Seriously, those horses were probably on the way to the cat food farm before the show. Now, they are probably on the first truck to get canned.
I will admit the show started off slow, but was slowly picking up as everyone was getting into a better grove.
Stupid reason to cancel a show.
[deleted]
MMM, I'm suddenly in the mood for a couple of Milchburgers!
shareWhy did you even want to watch it, if you don't give a damn about what happens to them? All the characters worth a damn on this show get angry when they see horses mistreated. You don't give a *beep* What the hell is wrong with you?
shareForget it, clyons. Morons like this don't deserve a reply, so don't waste your breath.
Ebb tide in the gene pool.
[deleted]
Forget it, clyons. Morons like this don't deserve a reply, so don't waste your breath.
Ebb tide in the gene pool.
Logical fallacy in your argument. The people at the track get upset when a horse dies, but they'd never want the track to shut down.
shareIf the horse died because the staff at the track were neglectful, then yes I would want it closed.
shareDo a little research. Horses die every day at race tracks, stables, ranches and anywhere else you can find a horse. It averages out to about one horse per day at race tracks alone. You can't control what a 1000 lb crazy animal will do, nobody can. You can't restrain a horse in the normal course of things. They are frighteningly easy to injure, (much more so when bred for racing), easy to spook and generally impossible to manage.
shareThen punch yourself for wasting my time and yours.
shareIt is such a sad shame that people like you exist in society.
You think it was stupid reason to cancel a show? How about realizing that these people force animals against their will to perform in the entertainment industry and if the animals start dying its time to kill the effing show!
I cannot believe you lack such moral decency that you are more concerned with 13 hours of a show a year than the living, breathing, amazing creatures that are suffering because of it.
I hope you don't eat meat or wear leather, MadameRoyale. Because that would make you a big fat hypocrite.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled by the last priest
She's absolutely right, of course...and even if she eats meat and wears leather, she isn't a hypocrite. One doesn't need to be a vegetarian to see that it is obviously unacceptable to risk the suffering or death of any creature for the sake of mere entertainment.
shareThat's so ridiculous it is almost quotable. Fashion and food preference are both justifiable in killing animals, but accidental or indirect deaths from entertainment is where you draw the line? I think you have hopped on a bandwagon that you haven;t really thought about, or you might just be the stereotypical PETA enthusiast who would rather send these horses to the glue factory if even the chance suffering or death for entertainment value.
And if you own a leather jacket and complain about unnecessary animal death, consider how intentional the death was that went into the making of your jacket compared to the accidental death of an animal on a modern TV show, where they like the keep the same animals around for continuity when possible.
Even though it seems you're too engulfed in PETA propaganda to think, it is (far beyond) hypocritical to wear a dead animal for social purposes while complaining about the the treatment of animals, and you're literally "wearing it on your sleeve."
This is not an exit.
Not a bit. I don't personally feel that those things are justified, but many people do feel that humans are naturally omnivorous and that most must sustain themselves partially on flesh, as so many other species also do. Again, I don't really believe that to be the case, but clearly, many do. However, I don't see why anyone would fail to draw a line when it comes to mere frivolous, undeniably unnecessary entertainment. I'd also agree if you'd said "fur" (implying animals being brought into the world only to get hideously killed in order to be worn as fashion accessories), but given that leather's typically a bi-product of animals being killed for food, I must admit that if that must be done at all, it's best to use every part of them (or as many as possible.) I don't support the wearing of animal skins, or the abuse or mistreatment of any animal ultimately consumed by humans...I was simply defending someone else, whom I did not see as being hypocritical, even if s/he does happen to wear leather or eat meat.
I do understand that the deaths were unintentional, and that many die on average during a certain period of time in any given circumstances; I don't suspect this show's crew of any deliberate cruelty. Obviously, they would not wish to harm the creatures with whom they're working. A slight risk might be acceptable, as most things involve some small degree of it...but considering what took place multiple times, I do feel that they made the right decision. Ultimately it doesn't much matter whether the deaths are intentional or not.
