The 2012 racing season has now killed 50 horses!!

cptrayes said:
The problem that I have with that Alec, is that the risks are not yours. They are the horse's.
Click to expand...

The horse is my property. I have the right to make those decisions which affect both of us, just as you and O2Y do. Do you own a horse, and do you ride? Do I lecture you about the risks that you run? Do I interfere in your life? NO, so please be good enough to resist the temptation to interfere in mine.

Alec.
 
As I was the one who initially responded to O2Ys post I do think it is time it was put to bed. I really dont think that anybody is going to change her narrow-minded point of view and that we are all wasting our time and energy in trying!
 
Alec Swan said:
The horse is my property. I have the right to make those decisions which affect both of us,
Click to expand...

This statement is key Alex. I do not see horses as property. What money I pay for them seems to me to be a kind of "rent" that I hand over for the right to have responsibility over their lives and involvement in it.

As long as some people see their horses as property and others view them as something else entirely, these arguments will continue to happen.

If a stranger shot a horse in cold blood, but humanely, this is, in law "criminal damage", no more. Most people would be outraged for that crime to be considered a low level public order offence. But that is what is meant when horses are described as "property", which they are in law.

I am a long, long distance from you emotionally on this one and so, I think, are most horse owners and this seem to me to be right at the core of the lack of understanding between the two sides of the NH racing argument.
 
Last edited:
Merry Crisis said:
Good god, I used to think you were of a sound mind, having read all your ridiculous posts, my rather sound mind has changed in my opinion of you.
Click to expand...

If that is so, then your opinion of me is of no interest to me, especially as I do not even know who you are and. as far as I am aware, you have never met me in person.

If you wish to consider your horse as "property" so be it. It will never be in my nature to do so. I fail to understand how a live creature, who could, if it chose, walk away at any time, can ever be considered, except in pure law, "property".

I'm reasonably sure that most of the horse owners in this country will be with me on this one, and not with you.
 
Alec Swan said:
The horse is my property. I have the right to make those decisions which affect both of us, just as you and O2Y do. Do you own a horse, and do you ride? Do I lecture you about the risks that you run? Do I interfere in your life? NO, so please be good enough to resist the temptation to interfere in mine.

Alec.
Click to expand...

'The horse is my property', I have to say, the way that read really jarred on me.

True it is, people do 'own' animals.

Isn't there a little something extra between people and their animals though.

Are you racing because you enjoy racing, or racing only to win because you enjoy winning.

Is the desire to win that great that you would kill him trying?

I like racing, but If you are going to race, shouldn't you minimise the risks for your horse, and isn't that what all the rules and policing should be about.
 
cptrayes & Pale Rider,

I'm genuinely lost for words!! :D

I'm struggling to find a way of telling you that you're both completely bonkers, without it sounding offensive, because that isn't my intent, but I do honestly wonder if you live in a real world. Perhaps your world is real, perhaps it's just different. ;):D

This conversation really has degenerated into the realms of farce. By all means have the last word, you've earned that right!

Alec.
 
cptrayes said:
I do not see horses as property. What money I pay for them seems to me to be a kind of "rent" that I hand over for the right to have responsibility over their lives and involvement in it.

As long as some people see their horses as property and others view them as something else entirely, these arguments will continue to happen.
Click to expand...
I had a look to see what was going on on this post, to find that it had brought out some extreme viewpoints, I agree with cptrayes, and I think that most animal lovers would take the same view. It is a privilege to "own" an animal, they give us so much pleasure, it is our responsibility to give them a good home in return.
 
Last edited:
I despair of any horse sports really.They are all corrupt and abusive and the higher up you get the more this is.I watched enough ponies AND children being beaten up behind the scenes at affiliated showjumping shows in front of blind stewards and it still makes me angry.One man nearly knocked his 13 year old daughter off her feet he hit her so hard across the face.I was told that it was OK because he had spent a lot of money on her ponies.Says it all really doesn't it?
 
One man nearly knocked his 13 year old daughter off her feet he hit her so hard across the face.I was told that it was OK because he had spent a lot of money on her ponies.Says it all really doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Did you call the police?
 
