#so many dog breeds are unethical and ugly | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

deadinsidedressage · 4 years

Text

Why Acti-Veg’s “Ethical Issues with Horse Riding” is Flawed

Militant vegans and animal right’s activists alike have determined that horse riding is an inherently unethical activity. Yet the criticism they dole out is inherently flawed itself. In a recent run-in with the vegan community a “source” provided to shame me about being an equestrian was a post by Acti-Veg.

The following will be a look into the claims made in that post by myself, someone who has grown up around horses, ridden a variety of disciplines, witnessed the spectrum of how personal finances impact horse care, and currently work for a top level professional.

To really delve into the flaws in the arguments made in Acti-Veg’s post we must first acknowledge one difficult truth: Abusive practices in horse riding, horse training, and horse management still exist, still are popular, and are extremely visible. There’s a higher degree of accepted abusive practices the lower on the economic spectrum the culture of a given discipline, breed, or nation tends to be. The ugly truth about animal abuse and neglect is that it tends to occur because of a lack of education. A lack of education occurs because of poverty. The poverty cycle and the impacts it has on education is well-documented and something I am personally acquainted with as an educator in an under-serviced community. The way we break abusive practices in any animal husbandry starts with making education free and accessible. Yet there’s the flaw with equestrianism--- it’s an extremely classist endeavor. There is a hard class division between the ability to be a truly ethical horse owner and as an unintentionally neglectful or outright abusive horse owner. The class issue in equestrian is two-fold; on the one hand there’s the lack of educational opportunities free from a paywall that could help erase abusive practices, on the other there’s the psychology of poverty and the creation of a “us versus them” mindset (often what I refer to as the “underdog mentality). There are limited opportunities for people to access affordable/free education to improve their horse care, handling, riding/training and when there is it is often meant with hostility. The unfortunate fact is that people who are engaging in abusive and neglectful practices because of lack of education are also extremely defensive of having their practices questioned. They fall into an assumption that the party attempting to educate them is just an embodiment of the upper class and judgmental because of their privilege. In the US, this dichotomy is primarily seen in the split between Western and English disciplines. With Western often engaging in “old timey”,“cowboy” practices and English being dismissed as “snooty”, “spoiled” and so forth. Refusal to change and adjust to ethical practices is seen as a place of pride because the “cowboy method” is upheld against the assumed “spoiled princesses” who have “everything done for them”. These people believe themselves to be “do-it-yourselfers”, of succeeding despite “the system”, and of having “worked for what they have”. Abuse and neglect is not exclusive to Western disciplines, but the vast majority of under-educated unintentional abusers, in my experience, come from Western disciplines.

When I discuss counter-points to vegan talking points, I am speaking specifically of ethical equestrianism. Horse ownership, care, and training rooted in a belief in continuing education. A group that is self-aware of the flaws in the sport and who advocate for global changes toward ethical equestrianism.

With that out of the way, the first point latched onto is the use of the term “breaking” when discussing the training of horses for riding:

“... horses are forced to accept a rider against their will. A lack of resistance does not mean that a horse has consented to being ridden, it simply means a horse has figured out that it is in their best interests to allow it to happen. Even the term “breaking” implies an acknowledgement of the truth of this fact.”

Breaking is an antiquated term and while still used in the equine community to describe starting horses under saddle, when we are discussing ethical horse training it is simply a colloquialism. The post mentions still-existing though admittedly abusive practices such as laying down a horse (forcibly dropping a horse to force “submission”) and begrudgingly refers to currently accepted slow-start practices though insistent that that is still an inherently abusive practice. The fact is, when discussing the practice of training a horse to be ridden as “unnatural” is only as true as the act of domestication is unnatural. Domesticated animals do not have the same instincts as their wild counterparts. They have had instincts bred out of them and the ability to enjoy co-habitation with humans bred into them. Do horses feel the need to be ridden? No. Neither do cats or dogs feel the need to live with us, but like these are all animals that have been bred to accept and enjoy human socialization. Riding is a form of socialization. Dependent on the breed and individual personality of the horse, not only is riding a fulfilling form of inter-species socialization but it’s a form of complex mental and physical stimulation they need for quality of life. Yes, just like there are dogs that have been so purpose bred they develop neurosis when kept “just as a pet” there are horses who have the same need for work.

