TIME and again we hear and read about horses being ‘at the centre of our horsey world’, that they’re ‘the most important part’ of our racing/sporting/equestrian activities. But are they really? Can we actually make horses and their needs THE priority?

Many people state their concern for equine welfare in terms of caring for (their) horses that make these racing/sporting/equestrian activities possible. But if their welfare, as distinct from our care of them, was truly our focus wouldn’t we be able to say (with conviction and from a place of evidence) that all of our horses are fully fulfilled in their ‘horsiness’ rather than their utility to us?

But for the majority of domesticated horses, I contend that it isn’t so, and frankly that it can’t be! All of us (me included) must naturally think of ourselves (humans) as a bit special, a bit different, more important somehow than non-human animals. That core belief underpinning so much of our recent influence on the world is sometimes called ‘human exceptionalism’. As an example, think of antimicrobial resistance - how are ‘critically important antibiotics’ defined and why are they increasingly being reserved exclusively for use in humans? Because we consider that (infections in) humans are more important than (in) animals, that’s why!

For some people, human exceptionalism is about protecting lives, for others livelihoods (‘ours to use animals as befits our economic needs’); for some there’s a religion angle (‘only humans, not animals have souls’), for others animals are a route to personal pleasure (as companions or athletes); and for some animals seem simply as objects (a ‘tool’). There are also those (among whom I count myself) who hold with the principles of ‘One Health’ - the sense that human and animal health (and wellbeing) are inextricably linked with that of the environment we all share; that all three are interdependent and one not innately superior in some way to the others. There are, of course, sometimes trade-offs to be made and, human nature being what it is, I contend that it is rarely us that willingly make the compromise. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas!

Safeguarding of rider

If equine welfare were truly THE number ONE priority in our horsey world, it would override owner/riders’ urge to win or trainers’ need to earn a living; at an extreme it would even (heaven forbid, say I who’s been injured often enough by horses) trump human safety. We’d have whips strictly used solely for the safeguarding of rider safety in races, and spurs, bits and nosebands permitted only to the level needed to signal and direct movement. Devices would not be allowed that coerce or forcibly control, drive horses faster or force them to a more pleasing outline. Competition winners would be those where a horse-human partnership was judged on a shared desire to jump or will-to-win (racing/show jumping/cross-country), harmonious way of going (dressage) or healthiest body shape (showing).

But the reality is, and it’s not surprising given that we frame the rules and control the field of play, that human considerations trump equine welfare. What voice do horses really have in the conversation? For domesticated animals including horses, fundamentally we look first and foremost to what they provide for us - it is our competitive streak, our leisure, our desire for pleasure, our need for food even that determine their value to us and guide how we care for them. The majority then do what is right by their horses (occasionally, what and when we’re made to!), in order to be allowed to continue to pursue our interest, our priorities and our pleasures.

Many horse-people hold up the high standard of what they provide as the definition of ‘good horse welfare’. But animal welfare science is not about how we provide for animals (that’s ‘animal husbandry’), it is about THEM - their experience of the environment around them, their sense of being fulfilled in what drives them (food, movement, mating etc.). There is a fundamental disconnect in language and in meaning between two communities of people here. It’s understandable in the horsey world, but frustrating to the welfare world, that the former focus on us and what we provide for horses, and not on them and how they experience their lives (including but not confined to what we provide).

Meaningless to horses

What does a horse care if he has a more expensive, well-appointed stable, only whether it allows him to do those things that are essential to being a horse? We ‘treat them like kings’, we say they are ‘better looked after than millions of the world’s children’ and ‘she deserved to win a Group 1’; but such concepts are meaningless to horses - what they care about is whether they can roll when they choose, or flee a perceived threat, decide what to eat or when to sleep, and so on.

Other species, such as horses, don’t think like us: central to most everything that matters! They likely do so only on an individual, not a species level: the mare looks to her foal’s safety, the stallion to his harem of mares, the yearling to lay-fighting etc.

Many readers (all humans after all!) may naturally feel, to varying degrees, that humans are exceptional and at the centre of all that matters. They may well feel that we’re doing all we reasonably can by our horses to provide them with a life worth living, or indeed a good life. But often this is within the bounds of what suits us or allows us to get from them whatever it is that we seek; it isn’t evidence that we put horses’ welfare needs at the centre of decision-making. Can we be confident that the horse isn’t in any way a victim of our equitation-activities but a willing actor, making for a true partnership?