The 'Grand' National?

LittleRooketRider said:
Thats not what I meant, but it does swing both ways.

TBH although I woud love all healthy horses to live out their life and I personally couldn't/wouldn't send a horse to abattoir I don't thibk this is a problem as generally (despite the sensationalism of press over a few disreputabe abattoirs) the animals are dealt with humanely.

I am not denying there are issues in either the racing industry or abattoirs, but I will not agree that it is inherently cruel.
Click to expand...

Whereas I feel that sending perfectly fit, healthy animals to a slaughterhouse is problematic, no matter how 'humanely' they are dealt with - and in the main I would like to believe it is done with as little stress as possible - because ultimately this decision costs the animal thier life ... for no reason other than they do not provide sufficient entertainment value for a day at the races, or they are simply surplus to requirements. Someone made the decision to breed that horse, other people made the decision to buy it, house it, train and compete with it. That horse has provided entertainment for some, and a livelihood for others. And then all those people can turn their backs, and walk away with a clear conscience. To me that is the cruelty inherent in horse racing (andto a greater or lesser extent other equestrian sports). There are of course other welfare issues within horse racing, as have been previously mentioned in this thread.
 
tess1 said:
Whereas I feel that sending perfectly fit, healthy animals to a slaughterhouse is problematic, no matter how 'humanely' they are dealt with - and in the main I would like to believe it is done with as little stress as possible - because ultimately this decision costs the animal thier life ... for no reason other than they do not provide sufficient entertainment value for a day at the races, or they are simply surplus to requirements. …….. .
Click to expand...

So how would that differ from the sheep and the cattle which I breed? Do you feel that somehow horses are any different from any other breed of animal which man produces?

Alec.
 
tess1 said:
or they are simply surplus to requirements. Someone made the decision to breed that horse, other people made the decision to buy it, house it, train and compete with it. That horse has provided entertainment for some, and a livelihood for others. And then all those people can turn their backs, and walk away with a clear conscience.
Click to expand...

Far better a quick humane end then than seeing the horse go downhill and from pillar to post as it gets shipped around trying to find the perfect home which in all likelihood does not exist except in pink fluffy cloud land which is somewhere over the rainbow. We've all seen adverts from yards springing up dealing with cheap TBs out of racing and not always good yards either but the local horsey girl trying to make a quick buck; fine if they are experienced with horses newly out of racing but can be a disaster for the horse if they're not experienced enough to cope.
If something (and I include animals in this) is surplus to requirements then you move it on; if this is an animal then it behoves you to do the best for that animal; if you think the best thing for that animal is putting down then put it down humanely but don't wash your hands of it so it goes to umpteen low end sales or is neglected as that is not what a racing fit animal is used to, it would find it very hard to cope and deteriorate rapidly. At all times, the horse should come first and you should not have to answer to the anti slaughter brigade just because you want to do the decent thing for it.
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
So how would that differ from the sheep and the cattle which I breed? Do you feel that somehow horses are any different from any other breed of animal which man produces?

Alec.
Click to expand...

Do you feel that thoroughbreds are bred to be slaughtered?

If people in this country felt that horses were the same as cattle or sheep we would all be tucking into horse burgers on the bbq this weekend. Balthazar King would be renamed Burger King and there would be jokes about spare ribs.
 
tess1 said:
If people in this country felt that horses were the same as cattle or sheep we would all be tucking into horse burgers on the bbq this weekend. Balthazar King would be renamed Burger King and there would be jokes about spare ribs.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I shouldn't laugh but that made me chuckle!
 
Maesfen said:
Far better a quick humane end then than seeing the horse go downhill and from pillar to post as it gets shipped around trying to find the perfect home which in all likelihood does not exist except in pink fluffy cloud land which is somewhere over the rainbow. We've all seen adverts from yards springing up dealing with cheap TBs out of racing and not always good yards either but the local horsey girl trying to make a quick buck; fine if they are experienced with horses newly out of racing but can be a disaster for the horse if they're not experienced enough to cope.
If something (and I include animals in this) is surplus to requirements then you move it on; if this is an animal then it behoves you to do the best for that animal; if you think the best thing for that animal is putting down then put it down humanely but don't wash your hands of it so it goes to umpteen low end sales or is neglected as that is not what a racing fit animal is used to, it would find it very hard to cope and deteriorate rapidly. At all times, the horse should come first and you should not have to answer to the anti slaughter brigade just because you want to do the decent thing for it.
Click to expand...

