Английская Википедия:Equine ethics
Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Use dmy dates Шаблон:Multiple issues Equine ethics is a field of ethical and philosophical reflection around the horse, aimed at questioning human behavior towards this animal, and modifying it in the event of unethical practices. It includes questions about breeding, keeping, use (especially for sport) and end of life, in close relation to the notion of respect and well-being of the horse. In particular, this debate crystallizes around sensitive subjects such as the slaughter of horses, the consumption of their meat, their legal status, zoophilia, doping in sport, their possible retirement after exploitation by humans, the choice of euthanasia and the destination of the animal's body (knackery or burial) after death. Societal demands include recognition of the horse as a pet, and greater consideration for its sensitivity.
Horse ethics are influenced by veganism and the antispeciesist demands of the animal rights movement. Slaughter, hippophagy, doping and zoophilia are strongly rejected, in a context of globalization of trade and equestrian sports. These issues affect the entire economy and legal aspects of horse riding, racing and breeding.
Definition and issues
According to the definition provided by the Шаблон:Ill, ethics towards horses means questioning human behavior towards animals, in order to "decide in good conscience what is right and what is wrong, and to act accordingly".[1] It aims to treat horses with respect for their dignity and well-being, while ensuring the usefulness and use expected of them by human beings. This responsibility rests first and foremost with those who are in direct contact with horses (jockeys, owners, breeders, grooms, therapists, etc.). It also includes reflection on the orientation of breeding practices, for example, in the case of the selection of hypertypes.[2]
In order to be ethical, a practice or constraint must respect the dignity of the horse.[1] This is only the case "if any restraint is justified by overriding interests", meaning that the restraint imposed on the horse and the interests are weighed against each other.[1] If the hardship inflicted on the animal outweighs the interests of the parties involved, it can be defined as abusive.[1] Ethics towards the horse involves "acquiring knowledge about the animal, developing sensitivity to the dangers horses face, refusing to let ambition and economic interests take over, and respecting the animal's natural aptitudes".[3] According to Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer, the horse is one of those animals for which the scientific world recognizes the possibility of suffering.[4] It is often taken as an example of animal suffering.[4] According to geneticist and ethicist Axel Kahn, "a horse's stress is similar to ours. They feel well, they feel unwell."[5] Horses have always enjoyed a special status among domestic animals, as their use is generally other than for food.[6] However, the living conditions imposed on them by humans - usually in a stall and alone - are very different from those they enjoy in their natural state.[6]
Examples of balancing interests
Weighing up the various interests involved in ethical reflection makes it possible to analyze the many ways in which horses are treated. For example, branding, which used to be used to identify horses, has been justified only by advertising and marketing since the widespread use of microchip implants. This is why it has been banned in Germany.[7] The shaving of a horse's whiskers is also considered unethical, since it is justified solely by aesthetic considerations, and causes the horse suffering due to the loss of sensory organs.[1]
Multiple points of view
Шаблон:Blockquote Defining what is and isn't acceptable for the horse runs up against cultural biases: depending on each people's relationship with horses and their personal history, some practices will be considered unacceptable by some, while others will find them acceptable.[8] The rural exodus and the globalization of equestrian and equine sports pose the problem of finding a consensus.[8] A large number of equestrian practices are deemed unethical, including the use of a harsh bit, the riding crop, training methods such as rollkur and poling, the use of electric shocks and the domination of the horse by force.[8]
History
Шаблон:Main Before the notion of animal ethics was born, certain uses of horses were condemned by religious morality. In the 2nd century, Tertullian denounced the "demonic" use of the animal during circus games, deeming it a sin for Christians.[9] Christianity, then Western philosophers, placed the horse at the service of mankind: according to Éric Baratay, "18th-century clerics were convinced that the horse was designed to carry man, the dog to give him affection, the foliage of trees to protect him from the sun in summer, and so on". The horse has a positive connotation, but Catholic religious morality condemns the act of giving it a burial, an act considered pagan.[10] In India, dharma acts as a kind of code of ethics, promoting non-violent behavior towards animals. Siddhartha Gautama forbade his followers to see an animal slaughtered, and to consume the two "royal animals", the elephant and the horse.[11] Moralistic notions of the right way to treat animals do not take into account the pain they may feel. Whether religious or social, this conception persisted until the 1970s.[8]
