One Month after Eight Belles: 16 More Horses Dead

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:54 am

PETA Alleges Cruelty to Eight Belles, Calls for Criminal Charges

In the month since Eight Belles' ankles snapped at the Kentucky Derby, at least 16 thoroughbreds have died at racetracks around the country. Like Eight Belles, 15 suffered breakdowns and were euthanized. One died of heatstroke. At least 800 horses die this way every year at U.S. tracks. Were they, like Eight Belles, drugged the day before the race? Eight Belles' trainer, Larry Jones, has admitted injecting the filly with Phenylbutazone—a powerful anti-inflammatory and painkiller drug—just 27 hours before the Kentucky Derby, but so far, law enforcement has refused to investigate to determine if Eight Belles' handlers knowingly jeopardized her safety. PETA is calling on Kentucky's commonwealth attorney to file criminal charges under the state's cruelty-to-animals statute, which prohibits "cruel or injurious mistreatment" of animals.

PETA's request comes on the heels of the announcement that Congress will hold hearings in June about safety issues and cruelty in the thoroughbred racing industry. Please let Congress know that you care about Eight Belles and all the less famous horses who face death on the track.

Use their pre-made form to send a letter to Congress:

http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/cong ... ekly_enews

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:13 am

RedGlitter;882675 wrote: In the month since Eight Belles' ankles snapped at the Kentucky Derby, at least 16 thoroughbreds have died at racetracks around the country. Like Eight Belles, 15 suffered breakdowns and were euthanized. One died of heatstroke. At least 800 horses die this way every year at U.S. tracks. Do US racetracks race non-thoroughbreds, or is this last month just a quiet season with only a quarter of the average deaths?

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:27 am

Is this race a steeplechase ?

I hate those races,to cruel for me.

I hate seeing horses getting whipped in races.

-5

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:37 am

mrsK;882681 wrote: I hate those races,to cruel for me.

I hate seeing horses getting whipped in races.

-5

It's easy enough to deal with - ban horse racing.

There's 37,000 thoroughbreds born every year in the US. A few are for show jumping, dressage, polo or fox hunting but the large proportion are for racing on the track. They're not any good for anything else, thoroughbreds. If PETA succeeds in stopping horse racing then most of those 37,000 thoroughbreds each year won't be born in the first place, their owners will breed whippets instead or become chinchilla fanciers. A thoroughbred costs an arm and a leg to keep just for looks. So, either they race and... let me do the math... 800 dead a year out of a racing population of maybe 80,000... one in a hundred dies each year, or alternatively horse racing's banned and all 80,000 die from not being bred in the first place. If I were a thoroughbred horse I've a fair idea which option I'd go for. They do actually enjoy racing, the ones whose ankles hold out, ask an owner or a trainer.

A far higher proportion of polo ponies die during events than racehorses, polo's a shocking sport all round if you're looking at animal cruelty. Dressage and fox-hunting are just plain evil.

PETA's underlying problem is that the only good animal's an animal in its natural habitat in the wild. I'd vote for that but we'd need to remember to leave some wild for them. There used to be natural wild horses in the USA but the native Americans exterminated them long before Columbus arrived from Europe, just like they did the mammoths and the tigers. If PETA reckons the problem is people then PETA's got it bang to rights. Failing sufficient wilderness and a huge reduction in people though, we have to settle for horse racing to pay the bills.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:08 pm

spot;882680 wrote: Do US racetracks race non-thoroughbreds, or is this last month just a quiet season with only a quarter of the average deaths?

I really don't know that for sure, Spot. I've never been into horseracing or horses, I tried looking it up but I did not find the answer.

mrsK;882681 wrote: Is this race a steeplechase ?

I hate those races,to cruel for me.

I hate seeing horses getting whipped in races.

-5

Sorry MrsK, I don't know that either. I have never even seen the Kentucky Derby on tv, it just upsets me to watch that stuff. Isn't steeplechase where the horses have to jump water and fences and other obstacles? Hopefully someone who knows about it can answer that for us. I agree that whipping business needs to go. They say it doesn't hurt. Yeah right.

Spot I agree about fox racing however I haven't seen any polo events yet. So you're saying the horses are mistreated in polo too? I wouldn't be surprised. Just like dog racing, if there is money involved, there will be greed and the animals will suffer for it.

I know so many people say horses love to race but off the track they can slow down or stop when they want to. I have seen races now and then where the horse has a bloody froth at the mouth...you can't tell me thats because he loves to race.

