Grand National

[Kid in the Riot]

9 minutes ago, Big C said:

There are animals treated a lot worse in this country. A few strikes of a soft whip is nothing in comparison 

Not the strongest intellectual argument in favour of animal cruelty, is it?

[Big C]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

Not the strongest intellectual argument in favour of animal cruelty, is it?

Depends on what you call animal cruelty I guess. 

[nebristolred]

4 minutes ago, Big C said:

Depends on what you call animal cruelty I guess. 

So 3 horses dying in a race isn't animal cruelty now? 

[Big C]

1 minute ago, nebristolred said:

So 3 horses dying in a race isn't animal cruelty now? 

When did 3 horses die in a race?

[spudski]

11 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Fair play, I thought you'd be more defensive over it but I always respect it when people actually accept that there is an element of hypocrisy or similar to it. For what it's worth, I can bang on about this as being helpful for the environment, but I fly everywhere, as you say, we are all hypocrites in one way or another.

To be fair of all things I'd say this is the most obvious is it not? People like meat, they just want to eat it in a way that doesn't cause as much suffering.

And as I've pointed out, vegetarians have to eat *something*. Eating vegetarian food will kill far fewer animals than eating meat, it's as simple as that.

To be fair I think it's easy to turn a blind eye not for that reason, but because it's shielded from us. Right from birth, the whole idea that an animal goes through hell both in life and in being killed, that whole notion is hidden from us until we find it or until some vegetarian throws a video in our faces. And it shocks, as it should do.

That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye. And to be fair, some people think it's okay to eat meat, that's absolutely fine, they're entitled to. But I just struggle to see how they can say they care about animal welfare if they do, that's all. And it's just my perspective, nothing more.

I totally agree, there are some terrible conditions on the planet, where animals have no life and housed and slaughtered in humanly for our consumption. 

However, there are many people throughout the world that care for their animals, give them freedom to roam, feed them well, and slaughter in a human and painless way as possible. 

Either in sustainable small holdings or on very large open farms. 

It's not all evil. 

I look at the bigger picture. 

As I said on an earlier post,  we are all animals on this planet. 

Take away what us humans have put in place, in the way we live, take it back to basics. 

The animal kingdom consists of Herbivores, Carnivores and Omnivores. 

Each goes about its way of consuming food. 

The Latter two kill other animals to eat the meat. Often in a barbaric way and eaten alive. It's the way of the animal kingdom that we are part of. 

We consider ourselves the higher educated and knowledgeable species...something that we've labelled ourselves. But are we? We are just judging the animal kingdom on our views. 

In the natural world we are one of the most incapable species at surviving in the wild. We've used our brains in a different way to keep ourselves warm and a food supply etc. 

I wonder what an Octopus, Dolphin or Whale would say about us! 

Yes it's an alternate way of looking at life...but in the simplistic way of us all living together on the planet as one, that's what it boils down to. 

 

[nebristolred]

3 minutes ago, Big C said:

When did 3 horses die in a race?

In a meet*. Either way, you don't believe that's animal cruelty now?

[spudski]

29 minutes ago, frenchred said:

I actually agree with him.so will give your tip a swerve!

:laugh:...I've got him on ignore, so missed that quip. A bit like the bloke in the pub everyone ignores, and trys to avoid, but they don't get the hint. 

[Big C]

5 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

In a meet*. Either way, you don't believe that's animal cruelty now?

So in 21 races many with about 20 runners in it. And no I don't. It's tragic of course it is no more so than to the owners, trainers and stable staff who take care of them but it's roughly 0.09% of runners who have died in a race. I'll take those odds if somebody said you had 0.09% chance of dieing by doing something. I've probably got more chance of being whipped by Katie Price 

[nebristolred]

3 minutes ago, Big C said:

So in 21 races many with about 20 runners in it. And no I don't. It's tragic of course it is no more so than to the owners, trainers and stable staff who take care of them but it's roughly 0.09% of runners who have died in a race. I'll take those odds if somebody said you had 0.09% chance of dieing by doing something. I've probably got more chance of being whipped by Katie Price 

Where is this 0.09% stat from?

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Where is this 0.09% stat from?

Here is the list. It's grim reading in black and white. 

https://www.horsedeathwatch.com/index.php

[Big C]

9 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Where is this 0.09% stat from?

It's from horse death watch

[nebristolred]

1 minute ago, Big C said:

It's from horse death watch

So 0.09% chance, on any given race, for any given horse?

So let's assume an average of 7 races a year (no idea how accurate that is btw), over 3 years. That becomes a roughly 1 in 68 chance of that horse dying, is that correct?

If so, I'd say that's pretty ****ing horrific. 

[Big C]

Just now, nebristolred said:

So 0.09% chance, on any given race, for any given horse?

So let's assume an average of 7 races a year (no idea how accurate that is btw), over 3 years. That becomes a roughly 1 in 68 chance of that horse dying, is that correct?

If so, I'd say that's pretty ****ing horrific. 

Really? That's life, 0.09% of anything happening is pretty remote. I think anyone would take those odds unless they want to wrap themselves up in cotton wool and never go out 

[Big C]

9 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

So 0.09% chance, on any given race, for any given horse?

So let's assume an average of 7 races a year (no idea how accurate that is btw), over 3 years. That becomes a roughly 1 in 68 chance of that horse dying, is that correct?

If so, I'd say that's pretty ****ing horrific. 