And no, I definitely would not rather see horses sent off to glue factories!! I certainly don't concur with 100% of the beliefs, goals, and tactics of all PETA members. Many of them do not seem to understand animal behavior, human or otherwise, as well as they ought to.
But is it a mark of a healthy-minded individual to feel a pang of sorrow at killing an insect, whether intentionally or not? Absolutely. Why NOT consider its life, feelings, and will or instinct to survive? Honestly. It may sound like a joke, but what makes you feel so vastly superior to any other creature that crawls this planet? If you think it's your "intellect," then try working on that...and while you're at it, why not striving for a higher level of compassion? If we're truly being honest, that should count for at least as much. And we surely do have a lot more to learn from other animals than they do from us.
Responses to other messages in this thread, because it's gotten waaaaaay too old to bump up again with additional comments:
You don’t have to *worship* anyone; just respect life, at least...within whatever body it happens to be existing. It’s terribly frightening that there are people who would, even anonymously, bother to claim not to care about their fellow beings. ThreeIn10 and Nomad310, you were EXACTLY right. And there’s no such thing as “just a damn horse," any more than there's such a thing as "just a damned human."
ToWhereYouAre is clearly a very intelligent and sensible individual; everything s/he said is absolutely truthful and logical. It may be challenging to try and generate compassion for other species of animal in people whom appear not to even truly care about their own, but to suggest that we as a species DON’T honestly care is just patently false. We can’t single-handedly end all of the injustices and cruelty in the world—but many of us, I myself included, would and DO do whatever is in our power, taking the opportunities that present themselves to fight or at least refrain from contributing to that which causes distress. This is the one thing that bugs me the most whenever I hear some variation of it:
“I have no respect for morons who obsess about animals while humans suffer in the world.”
I have zero respect for THAT. First of all, humans are a species of animal (as opposed to plant, or fungus.) Second, to feel that there is such a huge difference between us that one can only be upset by other creatures’ suffering once all human suffering has been eradicated from the face of the planet is among THE WORST and most absurd things I’ve EVER heard. True compassion means being able to feel empathy for all species, not just one’s own. What are the odds of being born a member of Homo sapiens, anyway, given the billions of extant species?! We should be appropriately honored and humbled to have been given such a unique chance to help and protect *all* of our fellow beings. But to think it unreasonable to care about all life forms…to divide one’s concern such that certain lives fall within the “circle of compassion” and others can be left in the cold…THAT is PRECISELY the kind of spirit which would ensure that human suffering alone could NEVER, EVER stand a snowball’s chance in hell of ending.
Now, someone pointed out that the deaths occurred at times when the horses weren’t doing anything related to the show’s taping. However, the causes could easily still have been related to something that happened during the making of the show. It occurs to me that they could have put the production on hold until an investigation could’ve determined the cause of the tragic horse problems…but perhaps that wasn’t feasible, and they may not have been happy with the show’s performance, anyway. Maybe this was the final straw, so to speak, but one of multiple reasons for the quick cancellation. Anyway, the incidents WERE accidents, and might have occurred regardless of anything the makers of the show did. For valuing the animals’ lives above all and erring on the side of caution, I commend them…and also sincerely hope that the horses’ fates now that the show is over don’t involve further very significant dangers (considering that risks always exist…)
I'm afraid it IS hypocritical to care passionately about perceived mistreatment of horses at a racetrack and not care about animals used to make handbags, clothing, and Big Macs.
We grow up in Western society (and others) thinking it's OK to use and abuse animals in various ways, especially if our lives are made more comfortable and enjoyable for it, and we never think twice about it. But when we're faced with something we're not that familiar with, especially something like horse racing which has very little effect on our own lives, we suddenly see it as barbaric and immoral and we demand that it cease immediately.
