Animals and society: Who draws the lines, and where?
By Gina Spadafori
August 7, 2007
Over the weekend I was indulging my guilty pleasure, spending two days at the Del Mar racetrack near San Diego. If you don’t know racing, you don’t know that in the late summer, horse-racing fans head for The Spa (the historic Saratoga racetrack in upstate New York) or Del Mar (founded by Bing Crosby and the Hollywood set). The meets are as much about the experience as the racing, but the racing is also the top of the game.
All the best horses, trainers and jockeys are one place or another, and often both.
This year, one of my best friends, Pet Connection Director of Photography Morgan Ong, went along on the trip along with my brother and niece. Morgan did his own thing for the first couple of days, but caught up with us at the track on Sunday.
He’s not an “animal person” in any way, probably the only one of my friends who’s not. He’s not really comfortable around animals, doesn’t much care for what are (to him) their unpredictable behaviors and certainly isn’t happy with shedding, smell and mess. His perspectives on animals are very interesting to me, because they are so far beyond assumptions I take for granted.
After a couple of races, and a couple of hours of watching people place (and lose) bets all around him, Morgan asked me: “So how, exactly, is this any different or worse than dog-fighting? None of these people would be here if they couldn’t gamble. The animals are just the means to accomplish that, right?”
Well, wrong, of course. The animals in horse-racing aren’t meant to get hurt, or hurt each other. And the people in horse-racing don’t get off on the pain of the animals.
But still, he has a point, and a logical argument. Everyone draws the line differently when it comes to what’s OK when it comes to animals. Dog-fighters often argue that the animals “love it” and “are bred for it” and you hear the same thing said at the racetrack. And how can I explain that I abhor greyhound racing and would never support it financially because of what happens to many of the dogs (despite the best efforts of rescue groups) and yet here I am, a horse-racing fan?
We all draw our own lines, don’t we? And to some where I’ve drawn my lines makes me a horrible person and not a “real” animal lover. To others, I’m a dangerous person who would like nothing else than to see their industries reform — if not entirely disappear.
There’s a lot of gray area, that’s for sure.
One on side of the continuum are animal-rights advocates who believe animals our not ours to be used in any way — not as pets, not as workers, not as entertainment and certainly not as food. They believe the breeding of all domestic animals should be ended, and with it tens of thousands of years of animals in domesticity, no matter the nature of that relationship.
On the other end are those who believe we can do anything to animals if the perceived need is great enough, such as medical research, or if the animal has lesser emotional value to our culture (which is why it’s OK to give rats to pet snakes but not kittens and why factory farming is allowed and even considered “good” by many because it’s a cheaper way to “make meat.”)
We all live in our own gray zones, wherever we make them. With horse-racing, I don’t support cheap tracks or cheap claiming races — because they attract “end of the line” racehorses who are considered pretty disposable — and I make my “guilt money” donations to racing retirement centers. (Read author Jane Smiley’s QandA on her thoughts on racing, including claiming races, here.) When it comes to food, I pay extra for humanely raised meat, because I believe taking good care of my dogs and cat requires me to feed them like the carnivores they are, even though that means other animals die to feed them.
Yes, I’m lucky I can pay extra for these decisions, and a lot of people have pointed out that buying “humanely raised” meat is like buying carbon offsets and driving an SUV — it’s a feel-good game only people with a certain income level can play. (No, I’m not rich. But I’m not poor, either. I make choices, and I’d rather pay extra for food — sustainable, local and humane food for me and my animals — than buy a plasma screen TV. And that was true even before we realized China was poisoning us and our government didn’t care.)
I draw other lines, too. For example, I don’t believe in most cases in “rehabilitating” dogs who have hurt people severely, especially if those people are children. Yes, I believe most cases of dog-bites could have been prevented — proper socialization and training, not chaining the dog, teaching children how to behave around dogs, and not leaving pets and children alone together. But once a dog has hurt someone severely — especially if the animal has bitten severly before — I believe that animal should get a date with the pink needle.
In part that’s because I don’t want another person to be hurt, and in part because there’s another animal in a shelter or rescue group, one with a proven good temperament — who already has a date with the pink needle, and I’d rather see that one find a home.
I think that an ethical, conservation-minded hunter is more of an animal-lover than someone who thinks hunting is horrible — and buys shrink-wrapped factory farmed meat without thinking how it got there, all nice and clean. Personally, I’d rather live free and die flying than spend my short miserable life debeaked six to a cage not big enough for one.
I loathe puppy mills, and would do anything to help educate people not to buy from their retail outlets. And yes, I support reputable, responsible breeding, and do not support breed bans or breeding bans.
See? I think too much, and rationalize all the time. But that’s the thing about being human: We get to think, we get to decide, and we get to choose. All we can do is try our best, and I do, every day.
A very thoughtful post, Gina.
There are dogs as well as criminals that cannot be rehabilitated, and the danger to society is real.