I've read a lot about the horse world and I know people have been convicted for things like killing their horse for insurance money so it doesn't surprise me that some greedy selfish loser would drug up his horse and race her to her imminent death.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:47 pm

RedGlitter;883133 wrote: I really don't know that for sure, Spot. I've never been into horseracing or horses, I tried looking it up but I did not find the answer.

Sorry MrsK, I don't know that either. I have never even seen the Kentucky Derby on tv, it just upsets me to watch that stuff. Isn't steeplechase where the horses have to jump water and fences and other obstacles? Hopefully someone who knows about it can answer that for us. I agree that whipping business needs to go. They say it doesn't hurt. Yeah right.

Spot I agree about fox racing however I haven't seen any polo events yet. So you're saying the horses are mistreated in polo too? I wouldn't be surprised. Just like dog racing, if there is money involved, there will be greed and the animals will suffer for it.

I know so many people say horses love to race but off the track they can slow down or stop when they want to. I have seen races now and then where the horse has a bloody froth at the mouth...you can't tell me thats because he loves to race.

I've read a lot about the horse world and I know people have been convicted for things like killing their horse for insurance money so it doesn't surprise me that some greedy selfish loser would drug up his horse and race her to her imminent death.

There are a few non-thouroughbreds, Quarter Horses and the like,

sometimes Appaloosas, but it's a small percentage. There are also

some races at smaller tracks (our county fair is one) that have

mule races.

There aren't any real "steeplechases" here although there are things

called "3 day eventing" where the horses run around a cross country

(jumps) course, which to the casual observer might look like a

steeplechase. The ones I've watched, the horses were running

against the clock and not each other.

Re: the whipping... for a 1.000 pound horse, it is just a sting. I've

hit myself (albeit years ago) with a quirt, it's enough to make me

say OW but not much else. And a lot of times, a whip is REQUIRED,

for safety's sake, to keep a horse from, say, heading into the rail.

Riders sometimes have to petition to NOT carry one. Often if you

see the rider swinging his whip back and forth, he is just "showing"

it to the horse, and never makes contact.

Horses DO love to race, and will in the wild race to exhaustion,

through lung bleeding and other things. As to the age aspect of

it, in the wild little colts only a few days old race alongside moms.

As to racing Eight Belles and the money aspect, you'd better

believe that owner was taking the best care of her he possibly

could, because for the money aspect, as even a second place

Derby finisher, her foals would have been worth thousands of

dollars.

I don't know RG, I don't at all mean to be confrontational, and as

I've said before I think... I struggle with this issue in my mind.

A LOT. I very much respect your feelings for all animals.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:09 pm

Val, no offense taken, no worries.

I'm glad you could answer our questions.

I do have one more though...if her owner had given her painkiller beforehand, then she must have kept going on busted ankles because she couldn't feel the pain?? Is that accurate? And if they knew there was something wrong with her that required painkiller, should they have still raced her? I am troubled by that part.

What about the other race horses who have died? I hate to be crass about it but is that a "normal" amount of dead horses when it comes to racing?

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:53 pm

There is no way she was running on broken ankles. If I understand

it right, the Bute was given 27 hours before, and I can't seem to

find a necropsy report that gives an amount left in her bloodstream.

It might have been very small.

Think of it this way, sometimes when I've worked out in the

garden, or done some sort of activity and might get a little

"achy" I take a couple of aspirin. I wouldn't even really need to

take the aspirin, I could live with whatever aches I have, but

I'm nice to myself. So, I consider that maybe she had a work

out or exercise and that the trainer thought she might be a little

achy, so he was nice to her.

Bute is more for muscle tissue. The breaking of bones I would

think might be more of a genetic issue. Then again, maybe not.

Horse racing has experimented with different types of track

surfaces, to try and achieve a more cushioned track for the

horses to run on. They have met with some success, but there

might be more they can do.

There's a saying in horse racing: "Breed the best to the best and

hope for the best". There is some evidence that while not exactly

inbreeding, there are not as many new lines, or stronger stock,

in the genetic pool. I remember a few years back, when I was

checking out the lines for the horses in the Kentucky Derby, that

every horse in the Derby had Secretariat somewhere in his bloodlines.

That can't be good.

Do you know how Kentucky became such a strong horse racing state?

It was because the "bluegrass" was discovered to have a high

content of limestone, etc. that was good for the horses bone strength.

Modern day, that's not really needed. A horse needs a good structure,

he needs all the things working together. Muscle, nerve, bone, w/o

any one of those...

