Two horses put down at the Grand National

[y2blade]

cheddar said:

So, give or take, 10% of horses that run in the Grand National die?

The odd one? Fair enough.

1 in 10? Not acceptable.

Agreed...10% fallout is not acceptable

[wendyg]

Munter said:

Most meat is eaten for entertainment rather than any nutritional requirement. I'd bet I could eat 1/2 the meat I do and suffer no ill effects (probably be good for me).

Within both sets of animals some of their number are killed for "entertainment" of one kind or another.

So long as they are treated well while alive, and killed as swiftly and cleanly as possible when the time comes, then I don't have a problem with it.

I would disagree with your statement, most meat is eaten for dietary purposes. In our affluent western world, we can afford to eat meat for pleasure, but that is not the same as for 'entertainment'.

But I do agree with your sentiment that ultimately it comes down to how well we treat the animals, in life and in death.

Edited by wendyg on Monday 16th April 23:37

[NoNeed]

The reality is that now horses arn't used for work and food that most ( and by most I mean most) of these horses wouldn't have a chance at life if it wasn't for horse racing. These horses that compete in the national enjoy a good life with every need taken care of. I would think long and hard about banning any form of racing as it could be the thin edge of a wedge that wouldn't be in the animals best interest.

[R300will]

NoNeed said:

The reality is that now horses arn't used for work and food that most ( and by most I mean most) of these horses wouldn't have a chance at life if it wasn't for horse racing. These horses that compete in the national enjoy a good life with every need taken care of. I would think long and hard about banning any form of racing as it could be the thin edge of a wedge that wouldn't be in the animals best interest.

There's a lot of money in showjumping, dressage, eventing and showing too.

edit: terrible spelling

Edited by R300will on Tuesday 17th April 15:44

[SGirl]

ST170Bird said:

Sad for them to end their racing lives this way, I would much prefer for them to retired off to a field somewhere, but stuff happens. (I bet they get shot when they retire anyway)

I wouldn't know what happens to many of them. But I know quite a few end up being retrained and sold to riding schools or private owners and live out their lives the same as other horses. I've ridden a few of them myself.

[BlackVanDyke]

Zaxxon said:

GG89 said:

I personally would not miss horse racing one bit in favour of these animals well being.

These animals wouldn't exist if races were banned.

Fine by me. We (humans) created them. I have no problem with not breeding in the first place an animal with such a high chance of an early death.

[parakitaMol.]

whythebigpaws said:

OK, I very VERY rarely step into a debate here but this is one I can't ignore.

---

Risk exists in every sport. Every activity, in fact. It would be a much, much sadder and smaller world if yet more were done to wrap every surface and object in yet more cotton wool. Surely we can agree on that here?

Yes, risk exists in every sport and I strongly object to cotton wool life mentality.

However, I equally object to using animals to bear OUR risk.

Humans want to jump off buildings, dive to the bottom of the sea, ride a motorbike or car race - fine - knock yourself out. I resent the veil of vanity that fronts our enjoyment and excitement of a race - using an animal's life. They have no voice, no choice. Yes they might like running, I doubt they'd choose the same conditions or scenarios that humans place them in. How conceited we are to insist they want to race and possibly die, in order that WE win a trophy and some ££.

As for the Grand National. I won't watch it. I think it belongs in same age as ducking stools and witch burning.