Jumps racing: legalised animal cruelty?

Three horses have been killed in Victoria so far and 3 in South Australia and the season has only just begun. I think we are in for a heartbreaking year. Last year we were assured that if all 3 of the Key Performance Indicators set by the RVL were not met, then 2010 would be the last year that Jumps racing would be held in Victoria. Well, we all know what happened next. 2 out of the 3 KPIs were not met and despite all its hollow promises the RVL gave the “sport” a 3 year reprieve. So what reasons could there be to continue this cruelty that is not only banned in every other state in Australia bar SA and Victoria, but ILLEGAL in NSW. Economic -Victoria There are claims that ending this “sport” would put thousands out of work. Well that’s just not true. There are NO full time jumps trainers in Victoria, the majority have either flats and jumps horses or are classed as hobby trainers, and there are only a handful of jumps jockeys (19 currently) and the majority would earn barely more than unemployment benefits, Hardly the mass redundancies of Mitsubishi and with government assistance I’m sure those that do find themselves out of work will be able to gain other skills that may even extend their working lives. (not too many 55 year old Jockeys going around) Economic - South Australia The premier jumps carnival in SA is the Easter Oakbank Carnival. Of the 42 starters over the 2 days, only 14 were South Australian and most of the prize money went back over the border. (only $29,650 of the total $390,000 prize pool stayed in SA) I was inside the track at Oakbank and every single person I spoke to said they would still attend if there were no jumps racing there. Some were actually unaware that there were jumps races held. In fact I’m sure more would be willing to go without the risk of them being subjected to the sight of a horse fatally injured) Horses love to jump I have been around horses for 30+ years both as a hobby and in employment as an apprentice jockey and instructor and I have NEVER come across a horse that will, without any human intervention gallop around its paddock jumping objects. They graze, they play and the mutually groom each other, THAT’S what they enjoy doing. They DO NOT run around jumping obstacle after obstacle Horses Die in flats racing If the current death rate over jumps in SA was applied to flats racing, (2 deaths in 10 races) that would mean that with 500 flats races conducted in SA this year, 100 horses would die before the season is out in SA ALONE. Would this ba acceptable? Horses Die in paddocks Yes they do – BUT no one group is more at risk unlike Jumps racing. Jumps horses are 20 times more likely to die on the track that flats horses and 120 times more likely to suffer spinal and cranial injuries. Jumps racing saves horses from slaughter Currently over 18,000 “excess’ thoroughbreds are slaughtered annually –jumps racing may take 200 – 300 of these on a year. The majority of those do not end up racing and those that do have an average jumps career of 1 season. Guess where they go then if they are not fatally injured on the track? Yep – they go to the knackery. Thoroughbreds that are not picked up by the jumps industry do tend to have a higher chance of being re-homed as they have not received injuries that make them unattractive to those looking for horses to use in other equestrian disciplines. Irresponsible over breeding is NO excuse for animal cruelty. The jumps are too small causing horses to rush them Grand National carnical in the UK has had 33 deaths in 11 years– enough said Jumps racing can NEVER be made safe - BAN IT

If watching a horse fall, break its leg to the point of deformity and be shot in the head in full view of an audience is not emotional - I don't know what is!

You obviously don't know anything about animals then.........I have worked with them for over 30 years, they can make choices, and this is the the point: when they are allowed to. For example in the sport we are discussing, when a horse refuses at a jump, it just made a choice not to over it.

Fair enough. Given you made moral assertions about what is "ok" and what "right" horses have, I naturally assumed you were pursuing an arguement based on ethical and philosophical grounds. Apparently you were not, my bad.

I haven't much time or interest in having a long-winded philosophical discussion over what was originally a debate about jumps racing. All I am going to say is: 1. In the 21st century- regardless of what happened in the past - do we need to use animals at all to be happy and happy? The answer is no. 2. Is it right to harm another being when we don't have to? The answer is no. 3. Are animals here as 'natural resources' for us to use? No more than the human being next door to me is. If you look more closely into how food is distributed around the world - you see that so much protein-rich food and money is being wasted to fatten up animals for us wealthy Westerners - protein that could otherwise be fed directly to the impoverished. It wouldn't be a complete diet - but better than a little bowl of maize. In any case - I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discourse anyhow.

Anything that involves animals in the name of 'sport' and our entertainment and because animals are absolutely powerless in the process, is well and truely subject to the cruelty tag. The racing industry in particular is not only a mugs game but corrupt to the core and it is a sad indictment on our culture that we continue to justify it in the name of sport, having a punt and tax. Good night and good luck!

Moot point, animals are incapable of exercising choice.

I agree with you, Sheek. Blame the management of the sport, not the sport itself....otherwise how would 3 Day eventing survive....the cross country run in that is mind boggling.

"Additionally as far as dangerous sports go, I don’t think jumps is anywhere near as dangerous as say mountaineering, UFC, cave diving or bull riding." Yes they are far more dangerous, but the big difference is the human participants in those sports have a choice whether to take part or not; horses in jumps racing don't.

You are not really human but a "virtual' one that exists in two dimensions.