Cognitive dissonance is an interesting concept. We all experience it; and we all must face how we deal with it when it comes to our treatment of animals.
cognitive dissonance
noun Psychology
anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs
But when did that other poster mention his/her lack of concern for the well-being of animals used as food and clothing?! I personally don't condone cruelty and abuse for any purpose, regardless of the benefit to one's own species...although I surely would feel a lot better about meat & leather if they were obtained from idealistically sunny and peaceful, family-owned farms on which animals were free to live out long, healthy, enjoyable lives before being painlessly turned into those mentioned products mentioned...! Actually, I'd love it if it were possible to butcher them immediately after they'd died natural deaths...a nice incentive to keep them healthy...but I digress, a tad! It's not that I really disagree with you. It's simply that I couldn't imagine a way to justly defend the mistreatment of other animals for something as utterly unnecessary as sport (or fashion.) Of course, I would never accuse this show's makers of intentional cruelty, either, you understand. The fact that this issue prompted them to completely cancel their production after a handful of episodes shows that they do care.
shareBut it is precisely "sport" that guarantees these animals are exceptionally well treated. The obvious part is that these horses cost lots of money and I cannot imagine anyone who buys them wants to see them harmed, mistreated. In addition there are all kinds of laws and even a horseman's fund to help retired geldings in particular (males which cannot be bred) to find homes when their careers are over.
But an even more nuanced look will reveal that there are hundreds of thousands of horses involved in racing (either active, retired, breeding, nursing etc) and millions of human livelihoods rely on it to feed their families. Billions and billions of dollars are invested annually into the care, feeding, housing, vet care etc of these animals. There is no undoing any of it without literally sacrificing the livelihoods of millions of people and forcing the mass slaughter of nearly every one of those animals.
Can more be done? I'm sure. But destroying the racing industry would accomplish the exact opposite effect. No racing, no money; no money, no care for the animals; no care for the animals, horrible mass death for them and unemployment for millions. And then what? Near extinction for the breed, since there is relatively little natural habitat for them. I imagine it is like any business - when times are good everyone benefits and the "bosses" can do more and give more but when times are bad people lose their benefits. So I imagine the better solutions are to work inside to improve the industry and work to improve conditions and attitudes where it needs improvement, and recognizing that no amount of risk mitigation will prevent every accident or injury which is true for all human endeavor and not just those we are not familiar with out even personally dislike.
admiral, hyperbole has its place, and that place is usually in place of a valid argument.
"But an even more nuanced look will reveal that there are hundreds of thousands of horses involved in racing (either active, retired, breeding, nursing etc) and millions of human livelihoods rely on it to feed their families. Billions and billions of dollars are invested annually into the care, feeding, housing, vet care etc of these animals. There is no undoing any of it without literally sacrificing the livelihoods of millions of people and forcing the mass slaughter of nearly every one of those animals."
This is just utter nonsense as is much of the rest of your post. Like this bit:
No racing, no money; no money, no care for the animals; no care for the animals, horrible mass death for them and unemployment for millions.
No money for racing means those horses won't be bred, ergo, there won't be any of them around to suffer any mass death, horrible or otherwise. You make it seem that the demise of horse racing will bring on worldwide depression and mass deaths on the scale of the Holocaust. Absurd.
I had thought you were an intelligent and thoughtful guy. Now I'm beginning to think you're just long-winded but write well. On the other hand, maybe you're simply a farceur, pulling our legs in your down time.
I would like to add a benefit to ending racing...less families torn apart by the people who go into debt to pay off horse racing bets. It is much worse now that they have off track betting and the east coast has tons of horse tracks that draws older folks who spend their retirement incomes there. It can destroy families.
Gambling brings out some of the nastiest people who are loan sharks. It isn't like Ascot or the Derby with beautiful people with gorgeous clothes and hats sipping fancy drinks.
"Sometimes you have to know when to put a cork in it."
~Frasier
If what I said were untrue in any way it would be easy for you to disprove. You can't disprove it, because it is entirely true, so I truly wonder why you bother even posting a reply.
The thoroughbred industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. Millions of people depend on the livelihoods earned via of the horse racing industry. Here are some statistics compiled by an independent accounting firm to support my assertions: http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=18
-1.4 million Full Time Jobs
-4.7 million industry participants
-559,000 thoroughbreds of racing age
-844,000 total race horses (including non-thoroughbreds)
-The total economic impact of the racing sector is over $380 billion.
-$101 billion total impact on US GDP.
