Sandsend - DEAD. The third victim of this year's Cheltenham 'Festival'. RIP.
This appalling state of affairs must be stopped. Please sign the Animal Aid petition that seeks an independent regulatory body to oversee horse racing in the UK. As I write, nearly twenty thousand people have signed the petition. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/211950 …
Dene Stansall, Animal Aid's Horse expert was interviewed on BBC Radio Wales this morning and said “Cheltenham is the worst, the most dangerous racecourse in the country”.
No disrespect, but do you only watch it to see if a horse dies or not?
Are there people coming onto this thread thinking it's the "national hunt racing should be banned" thread? If so, they're spectacularly missing the point.
You are missing (conveniently) the point - it is the OP’s stated wish to ban horse racing, wanting horses to run free without being subservient to humans.
Sandsend - DEAD. The third victim of this year's Cheltenham 'Festival'. RIP.
This appalling state of affairs must be stopped. Please sign the Animal Aid petition that seeks an independent regulatory body to oversee horse racing in the UK. As I write, nearly twenty thousand people have signed the petition. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/211950 …
Dene Stansall, Animal Aid's Horse expert was interviewed on BBC Radio Wales this morning and said “Cheltenham is the worst, the most dangerous racecourse in the country”.
No disrespect, but do you only watch it to see if a horse dies or not?
I doubt @Anna_Kissed watches it at all. There are plenty of sports news outlets giving the information.
Are there people coming onto this thread thinking it's the "national hunt racing should be banned" thread? If so, they're spectacularly missing the point.
You are missing (conveniently) the point - it is the OP’s stated wish to ban horse racing, wanting horses to run free without being subservient to humans.
It's quite subtle, but there is a distinction between "we urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying" and "we urge the government to ban horse racing".
An independent regulatory body might well be a good thing for the sport. And many people would think it's worth debating in Parliament.
After all, we can all encourage the PFA, who are charged with promoting the welfare of footballers, to bring about changes that are beneficial to competitors, without worrying that they're going to ban football because some players have succumbed to fatal brain disease following heading footballs.
A regulatory body does more than simply decoding whether the sport should be banned.
Are there people coming onto this thread thinking it's the "national hunt racing should be banned" thread? If so, they're spectacularly missing the point.
You are missing (conveniently) the point - it is the OP’s stated wish to ban horse racing, wanting horses to run free without being subservient to humans.
It's quite subtle, but there is a distinction between "we urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying" and "we urge the government to ban horse racing".
An independent regulatory body might well be a good thing for the sport. And many people would think it's worth debating in Parliament.
After all, we can all encourage the PFA, who are charged with promoting the welfare of footballers, to bring about changes that are beneficial to competitors, without worrying that they're going to ban football because some players have succumbed to fatal brain disease following heading footballs.
A regulatory body does more than simply decoding whether the sport should be banned.
There is already a regulatory authority - the BHA who work with the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare, and is a leading signatory to the National Equine Welfare Protocol.
What more would this proposed authority do, apart from moving to ban the sport?
It's the bit about "taking meaningful action to stop horses dying" that gives the intent away, as the only way to achieve that is to ban racing, flat and jumps. The horses' welfare will certainly not be improved by never existing in the first place.
It's the bit about "taking meaningful action to stop horses dying" that gives the intent away, as the only way to achieve that is to ban racing, flat and jumps. The horses' welfare will certainly not be improved by never existing in the first place.
Presumably it would also want to ban private ownership of horses as far more are killed in paddock accidents and on the road.
Are there people coming onto this thread thinking it's the "national hunt racing should be banned" thread? If so, they're spectacularly missing the point.
You are missing (conveniently) the point - it is the OP’s stated wish to ban horse racing, wanting horses to run free without being subservient to humans.
An independent regulatory body might well be a good thing for the sport. And many people would think it's worth debating in Parliament.
Well so far, less than a third of the number of people who attended Cheltenham today.
