Like it or not, equestrian sports walk an ethical tightrope, and the equestrian activities that have been considered the norm for generations are coming under public scrutiny.
The Grand National has a huge profile and is virtually guaranteed to produce images that some people find unacceptable, even if others also find the event entertaining. Jump racing has been banned in all but one state in Australia, where the mood music around flat racing is also becoming increasingly negative. Greyhound racing has also been banned in many US states, and there are calls for it to be banned in the UK, with the Welsh government already proposing this option. Negative publicity around equestrian sport also goes well beyond horseracing. The modern pentathlon will cease to include equestrianism after the 2024 Olympics, and there have been calls for the Olympics to omit equestrian sports altogether.
World Horse Welfare has been highly influential in this area, but there aren’t many equestrian charities or wider organisations that aren’t having conversations about social licence and equestrianism. And the number of academic publications on equine welfare has increased more than three-fold in the past 10 years.
Most of the general public are uncomfortable, even opposed, to the current manner in which horses are used in sport
In a 2022 YouGov poll commissioned by World Horse Welfare, 20 percent of the public did not support the use of horses in sports under any circumstances, while 40 percent felt that they could only support the continued use of horses in sports if welfare is improved (BEVA, 2022). In a recent FEI survey, 52 percent of respondents felt welfare standards in equestrian sports need to be improved, with a further 15 percent believing it is impossible to provide adequate welfare protection (FEI, 2022).
One can conclude from these figures that most of the general public are uncomfortable, even opposed, to the current manner in which horses are used in sport.
Our social licence to pursue equestrian sport is likely to be further undermined by the negative headlines around the Grand National. Loss of public trust will erode support for equestrianism and increase the risk of political support evaporating. Even before the National, voices from the equestrian industry were quick to condemn animal rights protesters as ignorant and failing to understand the industry. After the race, some held them responsible for the spectacle that unfolded.
However, aggressive counterpunches risk undermining the credibility of racing as a sport and the credibility of those involved in it. Whatever the reality, perception is critical, and the Grand National was not perceived well by many ardent supporters of equestrian sports, let alone the general public – many of whom are opposed to it continuing in its current form. The perception of what we do and how we conduct ourselves really matters, irrespective of the actual harm that might result.
The perception of what we do and how we conduct ourselves really matters, irrespective of the actual harm that might result
Much of what we do as veterinary surgeons goes unseen by the public, but how will we be perceived when it becomes more widely known that some vets still pin or bar fire horses’ tendons or cauterise their palates in the absence of robust evidence that it makes any clinical difference? Irrespective of whether these procedures influence performance, is it acceptable that we facilitate routine surgical modification of a horse’s airway in the hope that it might advance its chances on the racetrack?
Whatever we think, we need to consider what the general public believes when these welfare issues are discussed more widely, as, in time, they inevitably will be. Trust is everything; without it, we, along with equestrian sport, will lose our social licence to operate freely. Ours is the profession that the public expects to uphold animal welfare, and we have all sworn that, “above all, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care”.
How will we be perceived when it becomes more widely known that some vets still pin or bar fire horses’ tendons or cauterise their palates in the absence of robust evidence that it makes any clinical difference?
We need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
Just because we can doesn’t mean we should! I believe that further discussion needs to be had around what we should be doing to augment equine performance and where lines should be drawn between this and promoting health. If we are to preserve equestrian sport, then the social norms of the industry will have to align with what wider society considers acceptable.
The dial appears to be moving, and we, as the most trusted profession in the industry, have a pivotal role in challenging the status quo and advocating positive change in equestrian sports. We need to discuss the provision of veterinary care to equine athletes, look critically at the procedures we perform, reflect on our oath and ask whether we can honestly say we are prioritising the health and welfare of the horse above all else.