-Thorougbred breed accounts for 33% of total economic impact
There are between 25,000 and 40,000 thoroughbred foals born each year. Here is a link: http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=2
Average lifespan of a thoroughbred is north of 20 years. (look it up). So, if you do away with the industry, just who's money do you think would take care of these nearly 1 million horses in the USA alone? No money, nobody's going to pay to take care of them. It really is that simple.
Oh yes, of course, once you do "get rid of" all the animals alive now in the effort to ban horse racing, then there would be virtually no more breeding of them. On that I agree with you 100%. Same with dogs and cats as I posted several days ago. If we don't have any need for them, or desire for them, or generate any money from them, they won't be bred in such numbers.
But if you ban the industry with the waive of a hand, you have to do something with the nearly 1 million animals alive right now. Who shall pay for their care, feed, vet, boarding etc after you take away all the economic incentive in keeping them? Sorry if this is an inconvenient question for you, but it is one you will have to address if you want to get rid of this industry in which 4.7 million Americans participate. If you legislate racing away those animals will be put down in the largest slaughter of horses since God knows when. You really can't tell these ~5 million people that they can't participate in their industry any more yet expect that they will pay out of pocket for the next 20 years. That would be an extremely naive expectation in so many ways.
It's all really very very simple, rudimentary even. I think perhaps you just have trouble understanding that there is a very big world out there and it is much more diverse and entrenched than you both ever knew and care to believe.
First, let’s look at the financial issues. The financial statistics you quote, that have been paid for by The Jockey Club, have about as much validity as similar economic impact reports prepared by sports franchises wishing to fund their businesses, in whole or in part, with public money. In short, The Jockey Club statistics are specious, at best.
“Economists widely believe that studies sponsored by leagues and events exaggerate the economic impact that professional franchises and large sporting events make on local communities. Such overstatement results from several factors. First, the studies often ignore the substitution effect. To the extent that attendees at a sporting event spend their money on that event instead of on other activities in the local economy, the sporting event simply results in reallocation of expenditures in the economy, rather than in real net increases in economic activity.”
http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/upon-further-review-examination -sporting-event-economic-impact-studies
The job statistics are also compiled by the economic report, paid for by The Jockey Club. Here’s another perspective on the sorts of jobs that are actually created by large sports venues.
“There are other problems with these projects, as well. For one thing, the jobs created are for the most part low paid, part time and offer no benefits. Because of this “jobs” are not really created by a sports complex. Also, very few ballparks have been much of a boon to surrounding businesses. Few people that attend sports events stay around the area in which the stadium sits to shop, eat, or look for other entertainment. They go to the park and then they leave. About the only thing locals get are traffic nightmares and litter.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25167
As for your prediction of economic doom and gloom should the race industry be curbed, or even eventually disappear, what do you think has happened to workers and industries since the very beginning of the industrial revolution? Workers whose jobs have been replaced by machinery have ALWAYS been affected, have ALWAYS had to find other occupations, and have ALWAYS suffered until they adapted. This is the price of progress of any kind, whether the engine driving that progress is industrial or behavioral.
When corsets and bustles fell out of fashion, should millions of women have been forced to continue wearing them in order to save the corset and bustle industry? That's how ridiculous your argument is.
Now let’s turn to the well-being of horses, about which you claim the thoroughbred industry is so concerned. First, I’d like you to tell us where the money is that takes care of these animals who are bred for-but can no longer-race, or for those who are bred but never race? A very few retired horses can be segued into second careers, some as hunter/jumpers. In fact, The Jockey Club sponsors such a program. http://tjctip.com/ However, why do you think those horses are no longer racing? A horse not fit to race is a horse not fit to jump, I assure you. Therefore, although it sounds lovely that a program exists to find careers for former race horses, very few horses will qualify. Two notable examples of “retired” thoroughbreds whose injuries precluded them from “new careers” are Outlaw Yodeler and Marc’s Shadow. Perhaps you’ve heard of them.
