The ethics of riding

[Booboos]

A local show organiser, who puts on lectures and demos on a variety of topics, approached me this week with an idea to run a series of panel discussions on topics in the Ethics of Riding (I am philosopher and work in practical ethics so there is some overlap with my work).

Would people be interested in something like this?

Also, what kinds of topics would you like to see covered?

So far I have come up with:
Riding, equality and unfair advantages (to include doping issues)
Dressage: can an aesthetic sport be objectively judged?
Riding, an exclusive sport? (to include the recent debate over the Olympic status of equestrian disciplines)

 

[little_flea]

Very interesting. Something I find quite intriguing, is something non-riders often ask - is whether horse riding is ultimately cruel to the horse? Why do we feel it is acceptable to control and keep an animal to do such unnatural things?

Perhaps to some extent this is more a subject for the uninitiated, but I do think there are aspects of it that us riders could perhaps do well with examining and understanding a bit better.

Disclaimer - I am NOT a Parelli follower!

 

[Cliqmo]

Oooh I am adding this to my favourites as I would love it to turn into a full discussion!! ...sadly I have to nip off to work... I think a discussion about whether riding is ethical generally is interesting, let alone the ethics of competition

 

[Booboos]

That's great, thanks little_flea! I shall add a topic on the whole issue of using horses, acceptable uses, acceptable methods of training, acceptable methods of animal husbandry, etc. which should cover all sorts of interesting questions!

 

[ester]

agree with little flea and actually what I thought this post was on

 

[little_flea]

Booboos - can we discuss this here? I would love to hear your thoughts as a philiosopher on some of these topics!

 

[somethingorother]

Same here, i do think about it often as it's always the argument non-horsey people bring up. At the end of the day though i think if we strive to make our horses lives as natural as possible, perhaps sometimes it can even be a nicer life than living in the wild. Although who are we to i suppose. But as far as i can see not having to fight for your life all the time sounds better to me

knowing where your next meal is coming from, always having food and water and company and being kept fit and healthy. And at the end of it all a quick and dignified ending, not a lonely and painfully slow one as in the wild. That's what i think all good horse owners strive for and hopefully achieve for the most part.

There's my input for the 'discussion' which will hopefully form

 

[Booboos]

Sure!!!!

I don't have any amazingly well though-out ideas as I have only just thinking about this!

I suppose on the topic of using horses there are separate questions:

- Are there acceptable and unacceptable uses of horses? E.g. are there some uses of horses that go against their nature or are detrimental to their welfare or counter to what horses should be used for?
- Are there some ways of keeping horses that are unacceptable and why? What does a horse need to be happy?
- Training issues: which training methods are acceptable and why? Is there a role for punishment in training? Can an animal be trained using positive methods only? Which training methods are unacceptable and why? Do some training methods adversely affect the animal's physical or mental wellfare?

No answers I am afraid, but we quite like our questions in philosophy!!

 

[kerilli]

i thought that was what it was going to be about too. as an animal lover, i do wonder sometimes about the ethics of what i do. but then, my horses are very very well treated, they have idyllic lives really, they want for nothing, i never force them to do anything (well, tussles about going in the horsebox aside), and they seem to really enjoy what we do together - hacking out, jumping, xc etc.
they have far better lives than meat animals, imho.

 

[little_flea]

But what about riding? We no longer rely on horses to carry us long distances, we only ride them for fun. We ask them to perform complex tasks such as dressage and jumping - we ask them to obey our tiniest move. There is nothing natural about a horse showjumping a huge course of fences inside a big indoor "room", having been put into a noisy, bumpy, tiny box and dragged there. I know the arguments for dressage being based on movements the horse would normally conduct in the wild, but although we all strive for fun and harmony, how many horses have been trained without at some point feeling pressured, scared, uncomfortable? We are doing all of this to our horses for selfish reasons - not for the horse, ultimately.

 

[Booboos]

Just some general thoughts from the whole area of animal rights:

Appeal to nature: the problem with such arguments is that nature is quite cruel, so a natural life may well be a disease ridden, predated and short life. There is something intuitively appealing about the positive aspects of a natural life (e.g. turn-out) but it is not clear that the 'natural' is playing the positive role here.

Life vs death: setting aside thoughts about life after death, the worst thing about dying is the anticipation and the suffering associated with the dying process, both of which can be entirely managed in animals (not that they always are by any means, but they can be). So a swift, painless death with no warning does not seem to be as big a harm to an animal as it would be to a human being (who has a sense of the future and a dread of what is to come).