Philosophers' opinions since the Renaissance
Montaigne was skeptical of man's alleged "rational" superiority over animals.[12] Against his position, Descartes developed the notion of the animal machine, devoid of reason and speech.[13] Kant considers that "animals are not conscious of themselves, and are therefore only means to an end [man]".[14] Spinoza, on the other hand, recognizes that animals possess "a mind" and express certain feelings: Шаблон:Blockquote
Similarly, in opposition to Cartesian thought, Jean Meslier writes:
Michel Onfray analyzes it as one of the first known anti-speciesist texts. Similarly, for Meslier, an open atheist, man and horse are made of the same stuff: "what the horse is, man is too; what he has been and what he will be after his death too".[15]
19th century
The utilitarian doctrine of the 19th century called into question the ethical status of the horse, leading to a profound renewal of Western thought. Jeremy Bentham recognizes that horses have reasoning abilities superior to those of human babies, and above all, the ability to suffer: Шаблон:Blockquote According to Alberto Bondolfi, the importance of this text is crucial for ethical relations with animals, as it makes pain the ethical criterion of judgment for the first time.[16] At the time, consideration for the service rendered "by an old dog or an old horse" was considered a "human duty".[17] As Éric Baratay reminds us, from the second half of the 19th century onwards, farmers were keeping their old work horses "retired" until their natural death, rather than slaughtering them.[18] They rejected hippophagy, not for religious reasons, but because they "couldn't imagine eating their fellow workers".[19]
Development of animal ethics
Animal ethics, as a branch of philosophy, developed mainly in English-speaking countries during the 1970s, notably with the publication of Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.[20] Since the end of the 20th century, it has accompanied major changes in the place occupied by the horse in Western society:[21]
A growing number of riders claim to love their horses, but anthropomorphism is common.[22] According to Baratay, the horse has become the animal "that's not in the house", a symbol of nature and an ambassador for the younger generation.[18] Jean-Pierre Digard underlines the intensification of the debate, gradually shifting from the notion of "animal protection" (conceived as a human duty) to that of "animal rights", then "animal liberation".[23] Émilie De Cooker notes "a recent evolution in morals towards greater concern for the welfare of horses", which leads to these reflections on equestrian ethics. She believes we need to "formalize these new sensitivities".[24] New questions are emerging, calling into question the use of reins and the relationship with the death of horses.[21]
The ethical debate arrived in Germany with the revelation that the famous trainer Paul Schockemöhle subjected his show jumping horses to poling, prompting the German Equestrian Federation to issue its first ethical principles in the 1990s.[25] Animal ethics came late to the French debate. The humanist heritage has led to a strong anthropocentrism, with the conviction that animals and the environment are at the service of human beings. French-speaking veterinarians and academics have taken an increasing interest in this debate since the beginning of the 21st century.[20] In 2011, the Swiss National Stud considers that equestrian ethics has taken "an important place".[21]
Actions in favor of equestrian ethics
The belief that ethical considerations lead to advances in respect for horse welfare is largely false.[8] In fact, these advances are almost exclusively achieved through the demands of activists and the general public.[8] In 1991, the Association Éthique du Cheval was founded in Lille by a dozen riders, aiming to combat hippophagy.[26] In 2009, the French Equestrian Federation published the "Charte d'éthique des équipes de France d'équitation", stipulating that "riders must respect and care for their horses".[27] Axel Kahn, former president of Paris-Descartes University, is involved in this debate, notably through the creation of a university diploma incorporating these notions, effective since January 2016.[28] It was also in 2015 that Vincent Boureau, a behaviorist veterinarian, created the "Equi-Ethic" think tank.[29]