It's the bit about "taking meaningful action to stop horses dying" that gives the intent away, as the only way to achieve that is to ban racing, flat and jumps. The horses' welfare will certainly not be improved by never existing in the first place.
Presumably it would also want to ban private ownership of horses as far more are killed in paddock accidents and on the road.
Best to really as we don't want horses being used only at the pleasure of the human.
Are there people coming onto this thread thinking it's the "national hunt racing should be banned" thread? If so, they're spectacularly missing the point.
You are missing (conveniently) the point - it is the OP’s stated wish to ban horse racing, wanting horses to run free without being subservient to humans.
It's quite subtle, but there is a distinction between "we urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying" and "we urge the government to ban horse racing".
An independent regulatory body might well be a good thing for the sport. And many people would think it's worth debating in Parliament.
After all, we can all encourage the PFA, who are charged with promoting the welfare of footballers, to bring about changes that are beneficial to competitors, without worrying that they're going to ban football because some players have succumbed to fatal brain disease following heading footballs.
A regulatory body does more than simply decoding whether the sport should be banned.
There is already a regulatory authority - the BHA who work with the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare, and is a leading signatory to the National Equine Welfare Protocol.
What more would this proposed authority do, apart from moving to ban the sport?
Some might say that the BHA isn't doing enough, since there are hundreds of horses dying in BHA races every year.
Let me turn the question round. If it were found that the only way to reduce the number of deaths of horses in races were to abolish the sport, what would your choice be? Continue to kill horses, or stop?
Obviously I don't expect you to answer that, as it's hypothetical. Because we can't know that's the case with the current vested interests. So, a fully independent authority, studying and determining all the appropriate actions that should be taken to reduce the number of deaths and to increase horse welfare, would do two things. First, ensure that horse racing is as safe as it can be (I hope we're all in agreement that this is desirable) and second, to determine the time at which there needs to be a national debate about whether to continue with horse racing if its continuance only adds to the number of deaths.
So the real question is - is it better to continue the arguments, animosity (some of the early posts on the thread were pretty nasty) and antagonism, with two "sides" disagreeing about whether horse racing should continue? Or would it be better to have an independent body work to ensure the sport is as safe as it can be and, only when no further, incremental improvements in safety (and reductions in deaths), can recommend the national debate about whether to continue with the sport takes place? What's best - disagreement, or mature decision making?
Let me make clear, I have no axe to grind in this debate. I don't really like horse racing; and I don't really like horses. I don't like seeing horses killed; I wouldn't want to see the few thousand people who work in the industry to have to find work elsewhere. But I am a fan of mature, intelligent, fact-based debate, decisions and agreements. And I think asking people to consider signing a petition advances that somewhat.
Are there people coming onto this thread thinking it's the "national hunt racing should be banned" thread? If so, they're spectacularly missing the point.
You are missing (conveniently) the point - it is the OP’s stated wish to ban horse racing, wanting horses to run free without being subservient to humans.
It's quite subtle, but there is a distinction between "we urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying" and "we urge the government to ban horse racing".
An independent regulatory body might well be a good thing for the sport. And many people would think it's worth debating in Parliament.
After all, we can all encourage the PFA, who are charged with promoting the welfare of footballers, to bring about changes that are beneficial to competitors, without worrying that they're going to ban football because some players have succumbed to fatal brain disease following heading footballs.
A regulatory body does more than simply decoding whether the sport should be banned.
There is already a regulatory authority - the BHA who work with the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare, and is a leading signatory to the National Equine Welfare Protocol.
What more would this proposed authority do, apart from moving to ban the sport?
Some might say that the BHA isn't doing enough, since there are hundreds of horses dying in BHA races every year.
On the flip side, they hate Palace as much as us, so I’m prepared to give them a little slack...
Marc Vivien Foe collapsed on the pitch and died playing football for his country. Ban football.
If it were found that the only way to reduce the number of deaths of horses footballers were to abolish the sport, what would your choice be? Continue to kill horses people, or stop?
It’s not a few hundred deaths, it’s a couple hundred.