And what about the many thoroughbred horses bred for the track who are simply not fast enough? What happens to them? Who provides the money to house, feed and care for them? I’ll tell you. No one. Owning a pleasure horse is a very expensive proposition and horses are the first things to go when it comes time to tighten the family purse strings. Where do they go when there are no buyers? Many of them are sold for slaughter, transported across the border to Mexico or Canada where horse slaughter is legal, or shipped to Japan or Europe where horse slaughter is legal and horse meat a delicacy. Slaughter for meat was the fate of even the 1986 Kentucky Derby winner, Ferdinand.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/triplecrown06/news/story?id=243 2046
The last horse slaughterhouse in America closed down in 2007. However, several states, including Kentucky (the land of all that pretty blue grass and those lovely, bucolic horse farms) are lobbying for its reinstatement.
Dr. Patricia Hogan, VMD, ACVS, a world renowned equine surgeon and veterinarian who treated Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex and numerous other champions, testified before a Congressional sub-committee in 2006 in favor of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.
"The whole underbelly that horse slaughter breeds disturbs me. It's just a scavenging type of industry. Slaughter has become the garbage can for the performance horse industry. If we don't figure that out sometime soon, the public will condemn us. Our culture dictates that horses should not be slaughtered…. I felt what was happening to these horses was appalling – the horses I care for every day."
http://www.equineadvocates.org/issueDetail.php?recordID=2
Because horse slaughter is such a shameful act, it’s difficult to get a handle on the statistics. Forbes Magazine has featured several articles on the issue.
“More than 10,000 U.S. Thoroughbreds a year ship to slaughterhouses in Canada and Mexico, slightly more than the 7,567 yearlings sold at auction in 2010 to American, Japanese and Middle Eastern billionaires, among others.
These doomed Thoroughbreds are racing’s collateral damage—and that’s before you include the 750 who die on the track each year, an average of two fatal injuries per day according to the Jockey Club’s new equine injury database.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/vickeryeckhoff/2011/11/29/racing-industry- silent-about-slaughtered-thoroughbreds/
The Jockey Club, whose statistics you seem to admire, reports a decrease in demand for foals in recent years, and predicts this trend will continue.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/mediaCenter.asp?story=518
This means that even fewer racing stallions and mares will be “saved” as breeding stock and that more of them will be seeing the inside of a slaughterhouse.
In any case, in another few years this discussion will be moot because the popularity of horse racing is, thankfully, on the decline. Note reasons #4, 5, and 6.
http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/reasons-for-the-decline-of -horse-racing/
So it would seem, admiralbuzz, that it is YOU who have a small understanding of what it is that many people in the “very big world out there” understand about and disapprove about the horse racing "industry."
This exchange really stands for itself but the bottom line is you didn't disprove a thing I said. The statistics published by the Jockey Club were compiled and tabulated by one of the most respected accounting and consulting firms in the world. Even if they are off by 20% they still support my point.
Lets go back and reiterate what I said and what you objected to:
- Horse racing is a multi-billion dollar industry. Fact. Even PETA says this.
- Millions of people depend on a livelihood from the horse racing industry. Fact.
- There are hundreds of thousands of horses involved in the TB industry - Fact. Indeed it is closer to 1 million horses.
- Take away the economics of what is some $100 billion a year, or $2 trillion over 20 year lifespan of TB horses, and it is going to be very hard for anyone to sustain the lives of those apx 1 million horses. This should be as obvious as the nose on your face.
I made my assertions, you didn't like them and tried to insinuate some silliness, so I supported them with proofs. You can have your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.
The rest of your post is completely off the point. I don't think I ever even broached those topics and it is like you want to argue with someone no matter what the topic. I am not here to argue.
I agree that you're not here to argue. I think you're here to state your opinions as if they were fact, no matter how they are shown to be specious arguments, and I think you are here to be admired for them.
Deloit is an accounting firm of longstanding. They, and others like them, are paid to produce economic impact reports that can be massaged to conclude just about anything the client wants them to conclude. I gave you a link about that. It's a dog and pony show, appropriately enough. Apparently you don't understand how that works and insist on relying upon The Jockey Club and companies it employs. That would be like relying on Carnival Cruise Line to produce a reliable report on the safety of cruise ships.