The Шаблон:Ill (FSSE) examined the issue of ethics in equestrian sports in 2008. A multidisciplinary debate was launched in 2009, involving breeders, equine owners and leisure riders. The conclusion was a need for information, communication and knowledge transfer.[2] In 2008, Swiss law introduced the notion of "animal dignity", defined as "the inherent value of the animal that man must respect in his relations with it". It calls into question actions that "cause pain, suffering or damage, place the horse in a state of anxiety, degrade it, subject it to interventions that profoundly modify its phenotype or capacities, or instrumentalize it in an excessive manner".[30] The notion of "degradation of the animal" is defined as "the fact of mechanizing, ridiculing or representing the animal as a lifeless thing, as an object".[31] This led to the banning of shaving whiskers, hyperflexion (rollkur), martingales in show jumping competitions, and poling in Switzerland, in 2014 and 2015.[2]
The Fédération Équestre du Québec has adopted a "Code of Ethics" that includes recommendations for dealing with horses, who should be treated with "the kindness, respect and compassion they deserve".[32] However, the Galahad Association believes that Quebec regulations lag far behind those in Switzerland.[33] Similarly, Шаблон:Ill magazine has pointed out that France lags behind Switzerland in terms of equine protection.[34]
In 2010, Australian researchers Bidda Jones and Paul D. McGreevy published an article committed to "ethical horsemanship", pointing out that "laws are unlikely to adequately protect horse welfare if they regard traditional practices, including the use of riding crops to speed up horses, as 'reasonable' and 'acceptable' without considering their effect".[35]
Ethical controversies
Since the notion of equestrian ethics is purely Western, clashes can be traced back to a different vision of the animal. In the 2010s, Switzerland, Belgium and France (among others) denounced the actions of the Arab countries of the Gulf in the equestrian discipline of endurance, due to the numerous deaths of mounts during or after competitions.[36] According to Yves Riou, these cases highlight the changing status of the horse in the Middle East, which at the beginning of the 21st century has become a replaceable "commodity".[37]
In 2015, a young Swedish rider had her mare euthanized due to an incurable knee disease, and recovered the animal's meat to eat for seven months, sharing it with her friends. She justifies her choice publicly on social media, saying that it would be illogical to give up 154 kg of meat and buy it at the store. Victim of a lynch mob on social media, she once again justified her position by saying that it would be "fair" to eat an animal that has had a good life. Internet users accused her of barbarity and cruelty, likening eating her mare to eating your dog or a member of your family.[38]
Legal aspects
Some behaviors towards horses are legally condemnable, others are not, depending on the practices and cultures concerned. Training courses that take into account the notion of ethics vis-à-vis the horse within the framework of the law are beginning to appear in response to societal demand. At the end of 2015, Paris-Descartes University, in partnership with the Шаблон:Ill stud farm, created a university diploma titled "Ethics, Welfare and the Law of the Horse".[39] In 2020, a series of horse and donkey mutilations hit France.[40]
Legal status of the horse
Property
Шаблон:Main In most countries, the domestic horse is considered to be movable property: owned by a human being (property), it can be moved (movable). The right to property confers an absolute right over the owner's choice of destinations for the property, as long as they are legal. This includes the right to destroy the property, i.e. to slaughter the horse.[41] For example, an employee of an equine slaughterhouse in New Mexico, angered by threats from conservation groups, published a video in which he shot his own horse with a pistol, and was not convicted.[42] In France (and Switzerland), the owner of a horse can choose to exclude it permanently from slaughter for human consumption, but this option is regularly challenged by the horse meat lobby.[43]
As part of the ethical debate, a change in the legal status of horses is often called for. The notion of movable property is deemed inappropriate and insulting for animals, because it confuses a sentient being with an object. Since the 2000s, civil law in Germany and Austria has specified that animals, including horses, are neither "things" nor objects.[44] In France, horses are still recognized as property, but the Civil Code, the Шаблон:Ill and the Penal Code have recognized their sentient nature since 2015.[45] The existence of a legal status for horses enables legal protection, not least because it provides a framework for procedures in the event of abuse or theft. Horses that have no legal status because they belong to no one, such as Australia's Brumbies, are not protected in any way and can be legally slaughtered or poisoned by anyone.[46] This aspect motivated the creation of a legal status for American Mustangs, which it is illegal to mistreat or kill under the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.[47]
Livestock or pet?