It’s not a few thousand jobs, it’s tens of thousands.
Fact based.
"The sport employs around 6,500 people to provide first class care and attention for the 14,000 horses in training, providing them with a level of care and a quality of life that is virtually unsurpassed by any other domesticated animal".
It’s not a few hundred deaths, it’s a couple hundred.
It’s not a few thousand jobs, it’s tens of thousands.
Fact based.
"The sport employs around 6,500 people to provide first class care and attention for the 14,000 horses in training, providing them with a level of care and a quality of life that is virtually unsurpassed by any other domesticated animal".
According to the sport’s governing body, the British Horse Racing Authority (BHA), the fatality rate is less than 1% of overall runners. 0.19% to be exact – indicative of the rate’s decrease by a third in the last 20 years.
Whatever its reputation, the Grand National has not seen any deaths in the last 5 years. Indeed from the 317 runners who contested a race at last year’s three-day Grand National meeting there were no fatalities.
So improvements are being made, however;
The sport itself still carries its risks, as does everyday life. Liverpool University found that 62% of ‘traumatic injuries’ suffered by leisure and competition horses occurred when they are turned out in a field. Ridden exercise accounted for 13%.
It’s not a few hundred deaths, it’s a couple hundred.
It’s not a few thousand jobs, it’s tens of thousands.
Fact based.
"The sport employs around 6,500 people to provide first class care and attention for the 14,000 horses in training, providing them with a level of care and a quality of life that is virtually unsurpassed by any other domesticated animal".
6500- that’s just care for the horses. Take on the breeding industry, track staff, jockeys, trainers, betting industry, administration.
I didn't say "per year", so I'm happy to repeat that it's several hundred. And I only quoted directly from the BHA website, so I'm happy to repeat that it's a few thousand.
It always amuses me that whenever a discussion about animal welfare occurs as there is always someone who states ‘yes, but if it wasn’t for X then those animals wouldn’t exist’. Personally, I believe that it’s best for an animal not to be born if being born means a lifetime of exploitation.
Apparently. Is that too many for you? Too few? About right?
You've just identified the reason the petition is disingenuous. No one wants a single equine fatality but there is no objectively determinable acceptable number. It is like life, not black and white, but grey. That is why the petition is disingenuous, because its apparent purpose does not represent the real purpose of the sponsors, which is to see an end to NH racing, full-stop. The BHA and racing in general has done a great deal to improve safety for horses and riders over the years. There is always more that can be done and it is continually pursuing this. Parliament does not require a petition to debate the effectiveness or integrity of racing's authorities. It can do that anytime if it considers either to be in doubt.
Apparently. Is that too many for you? Too few? About right?
Too many and it’s a concern, and reducing.
If the OP had his way no horses, period, would be bred in captivity. Ignoring the fact they were domesticated thousands of years ago, he wants all human control to be stopped. So that’s the end of equine vets then. Let them roam free, re-introduce predators to prey on them so we can restore the natural order. No medical intervention whatsoever.
Yes stupid observations, but on this subject I have some knowledge. I love horse racing and I love horses, thoroughbreds or otherwise. Unlike you who doesn’t like horse racing and doen’t like horses - but that doesn’t stop you pontificating. The more people interested in working with the racing industry on this issue the better, which is why I signed the petition. Working with, not against - and on reflection I would withdraw my signature if I could as the agenda is pretty clear.
Apparently. Is that too many for you? Too few? About right?
Too many and it’s a concern, and reducing.
If the OP had his way no horses, period, would be bred in captivity. Ignoring the fact they were domesticated thousands of years ago, he wants all human control to be stopped. So that’s the end of equine vets then. Let them roam free, re-introduce predators to prey on them so we can restore the natural order. No medical intervention whatsoever.
Yes stupid observations, but on this subject I have some knowledge. I love horse racing and I love horses, thoroughbreds or otherwise. Unlike you who doesn’t like horse racing and doen’t like horses - but that doesn’t stop you pontificating. The more people interested in working with the racing industry on this issue the better, which is why I signed the petition. Working with, not against - and on reflection I would withdraw my signature if I could as the agenda is pretty clear.