 

[stencilface]

QR

I do sometimes wonder about this, and as someone mentioned above, I think the payoff for their lack of freedom(although they obviously have little choice

) is the security, food, warmth and care. I think domestic and wild living for animals has both positives and negatives. I do question the ethics of some training methods in any sphere (rapping in jumping, rollkur in dressage for example) and think they can't be right really.

But then, as anyone with horses knows, and sometimes the lay man will have seen it when a horse refuses to leave the starting gates in a race, you truly cannot force a horse to do something it doesn't want - without inflicting extreme pain/hunger/thirst etc.

Slightly off topic but, wasn't there a case years back (could be an urban myth

) of a pigeon trained and made to work in a factory picking out odd buttons from a conveyor - in exchange for safety, food, warmth, water etc. When animal rights people claimed cruelty, so the pigeon was removed and a person replaced it?!

 

[saddlesore]

Imo my horse's quality of life has improved since he came to me. Know little of his history but he was very withrawn, very frightened and was crawling with lice

He has since learned (VERY slowly) that people are not out to get him and that human company can be both rewarding and enjoyable. He looks for me now and has attitude to life has totally changed. Still got a long way to go on the riding front but he is much happier now and that makes me really proud!

 

[little_flea]

Kerilli, I wonder too. I THINK that my horses are happy, but of course there are arguments with them. My experiences SJ mare stopped at a box filler, pretending to be spooked by it, I immediately told her off as she needs to do what I tell her and work with me, not against me... the very skewed logic of this statement...?

And yes, our horses are probably happy to do some of the work we ask them to do, but surely that is because through generations of breeding, that is the only thing they know? There are often discussions about the cruelty of dog breeding and "made up# breeds - pugs and their breathing problems, bulldogs who can't give birth because their hips are too narrow - yet we breed horses for performance and end up with nutty WB's that can't be handled by amateurs, TBs with horrible feet etc...

We have taken control of the future of these animals, and we keep trying to shape horses to suit our purposes. Is this really right?

 

[somethingorother]

That's another thing we strive for isn't it? Happy horses in well fitting tack. The consensus on here is usually to try and find ways of understanding the reasons why if a horse seems unhappy in his work. Obviously it's not natural but i think some horses do enjoy the mental stimulation of schooling if it is done right and using sympathetic training methods rather than forceful ones. Also i'm positive that most of them seem to enjoy hacking out.

Again, i believe that a lot of people strive for a working partnership that can be enjoyable for the horse. Although obviously there are far too many that don't.

Disclaimer- i am sounding like a parelli nut but i'm not!!!

 

[DaveS]

What about exploring the money of the sport? For instance, a rich, but significantly less talented person has a much greater chance of reaching the top of the sport than someone who has done years and years of hard slog to often find themselves being groom to those that are better off.

Money is also a big welfare issue... for instance betting on horses. In racing, jockeys are often put under significant pressure not to draw-up their horse... even if they know it is lame/suffering. Doing so, whilst possibly winning the trainer's respect certainly does not improve further job opportunities.

 

[wench]

if horses hated being ridden they would chuck you off. And as for "ethics" of it... horses have been ridden for thousands of years, and therefore have been bred for it. If you turned them all loose, how many would survive?

 

[Flame_]

What about every time any of us have kicked a lazy horse or worse, a horse being stuffy due to unknown discomfort?

What about every time we smack a nappy horse to train it that its not acceptable and it needs to learn to go forward?

Is the whole "pressure/release when they do as we ask" way of training tight in itself during the moment the pressure's on?

It might not be damaging to the horse, or even painful, but it is a way of making them damn uncomfortable if they don't learn to do what we want.

But they have to have a job in the world to carry on being bred. They're too big and expensive to exist as pets. Should they just be meat animals instead? I don't think wild horses would survive and evolve all that long on our over-populated little island.

Horses put up with our crap and live with having to do something for us, and they get to live pretty happy lives. For the most part its not that bad of a system really.

I'm still undecided about competition, its just more pressure, I suppose. The higher they can jump, the faster they can run, the more their value - the more they're supposed to owe us. If they fail to live up to their value, then its better to shoot them than to dump them. Its all a bit of a shame.