Far better a quick humane end then than seeing the horse go downhill and from pillar to post as it gets shipped around trying to find the perfect home ....

Far better to breed less, breed higher quality, and put in place a way to collect revenue from everyone connected to the racing industry in some way from breeders to owners to punters to ensure that these horses have a safe and happy retirement. Not to mention the extra jobs it would create for staff to care for these retirees - imagine the PR for racing, imagine the revenue from people coming to visit their old favourites on open days, imagine British Racing leading the equestrian world in terms of welfare of its athletes ...

or let's just keep on thinking of ways to justify killing them.
 
All horses will die at some point. It is what happens to them between birth and death that is important and that death is humane.
It is far more humane to put a horse down that is surplus to requirements and not suitable for rehoming than to allow it to suffer from the hands of the many numpties that want to rescue them so that they get passed from pillar to post in a downward spiral. Yes, some do make very good riding animals but there are others that would be a total nightmare to handle or ride by non professionals and it would be ridiculous to even try because someone or them could get badly hurt.
 
I have no issue with TBs going to slaughter.

The issue I have is how many that did end up there did so by way of bin end markets and less than perfect owners along the way.
 
Maesfen said:
All horses will die at some point. It is what happens to them between birth and death that is important and that death is humane.
It is far more humane to put a horse down that is surplus to requirements and not suitable for rehoming than to allow it to suffer from the hands of the many numpties that want to rescue them so that they get passed from pillar to post in a downward spiral. Yes, some do make very good riding animals but there are others that would be a total nightmare to handle or ride by non professionals and it would be ridiculous to even try because someone or them could get badly hurt.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, that is why I mentioned the retirees looking after by trained staff, and re-homing through specialised charities funded through the racing industry, where experienced people can make the appropirate decisions regarding each horse as an individual.
 
ester said:
I have no issue with TBs going to slaughter.

The issue I have is how many that did end up there did so by way of bin end markets and less than perfect owners along the way.
Click to expand...


So maybe the racing industry should look seriously at tightening up accountability of owners - ie, those that owned the horse at the time their racing career ended.
 
I think it is difficult because if all the owners sent their horses straight to slaughter there would likely be out cry about not giving them a chance when they can be pretty good at other sports too, though equally there are only so many owners that will suit or want an OTTB but how do you create a capture net for the ones that fall through? I'd worry that some sort of funding that followed them after racing would just be crying out to be taken advantage of by those less scrupulous.
 
tess1 said:
So maybe the racing industry should look seriously at tightening up accountability of owners - ie, those that owned the horse at the time their racing career ended.
Click to expand...

The thing is we don't hold owners of any other horse accountable for where their horses end up. I know many (non-tb) breeders who will have a horse put down once it is no longer capable of breeding. There are people who come onto this forum to say 'I can no longer compete my horse and can't afford another unless he is gone' to receive plenty of responses along the lines of 'shoot the old one and get a new one if you want to compete.' To be honest that shocks me way more than the owner of a recehorse doing similar as they are way more detached from their horse emotionally than a one horse owner giving day to day care to their horse.

We dont ensure that hobby riders don't sell or dispose of their horse in an inappropriate manner so why should we do so to anybody else. It's a matter of personal conscience.
We have 2 lovely ex racehorses at home who will both be with us until their dying day but some just are not suitable for rehoming.
 
tess1 said:
Far better to breed less, breed higher quality
Click to expand...

While that comment is definitely true for some areas of horse breeding I don't think it applies to racing, in many cases they are trying to breed the best quality but there is no guarantee that fantastic bloodlines guarantee speed and talent. There are many cases of full brothers and sister to champions who are useless. One of mine is by a NH stallion who's progeny are fetching incredible prices in the sales rings but he's was still too slow to even enter in a race.