Maybe stick to the Brexit thread.
I agree with you that there should be fewer horse deaths and that it's concerning. And, like you, I signed the petition. And also - I assume - like you, I wouldn't support a ban, if it could be shown that a ban isn't necessary to bring the number of deaths down significantly.
I also think that bringing in an independent body, authorised by Parliament, with an edict to do whatever is necessary to reduce deaths, would be a positive step.
However, thanks for pontificating on which threads you'd be happy for me to "stick to".
Apparently. Is that too many for you? Too few? About right?
Too many and it’s a concern, and reducing.
If the OP had his way no horses, period, would be bred in captivity. Ignoring the fact they were domesticated thousands of years ago, he wants all human control to be stopped. So that’s the end of equine vets then. Let them roam free, re-introduce predators to prey on them so we can restore the natural order. No medical intervention whatsoever.
Yes stupid observations, but on this subject I have some knowledge. I love horse racing and I love horses, thoroughbreds or otherwise. Unlike you who doesn’t like horse racing and doen’t like horses - but that doesn’t stop you pontificating. The more people interested in working with the racing industry on this issue the better, which is why I signed the petition. Working with, not against - and on reflection I would withdraw my signature if I could as the agenda is pretty clear.
Maybe stick to the Brexit thread.
I agree with you that there should be fewer horse deaths and that it's concerning. And, like you, I signed the petition. And also - I assume - like you, I wouldn't support a ban, if it could be shown that a ban isn't necessary to bring the number of deaths down significantly.
I also think that bringing in an independent body, authorised by Parliament, with an edict to do whatever is necessary to reduce deaths, would be a positive step.
However, thanks for pontificating on which threads you'd be happy for me to "stick to".
Never assume, Chizzy - I would not support a ban, period.
Apparently. Is that too many for you? Too few? About right?
Too many and it’s a concern, and reducing.
If the OP had his way no horses, period, would be bred in captivity. Ignoring the fact they were domesticated thousands of years ago, he wants all human control to be stopped. So that’s the end of equine vets then. Let them roam free, re-introduce predators to prey on them so we can restore the natural order. No medical intervention whatsoever.
Yes stupid observations, but on this subject I have some knowledge. I love horse racing and I love horses, thoroughbreds or otherwise. Unlike you who doesn’t like horse racing and doen’t like horses - but that doesn’t stop you pontificating. The more people interested in working with the racing industry on this issue the better, which is why I signed the petition. Working with, not against - and on reflection I would withdraw my signature if I could as the agenda is pretty clear.
Maybe stick to the Brexit thread.
I agree with you that there should be fewer horse deaths and that it's concerning. And, like you, I signed the petition. And also - I assume - like you, I wouldn't support a ban, if it could be shown that a ban isn't necessary to bring the number of deaths down significantly.
I also think that bringing in an independent body, authorised by Parliament, with an edict to do whatever is necessary to reduce deaths, would be a positive step.
However, thanks for pontificating on which threads you'd be happy for me to "stick to".
Never assume, Chizzy - I would not support a ban, period.
So, if it got to a stage where it would be demonstrable that the *only* way to prevent horse deaths and, for the sake of argument, injuries to jockeys, would be to ban National Hunt racing, you wouldn't support that?
Half? Three-quarters? I don't know. I would hope that, if the petition obtained sufficient signatories, Parliament would fashion a bill with terms of reference that would detail that.
Half? Three-quarters? I don't know. I would hope that, if the petition obtained sufficient signatories, Parliament would fashion a bill with terms of reference that would detail that.
What reduction in horse deaths would satisfy you?
Even with a 75% reduction, on the previous figures that would still leave 45/46 horses dying each year. Are YOU satisfied with that.
Comments
There are plenty of sports news outlets giving the information.
An independent regulatory body might well be a good thing for the sport. And many people would think it's worth debating in Parliament.