And I think your maths are wrong also 

[nebristolred]

12 minutes ago, Big C said:

Really? That's life, 0.09% of anything happening is pretty remote. I think anyone would take those odds unless they want to wrap themselves up in cotton wool and never go out 

But it's not 0.09% is it? If that is per horse per start, then over a whole career of 21 races that is 1.89%. And it could potentially be higher than that I believe?

[Big C]

1 minute ago, nebristolred said:

But it's not 0.09% is it? If that is per horse per start, then over a whole career of 21 races that is 1.89%. And it could potentially be higher than that I believe?

No your maths are wrong. 

[nebristolred]

29 minutes ago, Big C said:

No your maths are wrong. 

Nicely explained.

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, Big C said:

Depends on what you call animal cruelty I guess. 

In your other posts this evening you didn't deny that whipping was animal cruelty, when I asked you directly about it. Have you changed your mind?

[Big C]

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

In your other posts this evening you didn't deny that whipping was animal cruelty, when I asked you directly about it. Have you changed your mind?

Not in a racing aspect no I haven't

[Kid in the Riot]

13 minutes ago, Big C said:

Not in a racing aspect no I haven't

So you don't think jockeys whipping horses is cruel to the horse?

Do you think horses being forced to race, and losing their lives doing so, is cruel to horses? 

Just so we're clear. 

[Big C]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So you don't think jockeys whipping horses is cruel to the horse?

Do you think horses being forced to race, and losing their lives doing so, is cruel to horses? 

Just so we're clear. 

I don't think a few taps of a whip is cruel no.

Horses are not forced to race and  yes a very small percentage unfortunately do lose their lives but  no I don't think horse racing is cruel

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, nebristolred said:

So 0.09% chance, on any given race, for any given horse?

So let's assume an average of 7 races a year (no idea how accurate that is btw), over 3 years. That becomes a roughly 1 in 68 chance of that horse dying, is that correct?

If so, I'd say that's pretty ****ing horrific. 

 

I believe it's 0.2% of all thoroughbred' deaths occur on a raceday. My figures are from industry bodies, but TBH I've been down the boozer and can't be arsed at this precise hour to google them for accuracy.

Even at 1 in 500, it's still a lot of horses and I agree with you that all sorts of measures should be taken to reduce this total to as near zero as possible (given that horses can easily break their legs and such an injury is non-recoverable for them).

National Hunt in particular need to address this. Protests and opposition to avoidable horse deaths are only going to get worse. 

[Rob k]

11 hours ago, BCFCAL said:

As far as I was aware, all they've really done is made the landing areas higher, rather than lower the fences, and even that was quite a few years back.

They have done both since 2011 

[spudski]

8 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I believe it's 0.2% of all thoroughbred' deaths occur on a raceday. My figures are from industry bodies, but TBH I've been down the boozer and can't be arsed at this precise hour to google them for accuracy.

Even at 1 in 500, it's still a lot of horses and I agree with you that all sorts of measures should be taken to reduce this total to as near zero as possible (given that horses can easily break their legs and such an injury is non-recoverable for them).

National Hunt in particular need to address this. Protests and opposition to avoidable horse deaths are only going to get worse. 

RR...if it's 0.2% and you want measures to be taken to be as ' near zero as possible'...then there is only another 0.1% to go. So things are heading in the right direction, wouldn't you agree. 

[spudski]

This is exactly the type of example I spoke about earlier...where protestors have no idea about the industry and can't offer a solution when asked a straightforward question. It happens all the time. 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

10 hours ago, Big C said:

I don't think a few taps of a whip is cruel no.

Horses are not forced to race and  yes a very small percentage unfortunately do lose their lives but  no I don't think horse racing is cruel

Eh?

37 minutes ago, spudski said:

This is exactly the type of example I spoke about earlier...where protestors have no idea about the industry and can't offer a solution when asked a straightforward question. It happens all the time. 

In fairness, I'm sure we could both make negative stereotypes about those that attend the big horse racing events too... and I'm sure the vast majority that go to Cheltenham dressed head to toe in Barbour each year have never visited a farm and don't give a hoot about animal cruelty. 

[spudski]

14 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Eh?

In fairness, I'm sure we could both make negative stereotypes about those that attend the big horse racing events too... and I'm sure the vast majority that go to Cheltenham dressed head to toe in Barbour each year have never visited a farm and don't give a hoot about animal cruelty. 

A stereotype only becomes one, when it's become a common theme. 

I agree...there are many that go to the Cheltenham festival or Grand National that don't have a clue about horse racing. They go because it's become trendy. 

However...they aren't the ones protesting or trying to stop horse racing. 

If you are going to try to stop something...at least know your subject and offer a solution. 

This is the point I've tried to make. 

These protest groups come across as pretty dumb imo. 

When interviewed they often don't have solutions or know the subject well. 

They want the public to know about their causes...yet go about protesting in a way that angers the general public. 

They disrupt, spoil, destroy often making the general publics life a misery, and often with financial consequences. It leaves a bad impression in the public's memory. 

For all the good intentions, they are misplaced and do more harm than good to their causes. 

 

[frenchred]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

This is exactly the type of example I spoke about earlier...where protestors have no idea about the industry and can't offer a solution when asked a straightforward question. It happens all the time. 

 

Absolutely clueless and backs up the industry that these people don't really protest for animal welfare more to give themselves something to do and spend daddies money

[Big C]

44 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Eh?

 

ever tried to make a horse run who didn't want too?

[nebristolred]

1 hour ago, frenchred said:

Absolutely clueless and backs up the industry that these people don't really protest for animal welfare more to give themselves something to do and spend daddies money

When you have to completely invent things in your own head to back up your argument you’re probably not onto a winner here really are you?