As there are no guarantees even if you put the best to the best there will always be many that don't make the grade.

ETA not saying it's right or wrong just commenting on how the nature of trying to breed a winner is not a science and lends itself to surplus horses.
 
Last edited:
Bottoms up!

20150414_122205_zpsapxhhqje.jpg


Sorry random interlude!

As to only breeding the best the old saying goes that by crossing the best with the best you are only increasing your chance of getting a good horse not guaranteeing it.
 
ester said:
I think it is difficult because if all the owners sent their horses straight to slaughter there would likely be out cry about not giving them a chance when they can be pretty good at other sports too, though equally there are only so many owners that will suit or want an OTTB but how do you create a capture net for the ones that fall through? I'd worry that some sort of funding that followed them after racing would just be crying out to be taken advantage of by those less scrupulous.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a risk that the less than scrupulous would try to cash in ... it happens in pretty much everything else in this world. However, a system whereby horses are sent to specialist centres, assessed and rehomed to suitable experienced folk, or retired and cared for by trained and knowledable staff can surely not be beyond the wit of man if there was a will? Obviously if owners wanted to keep the horse themselves, or retrain them for another activity then that is their choice. I am sure that some would slip through the let ... but possibly far less than what happens now. Horses are microchipped. They can be traced. Charities that re-home can do spot checks - I have re-homed a number of horses from charities and been subjct to spot checks with one or two day's notice ... it's common-place. Farmers have to account for every movement of every animal they produce for the food chain ... thats hundreds of thousands of animals, not just four or five thousand a year. There isn't really a logistical obstacle that couldn't be overcome ... what is lacking is the imagination and the will to admit there is a fundmamental flaw in the racing industry and do something about it. Instead people will put all their energies into defending the status quo, believing that anyone who criticises racing and proposes change must want to see the demise of the sport, not genuine improvements for the horses.
 
I don't think the racing industry can be overly criticised in the breeding side of things. I read the TB foal production had dropped from approx. 15000 to 8000 in response to the current climate. Compare that to coloured cobs and ponies where the are public advised to eat more horse meat to support these breeders? They are breeding pony foals that not even the meat man wants and then all the appeals to "rescue" them.

Edit to add rescue are not full of racehorse they all full of coloured cobs and ponies. Take a look at Hillside for example,

I owned two ex racehorses. Lovely animals put to sleep here at home in their 20's
 
Last edited:
I made a decision not to rehome from a charity as there were to many conditions. One wanted to assess everyone who might ride the horse and I want the right to have a sharer or ask someone to exercise as I see fit. Also I keep my horses barefoot and some would insist on shoeing. Others insist on a stable and while I do currently stable for part of the day I have had mine out 24/7 and he thrived on it and would go back to that if I could find a suitable place.

I completely understand why they do that but having had a bad experience with loaning a horse (not a tb) I prefer to buy a horse and have complete responsibility for it.
 
minesadouble said:
The thing is we don't hold owners of any other horse accountable for where their horses end up. I know many (non-tb) breeders who will have a horse put down once it is no longer capable of breeding. There are people who come onto this forum to say 'I can no longer compete my horse and can't afford another unless he is gone' to receive plenty of responses along the lines of 'shoot the old one and get a new one if you want to compete.' To be honest that shocks me way more than the owner of a recehorse doing similar as they are way more detached from their horse emotionally than a one horse owner giving day to day care to their horse.