Considered and used solely as a livestock animal until the end of the 20th century, the horse now occupies an intermediate position between livestock and pet, particularly in France,[48] Quebec,[33] Switzerland and Belgium. In Belgium,[49] Quebec[33] and France, the horse is still legally classified as a livestock animal, despite repeated requests (from the Brigitte Bardot Foundation, among others) for it to be granted pet status,[50][51] which would abolish the horse-breeding industry.[52] According to an IFOP poll in March 2013, 64% of French people support this change in the horse's legal status.[53] In Switzerland, horse owners have a choice of legal status for their animals, depending on their activity. A horse intended for food production is a livestock animal, while a leisure horse that is not intended for slaughter is a pet excluded for life from the food chain, the choice being final.[54][55][56]
The generalization of pet status for all horses would have consequences for the animal's possible uses. Under European Union law, a pet animal may not be "trained in a way that is detrimental to its health or well-being, in particular by forcing it to exceed its natural abilities or strength, or by using artificial means". This would open up a legal avenue to prohibit the use of devices such as riding crops, spurs and bits.[57]
Doping
Шаблон:Main The doping of horses involved in sporting performances has been documented since Antiquity. It is "one of the most worrying excesses of the sporting spectacle". The financial stakes and the size of the reward promised to the winner mean that the ethical dimension and animal welfare may be neglected.[58] This practice is unanimously condemned as contrary to the ethics of sport:[59] the philosophy of sport is that only a healthy horse takes part in a competition. The way in which doping is detected varies from one country to another. In equestrian sport, doping control is based on a well-established organization. The lack of resources limits controls, but they do have a positive influence on amateur riders tempted to self-medicate their horses.[60] For Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer, doping a horse should be re-qualified as poisoning, to emphasize the animal's non-consent, unlike doping human athletes.[61]
Zoophilia
Zoophilia with horses has always existed, since they are one of the "animals to which people have access". This practice is often "swept under the carpet". Experts generally acknowledge the animal's non-consent and suffering.[62] In the 1990s, Usenet users who identified themselves as "zoophiles" grouped together in the alt.sex.bestiality newsgroup, recounting their sexual acts with, among others, horses.[62] In Switzerland, horses are particularly popular with zoophiles: in 2014, 9.4% of horse abuse cases involved zoophilic acts, a higher rate than for other animal species. In the same country, actual convictions are rare.[63] The revelation of this figure led to a bad buzz against the Swiss.[64] Convictions following sexual practices with horses exist in several countries, including Italy,[65] France,[66][67] Germany[68] and the USA. Not all legislations condemn these sexual acts with an animal, as witnessed in 2005 by the case of Kenneth Pinyan, who died after being sodomized by a stallion in Washington State. The person who had offered him this service was not convicted of zoophilia, as the practice was not penalized in the state at the time.[69] In France, in the same year, a man was convicted of having sexual relations with his pony.[69]
Vinciane Despret raises the legal contradictions of the penalization of zoophilia, and the tendency to re-penalize sexual relations with animals. Article 521.1 of the French Civil Code condemns sexual relations with one's own animal on the grounds of serious abuse, but does not condemn the slaughtering and eating of one's own horse. Furthermore, categorization as movable property does not allow the notion of consent to the sexual act to be legally invoked, since the owner of the movable property legally consents in place of his property. Inclusion of the notion of consent in the judgment of acts of zoophilia or doping would call into question all other uses to which the horse does not consent (such as equestrian sport, equestrian sport...).[69]
Status of artist horses
The question of whether a horse involved in the creation of an artistic work can benefit from it has been raised: an American horse named Cholla died in 2013 after creating abstract paintings, some worth several thousand euros.[70] As copyright is designed to protect an intentionally created "work of the mind", animals cannot theoretically benefit from it, at least until the intentionality of the act of creation can be established.[70] Alexandre Zollinger has suggested an "interest in kind" for "animal creations" materialized by a contract managed by a collecting society, with the aim of improving the well-being of the animal and its fellow creatures.[70] This type of contract could be applied to horses used in circuses or those involved in filming films and series.[70]
Philosophical aspects