When you are riding a horse at those speeds (and I "raced" my horse

at county fair) you are pretty much instantly given clues by the

horse that somethin' just ain't right. You pull up. You might get lesser

clues and take a little longer with just a slight muscle pull, but with

2 broken ankles (and both fronts at that) there's no going on, you

just can't do it. So, she crossed the finish line and her ankles broke.

May she rest in eternal peace.

I can't answer your question about the amount of horses dying in

racing, I personally have seen very, very few. But even one is too

many, isn't it?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:26 pm

Yes, one horse is one horse too many.

I didn't know that about the bluegrass. I love learning little factoids like that!

Well your aspirin analogy does make sense to me.

A friend of mine was in a terrible car accident years ago and her daughter was thrown into the windshield. My friend ran to get help, thinking only of her daughter. Her adrenaline must have been outstanding because as soon as help was found, she collapsed with two broken feet. That's what I was thinking about with regard to Eight Belles, that maybe she was in such a state she didn't feel pain. Or maybe not, I guess we'll never really know.

Thank you for all the info, Val. I was hoping you'd pop into this thread.

Hugz · Post by **Hugz** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:49 pm

I don't know much about horse racing. The info Red an Val posted was an eye opener for me.

I live fairly close to a grayhound dog racing track. I know a few people who work there. The dog are well cared for as long as they are racing. But , there is a high turn over of them. Some are adopted. I don't even want to think what happens to the others.

Helen · Post by **Helen** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:16 pm

spot;882684 wrote: It's easy enough to deal with - ban horse racing.

There's 37,000 thoroughbreds born every year in the US. A few are for show jumping, dressage, polo or fox hunting but the large proportion are for racing on the track. They're not any good for anything else, thoroughbreds. If PETA succeeds in stopping horse racing then most of those 37,000 thoroughbreds each year won't be born in the first place, their owners will breed whippets instead or become chinchilla fanciers. A thoroughbred costs an arm and a leg to keep, just for looks. So, either they race and... let me do the math... 800 dead a year out of a racing population of maybe 80,000... one in a hundred dies each year, or alternatively horse racing's banned and all 80,000 die from not being bred in the first place. If I were a thoroughbred horse I've a fair idea which option I'd go for. They do actually enjoy racing, the ones whose ankles hold out, ask an owner or a trainer.

A far higher proportion of polo ponies die during events than racehorses, polo's a shocking sport all round if you're looking at animal cruelty. Dressage and fox-hunting are just plain evil.

PETA's underlying problem is that the only good animal's an animal in its natural habitat in the wild. I'd vote for that but we'd need to remember to leave some wild for them. There used to be natural wild horses in the USA but the native Americans exterminated them long before Columbus arrived from Europe, just like they did the mammoths and the tigers. If PETA reckons the problem is people then PETA's got it bang to rights. Failing sufficient wilderness and a huge reduction in people though, we have to settle for horse racing to pay the bills.

the native americans didnt know what a horse was til they discovered the ones left behind by the spanish conquistadors!!

whats killing the wild horses over there now is white mans greed for grazing land and a fast buck, so they round them up with helicoptors, motor bikes and cars and sell them off at auctions, to be bought by people who have no idea how to look after them and when they suddenly find out that a horse is a living breathing thing that needs constant attention, most of them end up in slaughter houses.

god knows what sort of polo and dressage events you've attended but in my 45yrs of being involved with all forms of horse care, i certainly havnt heard of more of them dying in these sports than they do in racing.

Helen · Post by **Helen** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:50 pm

the kentucky derby is a " flat " race, no jumping.

the word steeple chase, I THINK, originated in england where private races were held between a couple of men, who had good horses,they would race between two church steeples, one in one town or village to the next one in the nearest town or village. this has the same meaning as the point to point races we have here in england but of course with lack of counrty side now, they are held on race tracks instead.

i've just googled it and it originated in ireland so my mistake.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:57 pm

Spot, the disappearance of our horses is very sad indeed....but we do have some preserves for the wild beauties....not perfect but a haven for some....

http://www.nps.gov/archive/asis/horses.htm

Nuthrday · Post by **Nuthrday** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:00 pm

I really have to jump in here.

I live in an area where the mustang round ups and auctions are an ongoing activity. Adopting a wild horse or burro is not an easy process. They screen all applicants and you absolutely must have the proper enclosures for a wild horse. And they're not cheap to buy either. Even most experienced horse people don't necessarily want a wild horse to deal with. It takes a special person to handle one well.