That sort of thing went on so commonly I would never have been off the phone!! No one would have seen it even though he did it in front of the ring in full view of everyone and there was no youtube in those days.Also I would have been in some danger believe you me!
 
eahotson said:
That sort of thing went on so commonly I would never have been off the phone!! No one would have seen it even though he did it in front of the ring in full view of everyone and there was no youtube in those days.Also I would have been in some danger believe you me!
Click to expand...

So you witnessed a viscous assault on a 13 year old child, and did nothing about it?

Shocking.
 
Whether you view horses as property or not is a mute point, it is just a word. Somebody can describe themselves as an owner, custodian, keeper, renter, carer of their horse...take your pick....but it is all about the choices that we make for them.
Somebody who describes themselves as a ‘renter’ of a horse can just as easily make poor choices in the care of their horse as somebody who describes themselves as an owner of said property!
 
Dab said:
Whether you view horses as property or not is a mute point, it is just a word. Somebody can describe themselves as an owner, custodian, keeper, renter, carer of their horse...take your pick....but it is all about the choices that we make for them.
Somebody who describes themselves as a ‘renter’ of a horse can just as easily make poor choices in the care of their horse as somebody who describes themselves as an owner of said property!
Click to expand...
True, however to say another living creature as your property brings with it certain 'rights' to do as we wish as some have expressed. This is a double edged sword because in that case we have no reason to interfere in cases of overt abuse or neglect.
There is the implication that once something is your property you can do as you wish with it and it is no business of anyone else. This is either the case or it isn't. Some it seems wish to pick and choose when it suits them.
My way out of this is not to view my horses as my 'property' even though I legally own them. My house however is my property.
 
luckyoldme said:
I have just read Pale Riders post and it touched on the age of these horses when they first race.
There have been threads on here where many members were outraged when people were shown to be backing or working horses too young. I thought that it was generally accepted that a horse may be backed and then turned away to mature at three years old.. maybe moving on to light work at four.
How then can a tb race at two?
Ive never seen a thread address this issue and would be interested to know if those within the raceworld approve of this .. and no im not spoiling for a fight . I just don t get why the backing of any other horse at two would be a sin.
Click to expand...

From what I understand (and I might be wrong) I think that racehorses that are raced at two are given a huge amount of protein in their diets to help produce top line and to enable them to be raced. And the jockeys are very light so this is why they are able to be raced. But as we all know their bones are not formed by this time, their joints are not too.

Here is some very interesting information from WEBER TRAINING STABLES.COM

The Schedule of Growth Plate Conversion to Bone.

The process of growth plates converting to bone goes from the bottom of the animal up.

The growth plate at the top of the coffin bone, the most distal bone of the limb, is fused at birth. This means it gets no taller after birth but does get larger around, through another mechanism. After that the growth plates fuse as follows:
Short pastern - top and bottom between birth and 6 months.
Long pastern - top and bottom between 6 months and one year.
Cannon bone - top and bottom between 8 months and 1.5 years
Small bones of the knee - top and bottom of each, between 1.5 and 2.5 years
Bottom of radius-ulna - between 2 and 2.5 years
Weight-bearing portion of glenoid notch at top of radius - between 2.5 and 3 years
Humerus - top and bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years
Scapula - glenoid or bottom (weight-bearing) portion – between 3.5 and 4 years
Hindlimb - lower portions same as forelimb
Hock - this joint is "late" for as low down as it is; growth plates on the tibial and fibular tarsals don't fuse until the animal is four (so the hocks are a known "weak point" - even the 18th-century literature warns against driving young horses in plow or other deep or sticky footing, or jumping them up into a heavy load, for danger of spraining their hocks).
Tibia - top and bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years
Femur - bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years; neck, between 2.5 and 3 years; major and 3rd trochanters, between 2.5 and 3 years
Pelvis - growth plates on the points of hip, peak of croup (tubera sacrale), and points of buttock (tuber ischii), between 3 and 4 years.
The vertebral column is last. A normal horse has 32 vertebrae between the back of the skull and the root of the dock, and there are several growth plates on each one, the most important of which is the one capping the centrum. These do not fuse until the horse is at least 5 ½ years old. The taller the horse and the longer its neck, the later the last fusions will occur. Fusions in male horses generally take up to an additional 6 months.
Significance of the Closure Schedule for Injuries to Back and Neck vs. Limbs.
The lateness of vertebral "closure" is most significant for two reasons. One: in no limb are there 32 growth plates! Two: the growth plates in the limbs are (more or less) oriented perpendicular to the stress of the load passing through them, while those of the vertebral chain are oriented parallel to weight placed upon the horse's back. Bottom line: you can sprain a horse's back a lot more easily than you can displace those located in the limbs.
 
cptrayes said:
This statement is key Alex. I do not see horses as property.