The relationship between humans and horses raises many philosophical questions. Radical currents of "animal liberation" believe that an animal should never be anyone's property, and that owning it is tantamount to denying it any intrinsic value. However, horse owners who use their animals for work, sport or leisure generally recognize their intrinsic value.[71] Equestrian sports are subject to strong ethical depreciation.[72] The debate often focuses on the problems associated with top-level competitions. However, the "ordinary, banal, less visible practices" of "Sunday riders" are, according to ethicist Émilie De Cooker, "just as problematic",[73] as are those in riding schools, where horses become "jaded" by being ridden by beginners and repeating the same exercises every day.[74] Competitions for novice riders often see "tense, badly muscled horses" and "riders who think they've solved their problems - sometimes violently - on the day of the competition" when they haven't mastered the fundamentals of horsemanship.[75] Leisure horses are more often in pain than top-level competition horses, but this suffering is less visible and less publicized.[76]
Objectification
Certain legal practices degrade the horse to the status of a "product" or marketing medium, and are referred to as objectification or commodification. For Émilie De Cooker, the sport horse is considered an object.[77] These practices have been compared to the slave trade by the animal liberation movement, particularly with regard to branding.[78] With the widespread use of microchip implants, branding continues only as a matter of tradition, and to ensure the publicity and promotion of a given breeding or breed.[79] The horse is the first animal to have legally become the living medium of sponsorship.[80] Swedish rider Malin Baryard-Johnsson renamed one of her mounts H&M Tornesch.[80] The practice has become quite common, with many sport horses bearing brand or company names as affixes or suffixes, such as La Biosthetique Sam and Jappeloup de Luze. Traditionally, sport horses bear the name of their original stud, but they are sometimes renamed after a sale: the mare Silvana de Hus (of Шаблон:Ill) became Silvana*HDC after her purchase by the Шаблон:Ill in 2012.[81] The stallion Vleut has been renamed Guccio by his rider Edwina Tops-Alexander, to reinforce her partnership with the luxury brand Gucci.[82] This practice can lead to legal conflicts in terms of trademark law, as was the case in 2013 concerning the horse Jappeloup, due to the registration of its name as a trademark and the use of this name by several people and companies.[83]Шаблон:Better source needed[84][85][86][43][87]
According to Amélie Tsaag Valren, breeders' vocabulary and cloning practices reflect a strong "desacralization" of the horse.[88] On most farms, the expression "product of the year" refers to a foal born in the current year.[88] The Zangersheide stud farm, which uses horse cloning, orders several clones of the same animal from a laboratory to be used as breeding stock.[88] They give them the name of the original, followed by a letter of the Greek alphabet to differentiate them. The mare Ratina Z thus has three clones named Ratina Z alpha, Ratina Z beta and Ratina Z gamma respectively.[88]
The notion of degradation of the animal, used in Swiss law, applies irrespective of whether the horse is aware of its degradation (from being named after a sponsor or having a ridiculous shearing, for example) or not.[89] It is based on the view that the human being responsible for the degradation has of his horse, in particular whether he perceives and treats it as an object.[89]
Instrumentalization
The instrumentalization of the horse is a standard feature of the equestrian world, since human beings use it as such and decide on its destination at all times.[90] It is just as prevalent, if not more so, in pleasure riding than in top-level sport.[90] Horses are often used as sidekicks by inexperienced riders, who become brutal when they feel that the mount is not obeying them, even though these are usually mistakes on their part.[90] This "instrumentalization for pleasure or ego" is of "selfish, hedonistic or egocentric" origin.[90] This attitude reflects the "absolute domination of humans over nature and the living beings that surround them". The word "submission" recurs frequently in equestrian vocabulary,[91] for example in the scoring criteria for dressage competitions.[92] According to psychoanalyst Ghilaine Jeannot-Pages, "the entire sporting vocabulary serves this lure", whereas the psychology of a herbivorous herd animal would lead it to flee constraints and useless efforts.[93]
Further questions about instrumentalization arise in the context of horse castration versus the keeping of stallions. Castration is an attack on the horse's physical integrity, which can lead to veterinary complications, and is justified by the need to reduce the constraints on the use and keeping of animals. Muslim countries are ethically opposed to animal castration. In Western countries, the operation is sometimes questioned, but the keeping and use of stallions leads to problems of competence and legal difficulties. Moreover, an uncastrated male who has no opportunity to reproduce suffers from sexual frustration. Weighing up the pros and cons is necessary to make the right ethical choice about castrating a horse.[94] Males kept in herds tend to fight and injure each other at first, but the situation improves once a hierarchy has been established in the group.[95]
Some horses are subject to "excessive care" such as clipping feathering, clipping ear hair, neck and mane, and frequent shampooing.[96]
Eugenics and selective breeding
