Perceived cruelty in racing
by John Tuckfield | February 23, 2011
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see
us" - Robert Burns
2009 provided significant challenges to the Thoroughbred Racing Industry, not
least of which was the continued negative perception of the sport.
Following the tragic death of Eight Belles in the 2008 Kentucky Derby, PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) suggested that, "the only way to
stop this cruelty altogether is to end horse racing once and for all", going on to
suggest that the sport is no better than dog fighting. Such a proposition is clearly
ridiculous, but it wouldn't be the first overstatement to gain significant popular
traction. Their claim that the filly was whipped 'mercilessly' and this caused her
demise is unfounded. She was hit 10 times in the straight and broke down after
the finishing line. But my view is totally immaterial. The horse was hit in a race
and subsequently died. Many will see this to be cause and effect.
More recently there has been uproar at the use of the whip during Rachel
Alexandra's amazing Woodward Stakes win at Saratoga. A post by Rob Whitely
says it all:
"Sadly, many participants in our sport still don't get it, while we continue
our industry's downward spiral. Whips and whipping are two separate but
related issues that impact racing's ability to attract and keep fans. It's
probably a good thing that we had woeful national coverage of the event.
The sight of a gallant and genuine filly like Rachel, who leaves it all on the
track, being whipped repeatedly is a turn-off to a huge number of fans and
would-be fans."
Rachel got more than 20 cracks of the whip, but no one much cares that it was
with one of the new padded variety, nor whether the filly felt them very much at
all. It's nothing to do with fact, only perception. It looked shocking.
The National Thoroughbred Racing Association surveys the opinion of race fans
in the USA. By 2008 the survey company warned that "racing may have reached
a tipping point in which
racing will need to act soon to restore confidence or face the permanent loss of a
sizeable portion of its base". Realising that they could not afford not to act, the
industry was driven to ban steroids and improve track surfaces.
When the use of the padded whip and the manner of their use was mandated in
Australia, we got a jockey strike, which made sure that it became national news.
A leading trainer said it (the new whip rule) was the work of 'do-gooders' (since
when has doing 'good' something to be disparaged?). She didn't think that any
Australian thought that the use of whips was cruel. A quick Google is all that is
required to show how wrong that view is. A leading owner offered to reward
jockeys who broke the rules, urging them to do 'whatever it takes' to win. Indeed
argument sometimes bordered on the absurd, with claims that horses didn't
really feel the old whips being followed by assertions that you really had to hit
them much harder with the new ones to bring about the same result (i.e.
presumably to be not felt also).
Then there was jumps racing. It will cease to exist in Australia after 2010. It
wasn't particularly popular anyway. However, it didn't do much for the image of
horse racing when a leading trainer went public with a statement that he would
shoot all his jumpers if the ban went ahead. Those in the know can only feel for
the poor man who clearly loves his charges, but the bald statement is not a good
look as a few moments sound bite on prime time television. The irony is that it is
possible that those wishing to reduce horse injuries successfully petitioned for
lower and easier jumps that may have had the effect of increasing the speed at
which they are jumped and thus
the casualty rate.
The issues are not new and merged in 1966 when a middle aged man, Walter
Hoysted, a member of a famous Australian racing family, walked onto
Flemington racecourse with a double barrelled shotgun and threatened to use it
on any jockey carrying a whip in the hurdle race. He fired off one shot to show he
was serious. After a stand off with police, he was arrested and jailed. The
hurdlers ran late and were presumably whipped. Forty years later and the issues
still cast a shadow,
I stress that am not expressing a view about the use of modern whips (those that
old Walter objected to where two foot long and made of whalebone or something
similarly unforgiving) or the value of jumps racing. I merely suggest that those
within the industry need have regard for the opinions of those outside. Racing is
a product and needs to be marketed. If there is a popular perception that it is
'cruel and barbaric' (words recently used by Patrick Smith, The Australian's
multi-award winning sports columnist) it may simply fade away and die.
This brings me on to a subject that I could hardly believe when I was first
confronted with it. To me this is not just an issue of perception, but an example of
a cruel form of animal exploitation. It is described on one website as "racing's
dirty little secret".
In foaling, mares die. Who nurses the orphan foal? The horseman who looks
after our mare was confronted with a similar problem. A mare had a still born
foal. Serendipitously he knew of the owner of a foal that had lost its mother and
was quickly on the 'phone and the pair were brought together and immediately
bonded. I have a fond memory of an Arabian foal being suckled by a
thoroughbred mare. I thought that this was the way that it was; practical people
finding practical solutions
to life's tragedies.
But it is not always so. As is so often the case, when researching anything
equine, all the best information comes from the States, where there are many socalled "nurse-mare" operations. Put simply the purpose of these farms is to breed
healthy mares and turn them into lactating
mares through pregnancy and birth. These mothers are called nurse mares or
wet mares. After foaling the mare is made available for lease to whosoever wants
a wet mare for an orphaned foal. In the main these orphans are expensive
thoroughbreds. The nurse mares and their foals are inexpensive warm bloods or
shire horses. Thus the value of thoroughbred takes precedence and the other
foal becomes a mere by-product of a commercial venture. Apparently the
thoroughbreds are not always even orphans, but more 'economic orphans'; that
is, their foster mothers are required only because it is financially convenient to
relieve the thoroughbred mare of the nursing responsibility in order to allow her to
be quickly bred back in that same season.