We dont ensure that hobby riders don't sell or dispose of their horse in an inappropriate manner so why should we do so to anybody else. It's a matter of personal conscience.
We have 2 lovely ex racehorses at home who will both be with us until their dying day but some just are not suitable for rehoming.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree entirely with all of your comments, but racing is a multi-million pound industry which provides a livelihood for thousands, and entertainment for hundreds of thousands of people - even more for the famous races. If Joe Bloggs falls of his ladder clearing out his roof gutter, there's not much can be done ... in a workplace there are procedures in place to protect employees, or be held accountable if someone is deemed to have taken unnecessary risks with someone else's safety and well being. The racing industry is an industry ... not an individual ... therefore they should (to my mind) be held accountable for the well-being of their "employees" - ie, the horses (a bit anthropomorphic, but hopefully you get the drift). The bottom line is, responsibility for these animals has to stop somewhere. Everyone on here keeps passing the buck like a hot cake - it's the fault of the owners who don't send their horses safely to slaughter, or the numpties who try to help by re-homing a TB, the rabid anti-slaughter brigade, the press whipping up concern to sell newspapers, the animal right extremists, the idiots who try to make the National course easier, the damn randomness of genetics that won't allow you to just breed the perfect horse without making mistakes, and so what if those mistakes are living, feeling creatures that now no one wants... or trying to detract from the argument by saying that something else is worse - yes, it may be "worse", but that does not make racing "better".
 
firm said:
I don't think the racing industry can be overly criticised in the breeding side of things. I read the TB foal production had dropped from approx. 15000 to 8000 in response to the current climate. Compare that to coloured cobs and ponies where the are public advised to eat more horse meat to support these breeders? They are breeding pony foals that not even the meat man wants and then all the appeals to "rescue" them.

Edit to add rescue are not full of racehorse they all full of coloured cobs and ponies. Take a look at Hillside for example,

I owned two ex racehorses. Lovely animals put to sleep here at home in their 20's
Click to expand...


Hillside is not an ex-racehorse re-homing centre. Hillside is another story :-(

The race-horse rehoming centres are usually full to bursting and have waiting lists.

Yes, breeding numbers dropped during/after the recession, when the numbers of unwanted TBs reached crisis point and beyond. No doubt now that the economy is 'recovering' numbers will increase again to meet the demand. Then the charities will be left with even more to deal with when those horses are unwanted a few years down the line.
 
Smurf's Gran said:
The majority of people clearly do otherwise we would not have had the public outcry regarding horse meat entering the food chain.
Click to expand...

The 'outcry' as you put it, and one which was media enhanced, was over the deception and the highly questionable standards of meat hygiene, rather than the fact that we may be eating a horse. If we choose to eat 'horse' then it's no different to any other meat, taste dependent, that is!

Alec.
 
Last edited:
So industry plough more money/take a subsidy from all entries to be put in the pot to go to approved rehoming charities- of which we might need more then! Horses remain in ownership of the charity who will PTS if they cannot rehome them/they come back to them not able to be rehomed. I struggle with charities being full of bottom end horses (coloured cobs, some dartmoor hills etc) who are never going to be great or are terminally broken at a young age etc.
 
minesadouble said:
There are people who come onto this forum to say 'I can no longer compete my horse and can't afford another unless he is gone' to receive plenty of responses along the lines of 'shoot the old one and get a new one if you want to compete.' To be honest that shocks me way more than the owner of a recehorse doing similar as they are way more detached from their horse emotionally than a one horse owner giving day to day care to their horse.
.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. I would never get rid of my boy if I couldn't compete/ride, he has a home for life with me, he has given me his all and one day it will be my turn to repay the favour. Like so many in my position I wouldn't be able to afford two, but I wouldn't wish him a quick death just because I couldn't ride.

I have never been a racehorse trainer or owner, nor would like to ever go down this avenue but I imagine that trying to find homes for ex racehorses is a total nightmare, due mainly to their breed. Personally I would be worried about buying one because I could see that I could overhorse myself without realising, and I would also worry about what kind of start the horse had, i.e. had it been broken/raced very young, will it go on to develop all sorts of physical problems or behavioural ones. I know of one very high profile trainer whose amauter jockey has just given his 'wouldn't jump fences' racehorse away for next to nothing to a young girl. I have ridden the horse myself a couple of times and know he is a lovely horse, very kind natured and I was worrying about where he would end up. I can see that it is going to take a huge amount of work to transform to a 'riding club animal' suitable for the girl in question and even then this might not happen as he is very long in the back so dressage classes and jumping tracks could be problematic for him. I don't know her personally and I wish her well, but I can only imagine that unless she is very experienced with TB's, she will run into a few problems along the way and the horse may end up on the slippery slope of the rehoming/pillar to post scenario which we all know so well. I sincerley hope not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alec Swan said:
So how would that differ from the sheep and the cattle which I breed? Do you feel that somehow horses are any different from any other breed of animal which man produces?