The world of equestrian sport is by its very nature eugenicist, as it focuses solely on performance. The least adapted animals are excluded from reproduction and retired, including by sale to the slaughterhouse.[97] Albert Jacquard notes that horse breeding is traditionally described as "improving the horse breed". It's not a question of "improvement" in the strict sense, as the field is too vast. It's impossible to rank a horse's qualities in order of importance; that requires "knowing a hierarchy of character, from the best to the least good". It's more a question of improving certain characteristics of the horse when they are useful to man, such as its ability to run fast[98] or jump over obstacles. Similarly, the use of artificial insemination in breeding can lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of horses through the use of the same stallions, which is unethical.[6]
Position statements
Several researchers, philosophers, veterinarians, associations and interest groups have taken a stand in this debate. According to ethicist Axel Kahn, "we must respect nature and consider the well-being of the horse".[28] Ethicist Émilie De Cooker believes that the trend towards greater consideration for equine well-being needs to be accompanied "in order to amplify it".[24] She supports a change in the regulations and laws governing equestrian sport, and therefore the means to achieve it, as was the case in eventing, where the dangerous nature of the obstacles caused the death of many horses: "It would be pointless to try to ban equestrian competitions or, for extremists, horse riding".[71] Taking into account the contributions of natural horsemanship would make it possible to "avoid certain forms of constraint and promote easier collaboration between horse and human".[99] She advises taking inspiration from Nuno Oliveira's equestrian philosophy, which rejects arrogance and domination, and encouraging the education of riders towards "a form of wisdom and humility".[100] For Dr. Bernard Denis, veterinarian and president of the Society of Ethnozoology, "Removing horses from the real or potential suffering associated with their sometimes abusive or disrespectful use, and improving equine welfare from now on, remains a priority".[101] He envisages the creation of a breeding and possession permit to achieve this goal.[102]
Ethnologist Jean-Pierre Digard defends an openly speciesist position: believing that it is far worse to treat horses "like babies" than to organize a bullfight,[103] he opposes "mothering" and the keeping of an unused animal, which he describes as a "garden horse".[104] He believes that the horse's non-use will eventually lead to its extinction, or at least that the positions he describes as "animalitarian" will result in the extinction of several horse breeds.[105] In his view, the desire to protect the horse is part of an "always more" logic, leading to an "extremist and anti-humanist drift".[23] Commenting on the theory that the horse will disappear due to lack of use, Amélie Tsaag Valren and Laetitia Bataille support a "third way between the end of all use and intensive use, that of a better-understood equitation", taking into account the principles of lightness and biomechanics.[106]
The Swiss National Stud Farm considers that the principles of horse domestication and use are ethically acceptable, as despite the existence of constraints for the animal (restriction of movement, obedience to humans), they also derive benefits from their domestication and use (care, feeding and watering, protection against predators).[107]
Opinions of the antispeciesist movements
Шаблон:Main The vegan and animal liberation movements advocate an end to animal exploitation and believe a horse should never be "yoked to a human being". Considered "radical currents of animal ethics", they call for an end to the use of animals for sport, and a halt to all domestication processes, whether in meat or pet farming. According to this ideology, owning a domesticated horse and "using" it is tantamount to depriving it of "its own animal existence" and would therefore be ethically reprehensible.[108] Several representatives of the vegan movement have expressed their rejection of horse riding, arguing that horses don't need to be ridden and that horse-riding exists solely for the entertainment of human beings: they advise interacting with the animal solely on foot.[109] On the other hand, animal protection associations that promote veganism, such as L214 and PETA, which claims three million members, are naturally opposed to the slaughter and consumption of horses.[110] PETA has, however, taken a stand in favor of the return of equine slaughter in the United States, due to the increased suffering of unwanted horses exported to Canada and Mexico.[111]
Within the debate on speciesism and as a "useful" domestic animal, the horse, like the dog and cat, enjoys a privileged status compared to other animals. Many philosophers and writers, such as Goethe, have ranked horses among the most valuable animals, right after human beings.[112] Many people believe that we should be indebted: "it would be horrible to kill racehorses because they had previously served us loyally, just as it would be abject to abandon one's faithful dog". The animal liberation movement "demands equal consideration of the interests of all beings with interests, independently of any idea of contract or reciprocity".[113] Speciesism is prevalent even within the equidae family: the horse is the object of a great deal of attention, while the donkey and its hybrids are considered poor animals,[114] and do not give rise to any ethical debate.