The last part of my post was in direct response to your assertion that horse racing is necessary to the welfare of horses. I have shown that it is not.
I'm comfortable with that.
If you are comfortable believing that we can take anywhere from $2 trillion to $7 trillion in economic impact away from the TB industry over 20 years and still find a way to pay to continue housing, feeding and caring for nearly 1 million horses, God bless you and God help the people who educated you.
shareYadda, yadda, yadda, admiral.
Keep on insisting the same old things, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Likely lots of uninformed people will agree with you, just like a lot of people still believe Iraq had WMDs.
Are you going to keep replying to me? Do you need the last word so badly?
Not as badly as you needed it, apparently.
You saw Dingleberries?
If you go to a track like Santa Anita, or Churchill Downs, any great track, and you unreservedly watch these beautiful animals run, run fast, run elegantly, and watching this you cannot honestly discern that the horse is running because it wants to, because it loves to, because that is what it is meant to do, and that the animals are staggering in their beauty and their peacefulness, or that they are not innately loving the fact they are running until their hearts are pounding at a rate almost otherworldly...
then i just don't know what to tell you.
And no; I don't propose to know what a horse is thinking, just like I'm sure that you don't either.
We agree to disagree. That's it.
Admiral - applause for putting the smack down on the silliness which compelled your reply above. Nothing absurd about the numbers and validation of this industry. Nicely written and, oh, I just checked, my leg doesn't seem to have been pulled.
What I think is interesting is that people don't seem to key in on the historical relationship between humans and horses, in place for both utilitarian applications and entertainment, dual in hard purpose and for sport for centuries. Horses, to the best of my knowledge, have held the least significance in the non-human natural food chain. There is evidence of them having very few natural animal predators - human hunters have always been their biggest threat. Considering they are such a plentiful resource of meat and what this would indicate in nature's design, it is almost as if the horse was made for domestication - seeming to be perfectly designed for us and our needs, in turn, driving us to care for them. We require each other.
Anyone with true knowledge of horse breeding will tell you that for a thoroughbred and the breeds which are included under this distinction, racing them is nurturing their instinctive compulsion to run, compete and workout. The horse is dangerous due to insanity if this nature is neglected. To suggest that humans "stop breeding" these animals because the sport of it offends you, indicates a thin understanding of the human/horse relationship, regardless of the industry and economy it represents. Letting them go to the wild is also absurd and would present a different set of challenges in today's world.
For fun, read (not watch) read "Seabiscuit". Informative about this business of racing, breeding and human compassion for horses. It's not always pretty when commerce is involved, true. The overall 'business' of caring for animals has integrity in high levels...as for gambling, that's a different historical truth about human nature. As for the horse and "racing them against their will" as one poster put it, the horse has clear and proven will to race...this is in their nature and they very clearly 'compete' with one another. This is the truth about these horses. My mind wonders to those who would ban the sport; Does your compassion for the animal go full circle...beyond all the idealistic protest crap? Meaning, does your love of animals allow you to acknowledge that there is a place for sport in this particular breed? Or - does what the sport, the existence of the breed and the animal itself say about humans, make it too hard for you to face that we aren't likely to evolve beyond our own need to compete and wager? I'd rather have this industry responsible for the welfare of these magnificent animals than leave them to the hippies, vegans and the spineless and their "idealistic wild" where the animals would go insane, become a threat and we'd watch their slaughter, suffering and demise in other ways. As far as instituting the slow down or "extinction" of this breed because the use of them for entertainment offends some...I find that 'Hitler-esque'.
We haven't changed our relationship with horses and most things about ourselves for 2,000 documented years...
http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_history_intro.asp
Evidence of the domestication of horses emerged in Syria, dating 2000 BC. In an excavation, halters adorned the bones of horses and horses in artistic drawings. In 1330 AD, the first pedigrees recorded, referred to the Arabian by name...
...article(s) goes on to talk about the history of these horses and the evolution of sport...there are many more anyone else can find.
[deleted]
I'll only comment back to easypz to say that I did not write what I wrote to be a reasonable or reliable "source". Please - don't rely on me...in fact, I shudder to think of who would rely on information posted anonymously to IMDB.