What happens to the foals that have had their mothers removed? Do they live
happily ever after like Bambi? Some are given away or sold and hopefully find
good homes, but one U.S. website I visited suggested that they were 'usually
euthanized, auctioned, abandoned or sold to the leather industry to be used as
pony skins'. There are even allegations of entire crops left to starve to death in
corrals.
The practice has been going on in America since the 1920's. A Kentuckian, W.
Henry Graddy, is credited with pioneering the use of wet nurse mares from his
Welcome Hall Farm, which provide between 80 and 100 a year until the late
sixties when the numbers began to drop off. This seems logical because
veterinary advancements should have reduced the foaling mortality rate of mares
and thus the need for surrogates. But by the late seventies the demand picked
up again as the possibilities for 'economic' orphans began being realised. In a
1979 interview a large nurse mare farm operator commented "I think we are
doing something very important. We're helping to save young horses' lives." In
that interview the gentleman stated that he sold the unwanted foals for $ 50 to a
waiting list of buyers eager to make them pets. "They just don't need mothers as
much as potential racehorses do". The author of the article wrote, in parenthesis, "If such deprivation sounds hard on the nurse mares' foals, it beats being
knocked on the head for pet food as is the practice of perhaps half of the farms in
the business". I think I see her point.
Of course I also see the point that in the highly commercial world in which we
exist there is a need for foster mothers and nurse farms merely cater to that
need. Avoiding sentimentality, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with this, but it
surely can be achieved in a more ethical manner. All that is required is the proper
humane treatment of the abandoned foals that can be raised to lead useful lives,
not merely as the catalyst for milk production.
The worst aspects of the industry came to light when 50 malnourished horses
were confiscated in Levy County and adopted out with the farm operator banned
from owning animals. It was a nasty story of neglect. When this became known it
appears from newspaper reports at the time that many thoroughbred breeders
were ignorant of what was going on at the nurse mare farm and were genuinely
appalled. When they became aware there appeared to have been a significant
effort to address the problem of orphaned foals in a much more humane manner.
As one thoroughbred breeder said people were beginning to realise that you
didn't HAVE to kill the foals to run a nurse mare farm.
A number of rescue organisations have sprung up around America. One claims
on its website to have made a significant breakthrough whereby they are talking
to nurse mare farms and have an agreement that the foals will not be taken from
their mothers for the first week of their life, inspected to make sure that they are
healthy enough to wean and be weaned in pairs to reduce stress. It claims this to
be "an exciting first step to accomplish our mission towards more empathetic
care of the foals on these farms".
But that's America. Surely such things don't happen here. Unfortunately from
anecdotal evidence I expect that in some cases they might. That makes me
wonder. I'm not a vegetarian, but I try to ensure that the meat that I consume has
been humanely treated and dispatched. I buy free range eggs. Why then would I
want to be involved in an industry that doesn't value its prime asset above that of
a battery chook?
I notice in New Zealand the NZTBA has a foster foal service, whereby those that
have orphaned foals are matched with mares that have lost their foals. There is a
small charge to the foal owner and there is a set of guidelines as to who is
responsible for what and relevant news passed back as to the well-being of the
mare &/or foal. What a great idea. I think that I might suggest it to RacingNSW,
who have already taken on a number of important registry options to help put
people together for the benefit of industry participants and the industry itself.
Sadly, I doubt if much will change quickly to improve perceptions. The Sydney
Morning Herald kicked off 2010 with an article on 3rd January headlined 'Leading
slow horses to slaughter'. It dealt with the 'wastage' of Australian thoroughbreds,
arguing that much of it was unnecessary. The throughput of one abattoir was
said to be 60% thoroughbred, 80% of whom were said to be showing signs of
neglect. There are between 30,000 and 40,000 horses processed for human and
pet consumption every year. We don't eat horses, but we export their meat to
countries that do. The article coincided with the start of the Magic Millions sales
and is hardly likely to encourage new owners into the sport.
In another recent article, respected international steward, John Shreck, wrote:
"Despite what some industry participants might want, they must
understand that racing cannot divorce itself from the broader community
standards… Over the years, the fear of change has practically paralysed
the sport. This is a major reason racing has fared so dismally in today's
competitive market for legitimate gambling dollars"
People that I have met who have connections to thoroughbred horses are not
cruel; rather it is the reverse. Some take better care of their charges than they do
themselves. I believe that it is possible to have an ethically responsible industry.
This is the image that racing needs to promote, rather than that of Princesses,
partying in racecourse bars and paying little or no attention to the spectacle of
magnificent animals in full flight.
And in my opinion the industry must be seen as a self regulator; fixing problems
before being dragged screaming and kicking to do so. There are well funded
organisations that would prefer to see any such efforts fail (PETA's 2008 revenue
was US$ 34 million) and those in the industry should not be giving them the
ammunition to aid their cause.
The are some encouraging signs. In Australia Cyberhorse is developing a cost
effective Racehorse Outplacement Program to find suitable homes and useful
lives for ex-racehorses and the Australian Trainers Association and Racing
Victoria have expressed 'in principle' support. Brian Mayfield Smith, who
successfully managed to find good homes for his charges when a champion
trainer, will act
as a consultant.
In 2009 Fasig Tipton, America's oldest thoroughbred auction company awarded
grants of more than US$ 200,000 through their Blue Horse Charities to non-profit
thoroughbred adoption and retraining centres, based on the number of exracehorses
they had had placed into permanent homes. The funds are raised
from voluntary donations of a quarter of one percent from buyers sellers or
consignors at their sales, which amount is matched by the auction house. The
Charity was started in 2001 to provide an alternative to slaughter.