I am a long, long distance from you emotionally on this one and so, I think, are most horse owners and this seem to me to be right at the core of the lack of understanding between the two sides of the NH racing argument.
Click to expand...

I don't see horses as property either. As the poem "I'll lend to you a little while a horse of mine God said" they are on 'loan' to us, we are very priviledged to have them in our lives and we should treat them as well as we can whilst we are luck enough to have them.

Alex, without being rude to him is probably a very nice person, I can only surmise this as I have never met him. But he does seem to be a very typical 'country person' insomuch as he is certainly not over sentimental in his outlook towards animals. I know this from the post I put about the magpie in the larson trap. He would never have considered this to be a sad way to treat a bird, yet many people on the forum did and voiced their opinions in support of my post. The same way he is very supportive of racing and see's horses as 'taking their chances' whereas some of us think that it is sad that they have to risk their lives in order to give us enjoyment.

It is very difficult trying to show someone who is not of your way of thinking a different way, as it would be for Alex to make me realise his way of thinking is right. I guess its good to have a healthy discussion so long as things don't get too personal, and it is (as I know from the larson post) very difficult not to get personal over things.
 
amandap said:
True, however to say another living creature as your property brings with it certain 'rights' to do as we wish as some have expressed. This is a double edged sword because in that case we have no reason to interfere in cases of overt abuse or neglect.
There is the implication that once something is your property you can do as you wish with it and it is no business of anyone else. This is either the case or it isn't. Some it seems wish to pick and choose when it suits them.
My way out of this is not to view my horses as my 'property' even though I legally own them. My house however is my property.
Click to expand...

Semantics surely?

Whether a horse is deemed as property, there is no implication that it will be less well cared for or the right to step in if they are not are taken away. Abuse and neglect are dealt with in the same way and if the 5 basic welfare needs are not met they will be dealt with acordingly.
 
Last edited:
Dab said:
Semantics surely?
Click to expand...
I don't agree.
It's an underlying attitude (mind set) towards horses. Humans who are/were the property of other humans are called slaves. Everything done to slaves was justified because they were the 'property' of the owner to do with as they wish.
My horses are not my slaves/property... just trying to get my point clearer.
Perhaps you are the property of your parents or employer? If the word property is no longer acceptable between human relationships why is it still acceptable between humans and other animals/living creatures? Do you put animals beneath us humans as so many others do including outdated laws? Perhaps this is where the difference is?
The word 'property' in this context carries a meaning of a right to do anything we wish in any way we see fit imo, I don't believe we have that as a right over another animal.
 
amandap said:
I don't agree.
It's an underlying attitude (mind set) towards horses. Humans who are/were the property of other humans are called slaves. Everything done to slaves was justified because they were the 'property' of the owner to do with as they wish.
My horses are not my slaves/property... just trying to get my point clearer.
Perhaps you are the property of your parents or employer? If the word property is no longer acceptable between human relationships why is it still acceptable between humans and other animals/living creatures? Do you put animals beneath us humans as so many others do including outdated laws? Perhaps this is where the difference is?
The word 'property' in this context carries a meaning of a right to do anything we wish in any way we see fit imo, I don't believe we have that as a right over another animal.
Click to expand...

It is just a word (and you can choose for it to carry that context if you wish) but isn't it rather the actions of people that count and the choices that they make? Labeling in any context does not appear to be helpful in moving any arguement forward.
 
Last edited:
amymay said:
So you witnessed a viscous assault on a 13 year old child, and did nothing about it?

Shocking.
Click to expand...