Another point the post tries to make is about growth plates and long-term impacts of riding prior to fusion:

However, studies demonstrate that the epiphyseal plates in the body of the lumbar vertebrae of thoroughbred horses is not fully developed until they are between 6 and 9 years old, and that riding them before this time can cause lasting injuries. Even after this age, damage to the spine resulting from riding is common. In one study, 91.5% of ridden horses studied were diagnosed with some kind of alteration of the spine after x-ray, even though they seemed perfectly healthy prior to the scan.

The post sites two studies, one which is written by someone with their PhD in holistic medicine, a clear anti-riding bias, and a misunderstanding of kissing-spine as universal to all horses. The other is in German. Were the entire post in German and meant for German speakers I wouldn’t have an issue with sourcing a study in German... but as it’s directed toward an English-speaking audience and it’s in German... I mean that just reeks of twisting facts to suit your narrative while preventing people from fact-checking you.

Here’s the thing about growth plates and horses, we also have studies that have shown that light age appropriate work helps with bone density, helps remedy some conformational flaws, and does not damage. The key word is appropriate.

Reining and racing are the two top sports that skew data sets toward showing detrimental impacts on the longevity of horses because they are sports that start horses too early and with too high of intensity for it not to result in damage. Ethically developed young horses are given long stretches of off time to accommodate growth phases and are worked lightly. A 4 year old is not worked with the intensity of a 14 year old.

There’s also the issue of kissing spine which is still not fully understood. It’s most prevalent in Quarter Horses, Thoroughbred, and Warmbloods--- the three arguably most populous riding horse breeds. There is some debate as to what causes it or the extent of the genetic component, but kissing spine has been discovered in the remains of prehistoric, pre-domesticated horses.

I would also argue that depending on the age demographic of the “91.5%” study that there’s also just the nature of wear and tear on bodies. Within the equestrian community it’s known that no horse is going to vet entirely clean because that’s not how being a living creature works. Life has impact on the body and even humans who’ve never engaged in sports activities will develop conditions like arthritis as they age. Especially when we consider that medical advancements have surpasses ours and our domesticated friends’ evolutionary lifespans. Simply put, ours’ and theirs’ bodies will begin to breakdown long before there are no longer care options to prolong life.

A point that is barely worth mentioning because of the seeming refusal of the author’s post to do any research in order to attempt an educated opinion is on the use of training equipment and aids:

On top of the process of riding, many riders inflict additional harm on their horses using instruments like harnesses, bits and whips; even saddles can restrict blood flow and cause chafing, this is not including general injuries sustained by horses which are part and parcel of being ridden. Bits are particularly harmful, as they damage horse’s sensitive nerves, their teeth, tongue and palate.

None of this equipment is inherently harmful. An ill-fitting saddle or an incorrectly used bit and the damage they can cause are not equatable to a properly fitting saddle and a correctly used bit. They don’t even give me something to counter here other than saying “no, that’s wrong” because they have so little understanding of the use of tools in training and riding horses. Saddles can cause chafing--- hmm, does that reason that a vegan would then prefer if I “had” to ride I did so bareback? What about the studies I can pull up showing that bareback riding is detrimental to spine health... The “not including general injuries sustained by horses which are part and parcel of being ridden” portion of this is a little hilarious as someone who has always been around horses. Yes, it’s not out of the question for a horse to sustain small injuries through the course of being ridden just as it’s not out of the question for a human person engaging in any physical activity to sustain small injuries. What about potentially “career ending” injuries though? Anecdotally, I know of few horses with injuries that lead to retirement from riding that actually occurred while being ridden. Horses are an evolutionary shitshow and much of that is evident in their tendency to injure their legs in somewhat miraculous ways. Additionally, injuries that could occur from work are also mostly preventable and this is where the class/educational barrier raises it’s ugly head again. A top tier dressage horse is likely to have more overall stress on their body than the average 4H horse. However, the dressage horse is also going to be exposed to preventative and aftercare measure such as boots/polos, icing, poultice, theraplating, PEMF, laser therapy, nutritional support, structured warm-up/cool-down, etc. The 4H horse is usually lucky if someone notices they’ve bowed a tendon or developed a bone spur. There is so much that education can do in prevention of injury and wear.