Alec.
Click to expand...

tess1 said:
Do you feel that thoroughbreds are bred to be slaughtered?

If people in this country felt that horses were the same as cattle or sheep we would all be tucking into horse burgers on the bbq this weekend. Balthazar King would be renamed Burger King and there would be jokes about spare ribs.
Click to expand...

Of course they're bred to be slaughtered, eventually. With respect, I'd suggest that rather than lecturing an industry as to their levels of ethics and morality, that you join others and campaign, lobbying our self promoting equine charities, that they affect a change in Government policies and re-open our equine abattoirs, which when licensed and properly administered to will provide owners with a logical and a kindly and a humane end for our horses.

Considering our possibly well intentioned 'Equine Charities', have you considered that without a nurtured need for a 'rescue' (sic) system, they'd be out of business? Be assured of one point; Equine Charities are 'Businesses' all of them! :)

Alec.
 
I think we are down to only potters now but they were on one day a week I think?

there are those that slaughter for zoo animals etc though separately?
 
tess1 said:
So maybe the racing industry should look seriously at tightening up accountability of owners - ie, those that owned the horse at the time their racing career ended.
Click to expand...

This would possibly work with successful racehorses. A lot of racehorses are not that successful, by comparison, and those that are successful, are by and large, owned by people that could afford to spend large sums on their purchase. There are a lot of owners and syndicates that have horses to race, they may love the horse, or they may love racing but there may be a time when it's costing too much to train a horse that isn't giving the return for the spend. Do they spend more money on a horse that hasn't given them anything in return? (in their eyes). Possibly not.
If you were to increase costs of keeping the horse by funding it's retirement, this becomes a less attractive option for some small owners/syndicates that then give up.
For the record, I am pro racing and I agree with some of your sentiments, but some of your arguments come across as more emotional than rational to me.
The racehorse does have a job to do, and it costs a significant amount to keep it in training as EKW outlined. The problem often comes when the horse isn't up to the job (but that's stating the obvious). You seem to want owners to fund the retirement of the horse for the rest of it's natural life, but I don't think that's feasible.
Perhaps the solution would be to make racing 'elitist' where only the very rich would be allowed to own horses, they then could fund the retirement (said tongue in cheek!)
I'd also like to add that I am an owner and I have also bred my own racehorse. He was rubbish and is now re-training as an eventer. I have had 4 other racehorses. Two are field ornaments, one was PTS through injury and the other was re-homed to a friend.
 
Last edited:
tess1 said:
So maybe the racing industry should look seriously at tightening up accountability of owners - ie, those that owned the horse at the time their racing career ended.
Click to expand...

This would possibly work with successful racehorses. A lot of racehorses are not that successful, by comparison, and those that are successful, are by and large, owned by people that could afford to spend large sums on their purchase. There are a lot of owners and syndicates that have horses to race, they may love the horse, or they may love racing but there may be a time when it's costing too much to train a horse that isn't giving the return for the spend. Do they spend more money on a horse that hasn't given them anything in return? (in their eyes). Possibly not.
If you were to increase costs of keeping the horse by funding it's retirement, this becomes a less attractive option for some small owners/syndicates that then give up.
For the record, I am pro racing and I agree with some of your sentiments, but some of your arguments come across as more emotional than rational to me.
The racehorse does have a job to do, and it costs a significant amount to keep it in training as EKW outlined. The problem often comes when the horse isn't up to the job (but that's staing the obvious). You seem to want owners to fund the retirement of the horse for the rest of it's natural life, but I don't think that's feasible.
Perhaps the solution would be to make racing 'elitist' where only the very rich would be allowed to own horses, they then could fund the retirment (said tongue in cheek!)
I'd laso like to add that I am an owner and I have also bred my own racehorse. He was rubbish and is now re-training as an eventer. My have had 4 other racehorses. Two are field ornaments, one was PTS through injury and the other was re-homed to a friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top