And honestly, dressage: evil? It's the closest any human and animal will ever come to perfect harmony. The evil reference must be toward the whips and spurs that are used for aids, not punishment, ever. Horses have thick skin and the large dressage horses need a very strong and firm human on board for control. It's a beautiful thing!

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:04 pm

Nuthrday;883319 wrote: I really have to jump in here.

I live in an area where the mustang round ups and auctions are an ongoing activity. Adopting a wild horse or burro is not an easy process. They screen all applicants and you absolutely must have the proper enclosures for a wild horse. And they're not cheap to buy either. Even most experienced horse people don't necessarily want a wild horse to deal with. It takes a special person to handle one well.

And honestly, dressage: evil? It's the closest any human and animal will ever come to perfect harmony. The evil reference must be toward the whips and spurs that are used for aids, not punishment, ever. Horses have thick skin and the large dressage horses need a very strong and firm human on board for control. It's a beautiful thing!

You're right Nuthrday:-6 They are gorgeous animals...saw some from a little bit of a distance in Chincoteague....welcome to the garden....Sorry, just saw that you've been here since 2005...never saw your name before...

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:17 pm

That's very sad if horses die from manmade races in those numbers. Yes I think it's an inbreeding problem, not wide enough genetic pool. And people keep pushing horses past their limits. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if horses are given painkillers that cause them to go beyond their pain. I mean do veternarians really know how to test a drug's strength on a horse?

Even if those horse lovers wanted to they can't keep the business up like in the past. Changes have to be made.

I could never take on the responsibility of care for a horse and I'm sure most everyone who does so are horse lovers deep down. Why else get involved with them? Maybe if there are people who do it for other reasons, they need to get out of the...business, I was going to say business but it's not the right word--get out of caring for horses. Those who aren't meant to do so aren't caring for them anyway, they're handling them, and handling them doesn't mean in a good way necessarily.

I've been to a part of the country in the US where wild horses were running all over the place (galloping and cantering, as fast as our car was going). Can't remember which state, definitely in the west. Hmm...it was a few years ago and I can't remember exactly where...but I know they are protected here at least in some places.

Erin

Nuthrday · Post by **Nuthrday** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:02 pm

The term "handling" is a bonafide horseman's term.

They're big beasts and take know-how, finesse, great care and understanding, so therefore, a horse handler is what the word says! The negative term for that would be "cowboy", as a verb. Here in the west, it's a negative thing when it comes to horse treatment. If your horse has been "cowboy'd" it means he's been treated without understanding, used, almost always "rode hard and put away wet". On the other hand, a true cowboy is a true horseman. These terms are not to be thrown around for general purposes, just like you maybe shouldn't wear one of those big old hats just for fun either.

In case you can't tell, I have very strong views on these things. I agree that the TB industry more than likely needs some reforms. On the other hand, the owners and trainers want those gorgeous babies to run and stay healthy. The biggest money they'll ever earn is in stud fees (unless of course it's a gelding).

Kathy Ellen, very nice to meet you! I did join the forum in 2005, but have only been on sporadically. It's the best online talk site I've ever seen, just been talking in other places and you know, the Life thing!

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:14 pm

Nuthrday;883395 wrote: The term "handling" is a bonafide horseman's term.

They're big beasts and take know-how, finesse, great care and understanding, so therefore, a horse handler is what the word says! The negative term for that would be "cowboy", as a verb. Here in the west, it's a negative thing when it comes to horse treatment. If your horse has been "cowboy'd" it means he's been treated without understanding, used, almost always "rode hard and put away wet". On the other hand, a true cowboy is a true horseman. These terms are not to be thrown around for general purposes, just like you maybe shouldn't wear one of those big old hats just for fun either.

In case you can't tell, I have very strong views on these things. I agree that the TB industry more than likely needs some reforms. On the other hand, the owners and trainers want those gorgeous babies to run and stay healthy. The biggest money they'll ever earn is in stud fees (unless of course it's a gelding).

Kathy Ellen, very nice to meet you! I did join the forum in 2005, but have only been on sporadically. It's the best online talk site I've ever seen, just been talking in other places and you know, the Life thing!

HI-

I realize handling is a horse term, it's just that some handling is too rough even for a horse. They are big and strong but sometimes humans may take out their own pitfalls on the horse.

I think you're associating cowboys with only negative connatation in the above post. I agree that the stereotypical cowboy leaves lots to be desired in my mind, but the cowboy evolved for a purpose and that's why the hat is taken as a symbol of the life of a cowboy. Not that I ever was a cowboy or anything.