After all, we can all encourage the PFA, who are charged with promoting the welfare of footballers, to bring about changes that are beneficial to competitors, without worrying that they're going to ban football because some players have succumbed to fatal brain disease following heading footballs.
A regulatory body does more than simply decoding whether the sport should be banned.
What more would this proposed authority do, apart from moving to ban the sport?
The horses' welfare will certainly not be improved by never existing in the first place.
Let me turn the question round. If it were found that the only way to reduce the number of deaths of horses in races were to abolish the sport, what would your choice be? Continue to kill horses, or stop?
Obviously I don't expect you to answer that, as it's hypothetical. Because we can't know that's the case with the current vested interests. So, a fully independent authority, studying and determining all the appropriate actions that should be taken to reduce the number of deaths and to increase horse welfare, would do two things. First, ensure that horse racing is as safe as it can be (I hope we're all in agreement that this is desirable) and second, to determine the time at which there needs to be a national debate about whether to continue with horse racing if its continuance only adds to the number of deaths.
So the real question is - is it better to continue the arguments, animosity (some of the early posts on the thread were pretty nasty) and antagonism, with two "sides" disagreeing about whether horse racing should continue? Or would it be better to have an independent body work to ensure the sport is as safe as it can be and, only when no further, incremental improvements in safety (and reductions in deaths), can recommend the national debate about whether to continue with the sport takes place? What's best - disagreement, or mature decision making?
Let me make clear, I have no axe to grind in this debate. I don't really like horse racing; and I don't really like horses. I don't like seeing horses killed; I wouldn't want to see the few thousand people who work in the industry to have to find work elsewhere. But I am a fan of mature, intelligent, fact-based debate, decisions and agreements. And I think asking people to consider signing a petition advances that somewhat.
It’s not a few thousand jobs, it’s tens of thousands.
Fact based.
If it were found that the only way to reduce the number of deaths of
horsesfootballers were to abolish the sport, what would your choice be? Continue to killhorsespeople, or stop?1,271 deaths from 2011 to 2017.
Source: The BHA website
6500- that’s just care for the horses. Take on the breeding industry, track staff, jockeys, trainers, betting industry, administration.
Whatever its reputation, the Grand National has not seen any deaths in the last 5 years. Indeed from the 317 runners who contested a race at last year’s three-day Grand National meeting there were no fatalities.
So improvements are being made, however;
The sport itself still carries its risks, as does everyday life. Liverpool University found that 62% of ‘traumatic injuries’ suffered by leisure and competition horses occurred when they are turned out in a field. Ridden exercise accounted for 13%.
No one wants a single equine fatality but there is no objectively determinable acceptable number. It is like life, not black and white, but grey.
That is why the petition is disingenuous, because its apparent purpose does not represent the real purpose of the sponsors, which is to see an end to NH racing, full-stop.
The BHA and racing in general has done a great deal to improve safety for horses and riders over the years. There is always more that can be done and it is continually pursuing this.
Parliament does not require a petition to debate the effectiveness or integrity of racing's authorities. It can do that anytime if it considers either to be in doubt.
If the OP had his way no horses, period, would be bred in captivity. Ignoring the fact they were domesticated thousands of years ago, he wants all human control to be stopped. So that’s the end of equine vets then. Let them roam free, re-introduce predators to prey on them so we can restore the natural order. No medical intervention whatsoever.
Yes stupid observations, but on this subject I have some knowledge. I love horse racing and I love horses, thoroughbreds or otherwise. Unlike you who doesn’t like horse racing and doen’t like horses - but that doesn’t stop you pontificating. The more people interested in working with the racing industry on this issue the better, which is why I signed the petition. Working with, not against - and on reflection I would withdraw my signature if I could as the agenda is pretty clear.
Maybe stick to the Brexit thread.
I also think that bringing in an independent body, authorised by Parliament, with an edict to do whatever is necessary to reduce deaths, would be a positive step.
However, thanks for pontificating on which threads you'd be happy for me to "stick to".
What reduction in horse deaths would satisfy you?