Here, I am anonymously participating in a discussion on a topic where I have some personal and direct experience. Smear Job? Who was smeared? The idealistic hippies, vegans and the spineless...I'm fine to take the heat on that. You call me an extremist...I'm fine with that, too.
Compare what I've written here to employing a PETA tactic? Seriously...EasyPZ, are you a 'pinko'?
If so, hit me up! I'd like to give a smear job.
[deleted]
Excellent post jenner. The main mindbender regarding PETA's involvement here is that racing horses lead *quality* lives. Of all the dirty, grueling work horses do around the world.....of all the terrible industrial conditions you can find animals....its horse racing that's abusive?!? Just a boggling statement.
I really have no idea how PETA-type groups pick their battles, but from my perspective they are just SO oblivious - when they fight a relatively benevolent activity like horse racing they pretty much make themselves look wacko and destroy their credibility. Like most zealots, they don't seem to have much perspective, they get fired up over one side of the story and fail to even acknowledge the other side.
Well, I completely agree with Nomad that there was a severe overreaction there to the idea of horse racing as a business coming to an end...however, I pretty much do think that you made a good point and explained it nicely. The sport has indeed been turned into a business, and thus it does affect a large number of people quite significantly. It's also not a necessarily bad thing. As far as I understand, most people involved do indeed care deeply for their horses (even if it were only because of the money factor), and care for them very well. In any activity in which participants rely upon the performance of an animal, it only makes sense to take the best possible care of those animals...just like show dogs. (Alas, humans as a whole aren't exactly noted for making sense!) But yes...I do concur with the first bit of that.
Of course, there are plenty of horse lovers who breed and keep them for other purposes and pursuits besides racing (perhaps even recreational racing, rather than the major, organized, industrial sort), or purely for the love of equines. I also agree that the wise thing to do, rather than to totally abolish something (which I don't know that anyone has really advocated) is often to work from within the establishment, making steady improvements, needed reforms, and positive changes. Going after something like horse racing so vehemently is a pretty ridiculous thing for PETA to do...but then, as much as I like them in some ways, in others they DO destroy any credibility they may have had by picking (or creating) the wrong battles--illogical, wasteful, almost pointless ones. By taking a more moderate approach and working to improve the breeding or conditions, they could help a lot more animals than by categorically condemning the entire activity of racing.
And then there's the matter of gambling, and how any addiction to or serious problem with it can destroy families and tear lives apart. Well, this may be so, but I'm not sure that it's a solid case for completely abolishing racing, casinos, and any other major, organized opportunities for such problems to develop. :/
And noooowww, this has gone somewhat off-topic! Still, some of the above was worth replying to. Easypz made no false statement. Jenner's post contained good points--nothing is inherently wrong with equestrian sport. Humans and horses have indeed worked together throughout history. The same is true of dogs. However, to compare the modern criticisms of Thoroughbred breeding with Hitler's ideas about his own species was utterly outrageous and absurd. For any breed to become extinct is always a tragedy and I for one wouldn't support the allowance of that, either--but still, I see no valid comparison there. I don't want to kill all race horses, and neither would any true animal lover. Additionally, the use of terms such as "hippie," "vegan," or "idealistic" as negatives is laughable. Very often the types of people who'd be given such labels are the complete opposite of "spineless" (which, as Easypz pointed out, is a far more apt description of anyone who WOULD try to act as if those were negative qualities.)
I know one thing; I’ll never watch Shoguns Shadow! Show me someone who DOESN’T have a problem with horses dying, especially for the sake of a MOVIE, and I’ll show you a borderline psychopath…no, in all likelihood, a total one. What I do wonder is whether anyone who said, “The show was probably saving these horses’ lives, otherwise they’d have been carted off to the glue factory or someplace!” has ANY actual basis for believing this to be the true of the horses cast on “Luck.” O.o As to the realities of how many horses, on average, suffer injuries or death on a regular basis anyway due to accidents not resulting from human error or cruelty…well, it’s all very interesting, but I’m sure the show’s makers didn’t feel that their program was any worthier a cause or setting for such things to take place, and decided not to risk further incidents.