Erin

Nuthrday · Post by **Nuthrday** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:17 pm

Erin

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:17 pm

Kathy Ellen;883317 wrote: Spot, the disappearance of our horses is very sad indeed....but we do have some preserves for the wild beauties....not perfect but a haven for some....

http://www.nps.gov/archive/asis/horses.htm

Yes, we have Chincatique & the other place down on the Maryland coast. They are beautiful animals and you do have to respect them even when they invade your tent and eat all your food:D

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:22 pm

qsducks;883413 wrote: Yes, we have Chincatique & the other place down on the Maryland coast. They are beautiful animals and you do have to respect them even when they invade your tent and eat all your food:D

Derailing my own thread here

but those Chincoteague ponies have always fascinated me. Here's a little site about them:

http://www.chincoteague.com/pony/ponies.html

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:05 am

Helen;883286 wrote: the native americans didnt know what a horse was til they discovered the ones left behind by the spanish conquistadors!!I suggest you go and read a book, Helen. The horse was native to North America until about 10,000 years ago, like the tiger and the mammoth. The native americans hunted them all into extinction, eating the edible ones as they went (the tool marks can still be seen on their bones where the cooks cut off the portions). Or, just possibly, a killer bug came along and exterminated about twenty species all distinguished by being big mammalian predators or big mammalian prey but left the people alone, though I never did think much of that as a theory, it seems rather preposterous to me.

I never suggested that more horses die as a result of Dressage and I've never thought it was true. The outrage of Dressage is the repetitive torture involved in training the animals to perform in such obscene fashions.

Helen · Post by **Helen** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:27 am

i've just googled this.................

in ancient north america horses became extinct during the paleindian period, early horse speicies were decimated by climatic change and vanished completely from north america. ( these were the tiny horses who had cloven hooves at the time, not the riding horses we know today, thats my bit not googles )

when the spanish discovered america they re introduced horses to the continent.

as for dressage, it is a great skill and prooves harmony and trust between horse and rider. have you ever tried to get half a ton of horse to do something it didnt want to ?

i had a pony a long time ago that would break out of her field and follow hounds all day or until we could manage to catch her. no one was forcing her to do that.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:04 am

Helen;883465 wrote: i've just googled this.................

in ancient north america horses became extinct during the paleindian period, early horse speicies were decimated by climatic change and vanished completely from north america. ( these were the tiny horses who had cloven hooves at the time, not the riding horses we know today, thats my bit not googles )

when the spanish discovered america they re introduced horses to the continent.

as for dressage, it is a great skill and prooves harmony and trust between horse and rider. have you ever tried to get half a ton of horse to do something it didnt want to ?

i had a pony a long time ago that would break out of her field and follow hounds all day or until we could manage to catch her. no one was forcing her to do that.

"early horse speicies were decimated by climatic change" sounds about right, I'm talking about the remaining nine out of ten who "vanished completely from north america" when the native Americans exterminated them. And the mammoths. I'm particularly annoyed about the mammoths and tigers, I'd rather North America were a wildlife preserve with no people in it than that the mammoths and tigers had gone. The horses that were exterminated - you make them sound the size of dogs or large rats. They were more the size of the current Shetland breed and since all the other horses across the world at the time were inter-breedable (ie one species, not several). I think those we're discussing were a sub-species.

Getting a half a ton of horse to do something it didnt want to is what I referred to as repetitive torture. Some people enjoy the idea, some don't. I don't. It seems too close to what people do with whips and leather and Nazi regalia in bedrooms.

I'm sure all the horses enjoy fox hunting, where did I say otherwise? Or stag hunting or otter hunting, come to that. The predators have fun, the prey's terrified. Why should I approve of terrifying a prey species?

Polo, then, that's the bit that's left. Perhaps US Polo is a bit more refined and croquet-like? In the rest of the world it's a rare competitive match where at least one pony doesn't die out of the fifty in the park. It's what a thoroughbred pony gets used for if it turns out useless at racing. http://www.livestockins.com/horses.htm gives a clue - though no rates - when it has a special horse insurance category at the end for the high-risk activities: Hunters, Jumpers, Polo Ponies, Hurdlers and Steeplechasers, all premium insurance categories. The veterinarian description is "Epistaxis during intense exercise in racehorses and polo ponies (not endurance horses), positively correlates with intensity of exercise", they even have an abbreviation for it to write on the forms - EIPH: exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage. They have treatments for it if the pony actually avoids a full-on heart attack, nitroglycerine and 3-6 months rest with a "change of environment" (which means no more pounding around a field with a 200 pound rich git on its back running it into other horses).

