freely and readily available, so that I and others can make up our own minds for ourselves in as full knowledge as possible.

 

[MadBlackLab]

I'd like to keep a 'Leisure Horse Deathwatch' and see how many horses have died this year from being over-fed and killed through kindness, fat horses gorging themselves on buckets of fancy feeds and unlimited grazing who eventually die a painful death through laminitis. QUOTE]

I can think of a few where my horses are kept that are under this especially as my horses not allowed any grass cause these are eating it all up

 

[Miss L Toe]

I simply would like to see the facts and figures myself, and have them freely and readily available, so that I and others can make up our own minds for ourselves in as full knowledge as possible.

That is what you are getting, you don't like it, so you then say "these are unnecessary deaths".
If we had 10 thousand horses living in one country, and only two horses died on the racing track, would that be acceptable to you?

 

[fburton]

That is what you are getting, you don't like it, so you then say "these are unnecessary deaths".
If we had 10 thousand horses living in one country, and only two horses died on the racing track, would that be acceptable to you?

It would be better than 4, obviously - and none would be better than two. To say a particular level of fatalities is "acceptable" courts complacency, but one has to be realistic. You wouldn't say two people dying in road traffic accidents every year is "acceptable" would you? But fatalities on the road are inevitable - unless you're going to ban cars altogether. What one can and should do is press for realistic and achievable improvements in safety wherever possible, and that principle applies equally validly to racing and other areas of equestrianism.

(Please note that I am not equating the value of human and horse life; I am saying the principle is the same.)

Are you against making the facts and figures readily available to everyone?

 

[Miss L Toe]

It would be better than 4, obviously - and none would be better than two. To say a particular level of fatalities is "acceptable" courts complacency, but one has to be realistic. You wouldn't say two people dying in road traffic accidents every year is "acceptable" would you? But fatalities on the road are inevitable - unless you're going to ban cars altogether. What one can and should do is press for realistic and achievable improvements in safety wherever possible, and that principle applies equally validly to racing and other areas of equestrianism.


Are you against making the facts and figures readily available to everyone?

Road fatalities and Air fatalities are "inevitable" in that there is a mathematical risk of death per thousands of miles, which is used to find whether the risk is "acceptable" or not, the only way to ensure you are not involved in a motorway accident is not to go on motorways [or fly over motorways], unfortunately the same journey by other UK roads will have higher risk of death.
The road authorities "accept" a certain level of deaths per thousands of miles, and I am sure you will find the stats somewhere if you look hard enough.
As has been pointed out, the BHA try hard to make the industry transparent, but you are never going to get racing banned in this country, and if you did you would drive it "underground" , it is not illegal to race horses on unlicenced courses... it goes on now all over the UK, [flapping, and harness racing]. No stats available.
The government tried to outlaw hunting, and looked what happened there, its more popular than ever!

 

[miss_bird]

QR as this subject really gets my back up.
OK very sadly i lost 5 horses last year and i only have 20 horses so that makes a percentage very much higher than those that die in racing every year and then you have a owner thats only had one horse and that dies so that owners death rate is 100% does that mean that none of us that have ever had a horse be allowed to own a horse again..
I have a extremely large vet bill due to the above, but that is nothing compared to the vet bills that trainers have on a near daily basis, race horses are probably one of the most well cared for horses around, better than most happy hackers.
Why cant people stop the crap about the racing industry and realise that accidents happen, just like if you trip over in the street its an accident thats why the word was invented to describe something that happens due to no-ones fault.
OK thats me stepping off my soap box

 

[fburton]

QR as this subject really gets my back up.
OK very sadly i lost 5 horses last year

Sorry to hear about your loss.

and i only have 20 horses so that makes a percentage very much higher than those that die in racing every year and then you have a owner thats only had one horse and that dies so that owners death rate is 100% does that mean that none of us that have ever had a horse be allowed to own a horse again..

I don't understand why you and MrsD123 keep on assuming that I want racing banned - I don't! I no longer enjoy it the way I used to in the 1980s, and therefore would probably not feel as bereft as you if it were, somehow, to stop happening. But a) it ain't going to happen and b) I am not arguing for that scenario here!

Why cant people stop the crap about the racing industry and realise that accidents happen,

Who is "people"? I accept that accidents happen. However, I also want to minimize the risk of accidents as far as practically possible - a goal I apparently share with the BHA. Don't you think that is a worthwhile goal? People who make a lot of noise about racing fatalities (which doesn't include me, although you seem to assume that I am a rabid activist for some reason) are of course a "nuisance" and perhaps "more than a bit nutty", but they are also "a good thing" because they keep the pressure on for improvements that reduce those fatalities. I assume you are also in favour of reducing fatalities as long as it doesn't significantly affect the character of the sport - unless you feel that horses getting injured and/or dying are an essential part of that character?? - which I am sure can't be the case. Would you have been perfectly happy to accept the status quo of the worse accident and fatality levels of, say, 50 years, believing that everything was fine as it was and there was (and still is) no room for improvement?