On slaughtering and hippophagy
Most animal protection associations and shelters for retired or mistreated horses speak out against slaughter and hippophagy. The Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA by its acronym in French) has called on French supermarkets and hypermarkets to remove horse meat from their shelves because of "the brutality of transport and the state in which horses arrive at the slaughterhouse".[115] The Fondation Brigitte-Bardot, the 30 Millions d'amis Foundation,[116] and the association éthique du cheval in Lille[26] actively campaign against hippophagy. The Swiss association Шаблон:Ill denounces mistreatment in slaughterhouses.[117] The Quebec association Galahad "believes that horses should not be slaughtered for their meat, but that at the end of their lives, they should be euthanized under the supervision of a veterinarian". She adds that, at the very least, measures should be taken to ensure that slaughter takes place without suffering.[33] Roly Owens, President of World Horse Welfare, does not speak out against slaughter or hippophagy, but points out that many slaughterhouses have practices that run counter to horse welfare, and that this legitimizes the fight of animal protection associations.[118]
The Swiss National Stud Farm's study concludes that slaughter with a captive bolt pistol is a "good death", as long as it is carried out correctly. Damage to horse welfare is caused by "loading, transport, unloading, smells, noise, sometimes waiting at the slaughterhouse, a narrow corridor and a stunning box unsuited to equids", as well as by "misses on the fatal blow",[119] as Temple Grandin pointed out.[120]
From an antispeciesist point of view, the fight against hippophagy alone is an aberration: it should be extended to the fight against all meat consumption. Commenting on the Brigitte Bardot Foundation's shock campaigns, David Olivier points out that "it may save a few horses, but how many more chickens will be killed?".[121]
Through the voice of its president, the French equine veterinary association came out in favor of the slaughter of horses at the end of their lives, in 2014.[122] The Welfare and Behavior Commission disassociated itself from this position in 2015.[123] Axel Kahn declared himself "allergic to hippophagy" and "horrified at the idea of one of his mares ending up with a knife".[5] Several personalities from the equestrian world have come out in favor of hippophagy, often on the grounds of safeguarding Шаблон:Ill. Bartabas made a shock declaration: "If you love horses, eat them!".[105] Jean-Pierre Digard also believes that certain breeds will disappear without hippophagy.[19] Lawyers Claire Bobin and Charles Dudognon point out that it is important to consider the survival of these breeds thanks to the meat industry.[124] Amélie Tsaag Valren points out that the adaptation of these heavy breeds to the meat market has led to a drift in selection criteria, resulting in horses suffering from health problems due to obesity and repeated pregnancies.[125]
In analyzing this debate, Éric Baratay believes that the rejection of slaughter and hippophagy will win out hands down, as the vision of the horse as a livestock animal tends to disappear and concern only the older generations, while "natural horsemanship" and the desire to forge a strong bond with the animal have great success among young people.[18]
On retirement
Шаблон:Main Most animal protection associations, such as the Society for the Protection of Animals, want horses to be able to enjoy a retirement after their exploitation in equestrian, equine or breeding activities.[115] Axel Kahn supports the idea that "a fraction of the equine industry's profits should be used to finance places where horses can end their lives".[5] A growing number of veterinarians are investing in "equine geriatrics" to meet the needs of owners of older horses.[123] Pension-retirement facilities for horses exist in France,[126] Belgium[127] and Switzerland.[128] The development of pension-retraite runs the risk of incompetent people offering poorly supervised services. The change in the horse's rhythm needs to be thought both ethically and practically, as the transition from intensive use to a total absence of use and contact with humans could generate unease. Moreover, the question of the horse's affect remains unresolved.[56]
In 1990, V. Chevalier's study highlighted horse retirement as a reason for giving up riding: "having retired their first horse, they [owner-riders] have to maintain it by doing nothing, and find it financially impossible to buy a second one. Most of these riders therefore give up riding [...]".[129]
On euthanasia and knackery
For some horse owners, the animal's death is the culmination of a production cycle, while for others it represents a heavy emotional loss.[21] The latter's wish to have a choice in the destination of their animal's body after its death, other than a slaughterhouse. Depending on the owner's wishes and local legislation, this choice may be knackery, burial or cremation. In France, only knackery is legal, as incineration is not available throughout the country. Axel Kahn denounces this compulsory "racket", and would like to see an opportunity to discuss the legalization of horse burial with public authorities.[5] In the UK, horse burial is legal. In Scotland and Wales, only "pet" horses may be buried.[130]
Several vets have weighed in on the "best way" to put a horse to death. AVEF member Claire Scicluna argues that slaughter is better than euthanasia, saying she doesn't want healthy horse owners to go to vets to have their animals euthanized because they can't afford to maintain them.[131] Euthanasia entails constraints, as the veterinarian must master the technique to offer a suffering-free death. Its impact on the environment is considered harmful,[119] as is that of incineration.