The supposed “gotcha” moment of this post comes when talking about euthanasia, making bold claims about horses being disposed of when they outlive usefulness:

One in particular, an owner of a horse equipment shop, explained the reasoning: “I really love horses. But when they’re no good to me, what are you going to do with them? We don’t want to take ‘em out back and shoot ‘em. They may just as well be slaughtered, and get some use out of them.” Another commented that: “Chickens for eggs, lambs for wool, cows for milk, horses for work, and when their useful, productive life has passed, then you turn them into meat.”

Part of me honestly doesn’t really believe this is a real quote by a real person, but these people also do exist. There also is the unfortunate reality of the “slaughter pipeline” in the US in which horses who are sent to auction often end up in the hands of kill buyers who ship them over the boarder to sell for meat.

As far as should a horse be killed when it surpasses “usefulness”? Absolutely not. Ethical equestrians don’t view horses this way and recognize that an animal which has offered so much by way of partnership deserves a soft retirement and a loving home until they die. However, the post tries to take an anti-euthanasia stance period:

“..most owner’s prefer to euthanize animals when they become too old or sick to walk or ride”

If you’re not catching the problematic part of that sentence, there’s the suggestion that it’s wrong to euthanize an animal that can’t walk. The inability to conceptualize quality of life over quantity of life seems to be a recurring theme with vegans. An animal that is evolutionarily designed to roam miles in a day, essentially need movement to help with digestion, and can’t communicate pain isn’t an animal that can be ethically kept alive when it loses the ability to be comfortably mobile. It is better to euthanize any animal in order to prevent suffering that is to force them to live through it. Animals cannot conceptualize pain the way a human being can. A horse does not wake up in pain and think “well, thank god I’ve lived through another day!”. It wakes up, feels itself in pain, and suffers.

Now, to indulge myself in my own controversial opinions... I think horse slaughter should be legalized in the United States and regulated in order to make sure it is done in an ethical manner. There is simply too high an over-populous of unethically bred horses that are not going to be placed in homes to justify the horrors involved in the shipment of horses to slaughter. Horses currently going through the slaughter pipeline due to being undesired go through horrific non-stop truck journeys in which they are crowded, starved, dehydrated, extremely stressed, and sometimes even die in the process of the trip. It’s a cruel end to the horse. Horses are also extremely expensive animals that require a high degree of care in order for their needs to truly be met. This post referenced horse owners as spending an average of roughly $3,500 a year on their horse. That is a shockingly low number and indicative of how normalized neglectful care is. Prices of care certainly change based on location, but personally keeping my horse at an absolute basic level of care while assuming no vet emergencies are taking place and without factoring any of the expenses keeping her in work would entail.. I am at nearly $10k a year and that’s with doing the absolute minimum with zero preventative care. I also have no issue with the sentiment of horse owners who’d like to see some “usefulness” out of the death of their horse. The practice of either taking the meat from your deceased horse for you family or to be given to the needy in the community is standard in Norway. It isn’t a taboo, it’s a sensible way to dispose of the corpse of a large animal in a way that doesn’t negatively impact the environment and honors the horse. I know people who have donated their horses’s corpses to wildlife sanctuaries to feed animals. For some people being able to ascribe some meaning pr purpose to the death of their animal is needed for coping.

The major thing with this post is that it lacks the understanding of nuance. It condemns riding as a whole based off an awareness of abusive practices that activists within the community are trying to change. Arguments made are made without the education to back up the points being attempted and when all else fails it’s reliant on the classic militant vegan rhetoric about interaction with animals being exploitative. Ultimately while not as egregious as PETA thinking sheering sheep involves skinning them, this is the horse version of utterly misunderstanding the subject of the argument.

#horses #horsblr #vegan

275 notes · View notes