 

[angela_l_b]

Temple Grandin's book (Making animals happy) is very interesting on this subject. I will have to dig it out to remember exactly her points. She describes horses as 'high-fear' animals which are highly reactive (don't we know it), but yet can also be stimulated by curiosity. When we ask them to work for us, ideally we should stimulate their curiosity by keeping them interested (I think most of us try to make a schooling session fun, and this is why). Equally they have instincts to run, jump, stay with the herd, and all of these can be channelled into cross country, hunting, racing, etc.

The alternative is to use their fear response and try to frighten them into doing what we want, which most of us tend to think is generally counter productive (although you could argue that the odd smack with a stick etc does work, if introduced carefully and not over used).

My point, I suppose, is that by understanding what stimulates a horse for good or bad we can work with their natural instincts to make them 'happy' and avoid making them fearful, whether what we are doing is natural or not. This seems to me to make riding ethical, as long as we accept that it is not precisely natural.

 

[teddyt]

One thing that is highly debatable with regards to ethics is that anyone can own a horse.

A horse may be fed, watered and recieve shelter and companionship but i would argue there is far more to welfare than that. Several questions-

Is it ethical that people resort to more tack/gadgets, etc before trying to understand exactly WHY a horse is behaving how it is?

Is it ethical for a horse to get hit with a whip because it neighs/is scared of something/wont go where we want it to every single time?

Is it ethical that people over-feed or under-feed their animals to the point of illness?

Is it ethical that a horse can be in discomfort or pain on a daily basis because an owner cant afford to buy a new saddle?

Is it ethical that a rider can continually give a horse mixed signals via their riding and then the horse gets hit with a whip because it has guessed the wrong response. Think about it- this hapens all the time!

I could go on and on....

 

[angela_l_b]

The things in your list seem to be ethically dubious - in fact it is pretty obvious they are plain wrong. My point was that by understanding the horse and what he is telling us, we can communicate the right way, press the right buttons and get the response we want without causing him discomfort or fear. If this is possible, then we could argue that riding is not an unethical thing to do.

Without this understanding, there are of course any number of wrong and cruel things that can happen to a horse.

Agree entirely about anyone being able to own a horse, although on the whole I believe it to be less of a problem than other animals. My reasoning here is that most people have to keep their horses in livery, which means they have contact with and access to others with more experience - and most people aren't deliberately cruel and are willing to learn. Whereas anyone can get a dog or cat and keep it at home with no expert advice whatsoever.

 

[teddyt]

Maybe it is less of a problem than with other animals but you could also say that cats are much easier to look after than horses.

As to most people not being deliberately cruel- Love is not a substutute for knowledge.

However you would find it very hard to persuade people that not understanding horse behaviour is unethical! I totally agree wih you but people just dont care. i read post after post on here that if someone had learnt how to communicate FIRST then pain/illness/injury/'bad' behaviour would not have happened.

Much horse owership is shutting the door after the horse has bolted really. Wouldnt it be great if you hadto have a licence to own a horse! it will neve happen but a wonderful thought that people might actually try to understand horse behaviour and management BEFORE they buy a horse.

 

[angela_l_b]

Agree about love not being a substitute - but at least it means that if a mistake is pointed out by someone who knows better, most of us are keen to learn.

Which really is the problem with ownership, isn't it? It takes an awfully long time to be a sympathetic rider and knowledgeable owner - what about the mistakes that you make along the way as you are learning? The way a complete novice rides lacks understanding and causes physical discomfort, yet she has to carry on to learn how to do it well. Equally a novice owner might miss a lameness or feed badly etc.

Are these learner mistakes acceptable to produce a good rider and horse owner who might give many horses good lives in the future?

Or do we say that only someone with a wealth of experience already can have or look after a horse, making it very difficult to reach this point of expertise without a horse to practise on?

 

[little_flea]

Wench - it is not as simple as that though - a certain type of horse would chuck you off if they didn't want you to ride it, but most of them have probably just resigned to the fact that that's their life. That is the way the have been trained and the way their nurture has shapen them. Does that make it better? I don't think that horses can suffer from Stockholm syndrome, but humans can certainly adapt to and even feel fond of appalling conditions and life situations. The victim falls in love with their kidnapper rather than trying to kill them, etc. (I know this is an extreme example and I am talking about humans here, but hopefully this illustrates a point). I think saying that a horse would chuck you off if it didn't want to be ridden is putting some of the responsibility of the horse's wellfare on to the horse itself, and I don't think it is that simple.

 

[Flame_]

I think you're spot on little-flea. It bugs me when people claim horses love their jobs and wouldn't do it if they didn't want to. It takes so much pain or pressure for a genuine horse, which the vast majority are, to say no once it knows its job. It's just not their nature to be dis-obedient.