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:09 am

The predators have fun, they prey's terrified. Why should I approve of terrifying a prey species?

Concurred!

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:24 am

valerie;883225 wrote: I can't answer your question about the amount of horses dying in

racing, I personally have seen very, very few. But even one is too

many, isn't it?I'll have a try at this. There are about 20 tracks in England. They have about 30 days racing a year each. The have about 20 races on each of those days. I'd guess one horse gets put down each month on each course, on the basis of the reports in newspapers and on television where it's mentioned at the end of the sports report on the day's racing. It's not as often as one a week, it's at least one a month. You're looking at a hundred dead horses annually in England which is close to the rate I suggested in my first post on the thread, one in a hundred race horses dying of racing injuries each year. I don't actually think that's very many, considering, and I go back to the fact that few of them would be born at all if it weren't for the continuation of the sport. Would we rather they didn't exist? PETA would definitely prefer it if they didn't.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am

I still think that's way too many dead horses, Spot. And while it's true that Peta doesn't set well with everyone, notice it's them who are taking a look into this situation. I'm grateful for that. I wonder what the Humane Society is doing about it?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:06 am

RG, everything born has to die, it might as well be on a racetrack as in a stable. The welfare of the race horses is already amazingly high, the risk is inherent in shifting the buggers twenty at a time down a narrow corridor at thirty miles an hour with midgets screaming in their ears. If the owners didn't do that, nobody would go to the race tracks. If nobody went to the race tracks then nobody would shell out for the fields of green grass for the pretty little foals to prance around in. It all seems fairly obvious to me, I'm not sure why other people don't get it.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:14 am

I'm not too sure of your angle, Spot? Do you support racing or do you not care for it?

I realize everything dies but it shouldn't happen cruelly or out of human greed. If we closed all the tracks today, we would still be able to breed horses for a better form of human enjoyment. (ie: not racing) I don't see that they would be dying out.

at thirty miles an hour with midgets screaming in their ears.

That made me laugh.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:25 am

RedGlitter;883524 wrote: I realize everything dies but it shouldn't happen cruelly or out of human greed. If we closed all the tracks today, we would still be able to breed horses for a better form of human enjoyment. (ie: not racing) I don't see that they would be dying out.Why would we do it, though. What would motivate anyone to support the running cost? At the moment the motivation is horse racing. The motive for supporting the running cost of a cow is the milk industry. The motive for supporting the running cost of a bison is that people pay to eat steaks. I think there are few animals as attractive as wolves but nobody's come up with a motivation for increasing their numbers. The only wolves in the UK are in zoos. I'd love to see them in our wilderness areas predating sheep and calves off outlying farms, but I can't talk anyone into making it happen. If it were illegal to milk cows or eat their meat or wear their hide as clothing then the cow would be a very rare animal indeed outside of Asia. In Asia they discovered other motives - they regard it as a God, they use its dung as fuel and they invite it to pull the occasional plough. Perhaps if we had a predominant Horse God religion in the US all your concerns would be met.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:34 am

Why would we do it, though. What would motivate anyone to support the running cost?

Perhaps their sheer love of the animal. Would that not be enough?

The motive is money. Money begets greed. It sounds as if you're telling me that the horse must sing for his supper. Am I mistaken on that? They can do other things besides race. They have dog shows so why not horse shows? And I'm not against a running horse, I'm just against pushing them beyond their endurance and then acting as if that's just the way it goes in racing world. As if horse casualties are to be expected.

Oh, you mentioned Peta earlier. Yes Peta would probably like to see no more horses in the same way they don't want to see dogs as pets, but that is extreme and we needn't resort to that. I don't support Peta's stance on that.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:55 am

RedGlitter;883542 wrote: Perhaps their sheer love of the animal. Would that not be enough?That's easily seen - how many gorillas are left on the planet? You can't eat them, you can't wear their skins, you can't race them, the only ones left exist because of a sheer love of the animal. There's sufficient to populate an average sized town if they were all gathered from the ends of the earth into one place and their numbers continue to drop by about 20% a decade. They're a lot more loveable than horses, too. Horses have uses, unlike the gorilla, so there's several million horses on the planet. Mere love doesn't go far. I don't argue that any of this should be so, I only point out the facts.

PETA, as far as I understand them, doesn't want any animal to be owned and that's the extent of their objection. They're not into wanting there to be no more horses. I expect that, like me, they'd rather there were far fewer people.