.OK the assault occured in frront of the ENTIRE showground RIGHT outside the ring.It was a large BSJA show.The child made a mistake in the ring, froze and glanced at her father.She finished her round came out the ring dismounted from her pony and her father struck her across the face.No youtube, no mobile phones, no witnesses ha ha because y what was good for them, this was a very wealthy man. I could also have been in personal danger.The child wouldn't have testified.What whould you have done??? If you are implying that it didn't happen because I didn't report it saddly you are wrong.At another show in front of the stewards I saw one mother holding a pony while her child repetedly kicked it in the stomache.AT ANOTHER SOMEONE WAS RIDING A HORSE ROUND REPEATEDLY WHIPPING IT.wHEN i VOICED CONCERN I was told to shut up.In that bastion of wooly minded reporting the Horse and Hound one judge (about 2 years ago) there was a child very overhorsed in the show ring and clearly terrified.She heard the mother say Get a smile on your face or I will smack one on for you!!! Just because this doesn;t fit your world vision doesn't mean it doesn't happen.If you wish I will email you the name of the then child concerned along with the name of a large show jumping team a friend of mine worked for.They taught their horses never to stop by setting up a couple of jumps at a distance the horse couldnt make.When it stopped they pasted it until it wet itself.I can show you how to sweeten ponies that are stopping because they don't trust their riders but I don't think you would want to know.
 
Just rewinding back prior to these last few post about the struck child......

debating the concept of ownership, guardianship etc......
Pulp Fiction moment!
For me the debate has gone full circle back to what I percieve to be the crux of the OP's issues - that of Animal Rights!
and I'm sorry to say that despite the fact I love and respect animals, the Animal Rights brigade bring about a fingers in ears lalalalalalalalala response from me.
 
I've just found this thread - to great amusement. A couiple of points:

1. I agree with those who say that every time we ride/drive a horse - or turn it out in a field - we accept responsibility for that action. If the horse is hurt, accident or not, we could say it's our fault because we tamed the horse and use it for our own purpose. Horses in the wild aren't ridden, driven, petted or pampered. If they are hurt or captured by a predator and eaten, that is nature.

2. I believe it is far more cruel for a horse to spend most of its days in a relatively small field, knee-deep in mud in winter or covered with flies in summer, or alternatively stabled 23 hours a day, than it is for a horse to risk injury or death through racing or any other equestrian sport, including hacking. Old or infirm horses whose owners will not put them down suffer even more: it is far better to put them to sleep before all quality of life goes.

3. If we didn't ride/drive/compete/race horses, there wouldn't be any. How many wild horses are left? Who would be prepared to provide expensive land and feed and care for horses just to look at them in a field - or a zoo?

4. I wonder if OTY and others on this thread who say they have ex-racehorses ever considered that without racing, they wouldn't have their horse.
 
Marciamac said:
I've just found this thread - to great amusement.
Click to expand...

I'm amused that it starts adressing race horse deaths and ends debatting a child that got smacked round the face. How did that happen!

OTY states horse racing is purely to satisfy the greedy and selfish (or something like that, it was a billion pages ago now). Don't tar everyone with that brush! As in every sport you are likely to get some people that are greedy or selfish but a large number care about the sport.

My dad has a share in a racehorse. He has given a lot of money for a 2 year old that will hardly race much this year (maiden race coming up) and knows he is not likely to see much, if any financial gain but he enjoys the sport and loves his little baby horse!
 
*puts hand up* Can I ask a question?

Sorry if it's already been asked, but I skipped the past few pages 'cos I was nodding off.

Before the hunting ban was brought in, I asked a nice RSPCA lady in Exeter High Street, who wanted me to sign her clever petition, what was going to happen to all the redundant hounds once the ban was enacted. She told me (and I think, though I can't be sure, that she might have told me a little porky) with a triumphant smile on her face:

'We've found homes for them'.

I pointed out that, since Battersea and other homes like it were bursting at the seams with doggies looking for new families, I found it intriguing that they'd managed to home entire packs of hounds. She changed the subject.

So, my question here, because I wouldn't want to be accused of deflecting the argument and the OP seems to be suggesting we ban racing, because it's the only way to stop racehorses dying whilst taking part in racing (or training for racing), is:

What happens to all the racehorses once racing is banned?

Thank you :)

PS I apologise in advance for any grammatical errors which may have occurred in the writing of this post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top