 

[little_flea]

teddy, Angela, Flame - IMO, some of the things in the list above (over feeding, painful tack etc) are easily categorised I think, as unethical. But what about the grey areas such as:

• You own an expensive competition horse who enjoys his job. The horse pratts about when turned out and it is too valuable to get injured, so the horse is never turned out. it is well looked after in all other ways and exercised properly. is this unethical?

• An experienced competition horse with lots of winnings is sold to a new rider and they have teething problems in the beginning, the horse doesn't want to work very hard for its rider, maybe it stops on fences it would normally have jumped, maybe it refuses to go forward enough or doesn't do some of the movements it can do well if it is a dressage horse. Basically, the horse is testing the limits of how much work it will have to do. Should the new rider (if there is no problem with their riding and any physical problems with the horse are excluded) establish the hierarchy by being harder and stricter on the horse to get it working properly? What if the choice is between the horse "being put in its place" a bit (something that may involve some form of "punishment") and a horse that dominates its rider and decides what it wants to do? What if the positive reinforcement approach doesn't work? I think we have all come across instances where spftly softly just doesn't do it...

 

[angela_l_b]

In grey areas such as these, I guess (from a philosophical point of view) you have to create a set of measurement criteria which allow you to assess if they are unethical / cruel or not - so that each example is measured by the same standards. These could include measuring aspects of the case such as:

1. Does the horse exhibit classic signs of distress (known stable vices, for example - I am sure there are more such as not eating or 'rebelling').

2. Are there possible methods that could be used to alleviate any distress, and have they been tried?

3. What, on balance, is the ultimate outcome in terms of horse welfare of using a drastic method (e.g. 24/7 stabling, which may cause distress / vices) versus the alternative (e.g. turning out, which has a likelihood of injury, and therefore potential pain, retirement, uncertain future for the horse)?

Any other possibles?

Personally I agree that sometimes you have to be a bit stricter to get the result you want - you could say in ethical terms that this is necessary to enable the horse to give you the result you want, meaning you will be willing to give it a good quality of life and care rather than passing it on becasue you can't cope.

A further consideration is human safety. Most of us would probably say sod the ethics! - if it comes to keeping a big snorting dangerous horse compared with one that could have been controlled with firmer handling. Again, firm handling in the short term is probably for the horse's good in the long term - a horse that is labelled dangerous will go to a succession of worse and worse homes until it is pts or sold for meat. Surely a smack or two is preferable?

 

[Natch]

What a brilliant subject!

I would add:

The racehorse industry (don't think anyone has mentioned it specifically) and the throw-away attitude to those animals.

The management of successful stallions at stud: on the one hand, getting laid every 5 minutes sounds like heaven, but what about the conditions they are kept in: solitary confinement, limited turnout etc. Is it ethical to keep a stallion as a breeding machine?

Breeding in general: particularly indiscriminate vs selective breeding, with reference to the dog industry in particular.

Living conditions: stables are cages etc etc.

The distinction between a meat horse and a pleasure/working horse: can we ethically cross that divide and turn a meat horse into a riding horse? What about the other way around? Does it even matter?

Too much, waaay too much to include in one lecture, but I would start it off with the ultimate question of is it ethical to domesticate horses? To breed, keep and train them for human pleasure or gain?

 

[Cliqmo]

I knew this would get interesting!

How about the ethics of bitting and the use of additional aids to get the best response? What I mean by this is 3 fold:

Professional riders using pelhams, grackles and spurs when ridng- surely if the relationship was accomplished and truly 'harmonious' the horse could be ridden in the simplest tack?

Riders using aids that force certain actions, like keeping the head down, the mouth shut or pain to encouage/deter behaviour?

Finally whether putting a big bit in the mouth of a little pony in order to feel safe letting the child ride them... children are rarely accomplished or sensitive riders and ultimately the horse, if really terrified, would run through the pain in their mouth anyway?

 

[Booboos]

Thanks for all the ideas guys! (sorry I was away, I had a lesson, but have read up on everything!).

For those who mentioned that there are quite a few ideas for one lecture, I completely agree!! I'll try to arrange a little programme of possible issues for the organiser to chose from and if the first one is a success, we could well do another one.

I will try to come up with a series of questions for each topic (as this will be a panel discussion and we want to stimulate as much audience participation as possible, rather than one person speaking for 45 minutes!), if anyone is interested PM me and I will send you a copy.