"By saying it is OK to use animals for humans’ purposes – what criteria are you using?" I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but the following points you may find relevant: (1) The moral rightness of human use of nature. (2) The moral right to do our work, and to profit from it. So allow me to ask you a question: by what standards do you claim that the human use of a natural resource constitutes an illegitimate claim? How do those same standards allow for medical testing of animals, sniffer dogs, K-9 units in the armed forces and the farming of animals? If we didn't utilise animals for human gain, we would never have made it beyond the hunter-gatherer societies (pre-Neolithic Revolution). "And, regardless of medical testing (which is another issue)..." I don't see how medical testing is any different, it is the same principle: using animals for human purpose. You may argue over the relative benefits to society between that and jumps racing, but the principle is the same. In other words, the basic premise you are pushing - the allegedly "intrinsic value" of untouched nature - allows little room for compromise. "...do you think it is OK to use put animals such as horses at risk of danger and suffering simply for our entertainment and financial gain?" Yes. "What you seem to be saying here is that it the world is centred around humans..." Yes. "...especially considering we can lvie just fine without exploiting animals." Good luck feeding almost 7 billion people on this planet without exploiting animals. We'd see a collapse in agriculture & pharmaceuticals (among other industries); such a scenario I shudder to think of. The history of human progress is that Man takes things from nature, and by using his reason, transforms them into ever-increasing wealth. Our transformation of natural resources has allowed us the quality of living and life span we so enjoy in the 21st century. Were we to stop doing what has come so naturally to us for thousands of years, many humans would suffer and our progress as a civilisation would stagnate. Perhaps you would like to look back in history and cast aspirations over the morality of those 'animal exploiters' who provided the life you have today? The idea that we ought not to take from nature, that our self-interest is inherently immoral, I disagree with.

By saying it is OK to use animals for humans' purposes - what criteria are you using? And, regardless of medical testing (which is another issue), do you think it is OK to use put animals such as horses at risk of danger and suffering simply for our entertainment and financial gain? What you seem to be saying here is that it the world is centred around humans - that it interests (however trivial) can dictate what happens to other creatures. I don't agree with that one bit - especially considering we can lvie just fine without exploiting animals. PS. apologies for the mudslinging.

We are allowed to kill and eat animals, we are allowed to keep them as pets and we pay to watch them performa at circuses and sea parks. So, yes, they are assets. The human race is where it is today - and I acknowledge there are lots of bad parts about where we are and how we got here - because of domination of weaker subspecies.

Let's be clear. Jumps racing and racing in general is not an enertainment product. It's a betting product. Th simple test for this is that if there were o bettting, people wouldn't watch any form of racing - perhaps apart from a few genuinely engaging events like the Melbourne Cup.

Would be good if you could actually respond to my above post, without the churlish mudslinging. I'm interested in your thoughts on the article I sourced.

So doing-good is a bad thing? Geez I wonder how you fit into society if you think being a 'do-gooder' is unreasonable. The fact is that you, and that unintelligible 'Beast-A-Tron' respondent, have an arrogant anthropocentric view of the world. If you think it's OK to exploit animals for your own personal gain, you must see nothing wrong with exploiting humans to the same extent. But I guess you're only answer is that because we're more intelligent - that somehow makes is morally permissible to use others to our means. I repeat, even more emphatically: Grow up.

John, With reference to your comment "Grow up". May suggest you take your own advice. How about trying to explain your side of the story without relying on manufactured emotion and rhetoric? Now you may not believe this but I do give a damn about horses, I have owned a few although I haven't ridden much in the last few years. At the end of the day, though these animals are tools, whether it is a farmer out on a muster, a dressage rider doing whatever it is they actually do or a jumps rider. The owners and riders do care for the animals but that is the life of a horse. With all your do-gooder emotions I guess you don't use any animal products, leather, meat, pharmaceuticals, commercially produced vegetables (animal products are used in fertilisers) or even in the old days I assume you never used a film camera (film emulsion is animal fat based). If so I salute you, if not then I ask that you refrain from judging others, lest you be judged.

Qlder, No, obviously not. The management systems & the people who come up with these systems are the problem. Go to Europe & find out why jumps racing works better over there, then adapt to Australia. For a long time, jumps racing was both safe & popular in Australia. How did it gradually, over a decade or two, suddenly become dangerous & unsafe to horses..... ???

JiMMM, Yes, this has been pointed out before. I don't how the "experts" can tell from an early age which horses can jump or not, but apparently it is an art known the wise. And yes, in Australia, rather than develop horses to jump from an early age, we try to convert former flat gallopers into hurdle jumpers, which is probably a major contributing factor to injuries & fatalities. So obviously the system, rather than the structure, is at fault. Look, I agree with KR's broad argument, but here I think it's a case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Having fewer & lower hurdles is a case in point. It's very poor management. Some of these people are making decisions on the run without thinking through the ramifications.

Well to be honest, "At least with the jumps racing, many horses will make it to a natural death, rather than going to the knackery and ending up dog food and glue" was an appeal to emotion, I don't think its a valid arguement myself, but seeing as you use emotion all the time to argue a point I figured it was worth a shot.