I also don’t doubt that most racehorses, when well treated and cared for, thoroughly enjoy the thrill and excitement of what they do. I don’t condemn anyone simply for being involved with the sport. The safety and well-being of both the horses and people must be the top priority, however, and I think they made the right choice here, given that they couldn’t ascertain the causes of the deaths (although I did enjoy a few episodes of the show; it might have had some good potential.) I don’t suspect anybody of major neglect or of abuse, and I sympathize because I am aware of how much work goes into a production. Being canceled during or after the first season is always a blow.
I doubt that horse race gambling is one of the leading culprits as far as compulsive gambling and its life-destroying potential...but lol, there is a point to be made about them ladies...! xD Don’t turn my grandma loose in Atlantic City...>:}
With the advent of online gambling, sports betting, Native American casinos, poker clubs, 800 #'s, local bookies, online poker, state lotteries and bingo parlors etc etc... does anyone here really think horse racing ranks anywhere near the top for compulsive gamblers? Oh I'm sure it does exist and for those people and their families it is very bad, but I would be surprised if it weren't at the bottom, or just above bingo in that list of ways to gamble... Then again, those ladies sure can blot!
That's a bunch of intellectual-sounding BS to back up a simplistic way of thinking. It's either "bring no harm ever to any living creature" or you're a hypocrite for discussing cruelty at all? Horse racing is something that most Americans are familiar with - it isn't exotic and foreign, and in my experience is a part of the lives of many. The analogy to fur (and I would add circuses) as compared to leather and meat is valid. Since we cannot exist without killing, even if it's just bacteria or the bugs we step on when we walk, we all have to draw the line somewhere. Having that line be on this side of abusing animals for entertainment is quite sane and logically valid.
share... we all have to draw the line somewhere. Having that line be on this side of abusing animals for entertainment is quite sane and logically valid.
[deleted]
I'm with you on the concept of using animals for food, but fashion?!?
shareIf you have a problem with horses dying don't watch the 1989 Japanese film Shoguns Shadow. That movie had live horses thrown down cliffs and we get to watch them bounce around from cliff to cliff as they are torn to shreds!
On another note, the show probably saved the horses lives!!! As I said earlier they were probably on the way to the cat food farm, or the glue factory or something else! The show actually was giving them a purpose!!
They were getting fresh air and two meals a day!! If the horses could speak they probably would choose running around in a show instead of being sent to a factory where they are shot in the head to be processed for food! Think about that you cry babies!
I'm not happy with the deaths either. But for some perspective, 16 horses have died at Aqueduct since December.
shareThis is what I was looking for, the statistics on the number of horse deaths at any track during the same period of time Luck was filming.
It wasn't just a 'damned horse' I don't believe they killed the project over this. Especially when viewed through the lens of what is the norm at tracks like these.
I am very not happy.
Thank you for posting those statistics, very much.
Compare that with how many have died during the same time frame in a given"processing plant" for cat food, and I think the statistic you end up with will speak for itself.
Sensationalized stories like this are why I think PETA only cares about staying relevant since their "activism" is only applied in vacuums.
This is not an exit.
Seriously, a child is just a small person. I'd sooner see a child raped and killed than see a show that doesn't care about the life of all living beings.
shareI hate PETA. I suspect most of them have never been on a farm, much less worked or owned one. Animals die for odd reasons. They don't think like human beings, which seems to be half the problem regarding the average PETA member, they project their own fear and insecurities on animals. They've perverted empathy to the extent that an apology was demanded for Obama swatting a fly, and now they've targeted one of the few interesting TV shows, which ironically, put some of their grievances into practical terms.
I just can't believe HBO caved to this cult, given the fact most horse enthusiasts, farmers, owners, or anyone else who interacts with horses on a regular basis know they are skiddish.
I'm starting to feel there needs to be protests to these jackasses. Maybe people should start dedicating steaks, various sandwiches, and BBQ to PETA. Maybe if they knew one of their peers died because they did something else stupid would help dissipate this nonsense.
This is not an exit.
No Message
share[deleted]