On objectification, domination and the economic model
For Émilie De Cooker, "the objectification of the competition horse and the prior denial of its status as a moral subject stem from a reductionist conception of animal existence":[77] this leads to a lack of consideration for its well-being, the use of painful methods to increase performance, and the primacy of financial interest over ethics, for example in the early backing of thoroughbreds at 18 months.[132] She wishes to "encourage the creation of a type of riding, and equestrian sports, in which domination has no place. To think and practice a form of horsemanship that does not rely on the horse's inability to rebel, but instead allows it to express itself as an intelligent and sensitive being":[91] Шаблон:Blockquote Jean-Jacques Gouguet, a PhD in economics, believes that the liberal-productivist model, which favors practices such as cloning and doping, bears witness to the fact that the equestrian sporting spectacle has reached a "total impasse": "eventually, we'll have to put in place an alternative model based on a shift away from economics".[133] On the newspaper Le Monde, Henri Seckel opposed the renaming of living beings for sponsorship "in the name of money", and testifies to the pressure exerted by companies on journalists to use the sponsor's name when writing sports articles.[80]
On cloning
Horse cloning involves bioethical issues, since it leads to a high mortality rate of embryos, fetuses and newborn or young foals, as well as contributing to commodification. For these reasons, the Swiss National Stud concluded that "in the current state of knowledge, the use of horse cloning is ethically unjustifiable ".[134] In the UK, the researcher William (Twink) Allen was refused permission to continue his cloning trials in 2004, as the animals could present malformations, anomalies and diseases, according to the British authorities.[135] Dr Natasha Lane, of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), said it was not acceptable to clone horses "just to get a gold medal ".[136] Allen spoke out against this decision, believing that the British government had "caved in to the animal rights lobby ".[137] According to various surveys, including one carried out by Cheval Savoir in 2009, horse cloning is generally poorly accepted by riders and professionals. For French scientist Éric Palmer, the technique is "demonized" due to misunderstandings.[138] The American Quarter Horse Association has stated that "[...] clones have no parents, cloning is not breeding. It's just photocopies of the same horse", pointing to its low success rate and the risk of developing yet unknown genetic disorders.[139] The Jockey Club also strongly opposed.[140] Dr Thomas Reed, who owns the private stud farm Morningside Stud in Ireland (where Hickstead was born), publicly opposed cloning after the accidental death of his stallion in competition at the end of 2011.[141]
Émilie De Cooker notes that, according to the cloning company Cryozootech, "the absence of animal suffering and the naturalness of gestation seem to be enough to end the debate on the legitimacy of this practice". It sees "the adoption of cloning as a breeding method in its own right as a sign of the trivialization of the relationship of commodification that man has established with the horse".[132]
See also
References
Bibliography
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite web
Further reading
- ↑ 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 2,0 2,1 2,2 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 4,0 4,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 5,0 5,1 5,2 5,3 Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 6,0 6,1 6,2 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 8,0 8,1 8,2 8,3 8,4 8,5 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Montaigne, Essays, II, 12, « Apologie de Raymond Sebond ».
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 18,0 18,1 18,2 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 19,0 19,1 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 20,0 20,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 21,0 21,1 21,2 21,3 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 23,0 23,1 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 24,0 24,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 26,0 26,1 Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite webШаблон:Dead link
- ↑ 28,0 28,1 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 33,0 33,1 33,2 33,3 Шаблон:Cite webШаблон:Dead link
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 43,0 43,1 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 56,0 56,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 62,0 62,1 Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 69,0 69,1 69,2 Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ 70,0 70,1 70,2 70,3 Шаблон:Cite news
- ↑ 71,0 71,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 77,0 77,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 80,0 80,1 80,2 Шаблон:Cite news
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 88,0 88,1 88,2 88,3 Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 89,0 89,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 90,0 90,1 90,2 90,3 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 91,0 91,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 105,0 105,1 Шаблон:Cite news
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:YouTube
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ 115,0 115,1 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite webШаблон:Dead link
- ↑ Speech by Roly Owens at the 2nd Assises de la Filière Equine, September 2015, Caen.
- ↑ 119,0 119,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 123,0 123,1 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 132,0 132,1 Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Harvtxt
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