Comment by Elaine — August 7, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
As with so many things, the devil is in the details — I love to watch a horse/dog running, and I believe that many horses/dogs like to race, but when any activity becomes a money-making business, then bad things can start happening.
The first time I met an adorable young pig face to face, I had to ask myself about those pork chops and bacon sandwiches that I loved. I still love pigs, and I still love (and eat) chops and bacon. I’d like to be a vegan — but I really don’t like many vegetables. We raised chickens when I was a kid, and I can’t stand the thought of caged chickens, so I buy free-range eggs. I stopped calling my dogs and cats pets some years ago, and call them companion animals and I do not “own” them (except legally) but consider myself their caretaker (maid is more like it - Oh, I see that you’ve used your litter box again just after I cleaned it — may I clean it again for you? Oh, Squirt - would you like the door to stay open while you decide whether you really want to go out or would rather stay in and stare at me to make your bowl full again?…) I love animals and want them to be happy, and feel terrible about caged birds and dogs on chains and horses run to death and… But I somehow find some way to live with yummy strips of bacon AND my love of live pigs. Dogs wouldn’t even think about it — they’d just eat the bacon and play with the pig and not see any moral dilemma…
Comment by shadepuppy — August 7, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
I stopped calling my dogs and cats pets some years ago, and call them companion animals…
Please tell me what the word “pet” means, if not “companion animal” in plain, monosyllabic English rather than fancy latinate import words. Honestly, this is hardly the worst thing the animal rights fanatics are responsible for, but it’s one of the most pointlessly manipulative and dishonest, one of the markers that convinces me they’re acting in bad faith rather out of misguided good intentions. Why do so many people fall for it?
Comment by Lis — August 7, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
Besides … “pet” fits in headlines. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 8, 2007 @ 5:50 am
pet
n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
2. An object of the affections.
3. A person especially loved or indulged; a favorite: the teacher’s pet.
adj.
1. Kept as a pet: a pet cat.
2.a. Particularly cherished or indulged: a pet grandchild.
b. Expressing or showing affection: a pet name.
3. Being a favorite: a pet topic.
“object of affection”. “loved”. “favorite”. “cherished”.
Seems like a pretty good word to me!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 8, 2007 @ 6:29 am
Gina - your friend raised a good question.
I agree that horseracing is not like dogfighting, but when I see the number of horses that break down during races, I have to wonder if money doesn’t lead to either unfit horses being raced or some issue in breeding that is leading to these problems. And what happens to horses that don’t make the cut? How many of them are destroyed or sold for the European horse meat market?
In between the two is dogracing. Like horse racing, the animal isn’t ‘hurt’ but when you look at what happens to losers, its really not that much different than dogfighting. Kinder yes, but the end result is often the same.
I’ve always been opposed to dogracing, (even after Greyhound rescue groups started up) but over the last few years, I’ve been rethinking my support of horseracing. I’m really not sure where I’ll eventually end up on this issue.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — August 8, 2007 @ 6:37 am
Great post Gina. I think all types of issues spark such thoughts.
In my career I’ve had to suffer abuse by well-meaning animal rights people. In England, I attempted to educate zoos about how animal training would help eliminate stress and mentally occupy animals—that was in the early to mid-1980s and I took a lot of abuse for it.
I still take a lot of rants and I discovered it is because I HAVE an opinion…not to mention that my sharing it has two results. 1)People either agree and love it, or 2) it rocks their world and the lash out.
Fast forward on the zoo training issue—today what I tried to instill in the 80s is now a standard in the industry.
Anyway, there are dark sides to just about everything that involves commerce and animals.
For myself, I think it is just finding what efforts and steps you can take to make things better and how you can educate those you meet about why you have your specific opinions.
Granted, many people won’t agree but you don’t have to live with them!
Comment by Diana Guerrero — August 8, 2007 @ 8:42 am
Lis asks: “Please tell me what the word “pet” means, if not “companion animal” in plain, monosyllabic English rather than fancy latinate import words.”
LOL! I don’t like the longer term either, but when I made the change (many years ago), “pets” were not always considered family members — dogs were often kept in the backyard and visited only at feeding time ( a practice I still see in my neighborhood, although less often now). “Pets” were owned property, not family members. The term “companion animal” conveyed to me the difference between how I felt about animals that I lived with, and the animals that were kept by people who had forgotten why they ever “got a dog”. Times have changed, and I see more family interaction and fewer “backyard dogs”. I may even start using the word “pet” again someday…
Comment by shadepuppy — August 8, 2007 @ 8:50 am
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — August 8, 2007 @ 6:37 am
“when I see the number of horses that break down during races, I have to wonder if money doesn’t lead to either unfit horses being raced or some issue in breeding that is leading to these problems.”
What I dislike greatly about horseracing is that they are started WAY too young. Horse people know that a horse doesn’t really mature - physically and mentally - until it is several years old. Racing thoroughbreds are started WAY before that.
Two year old horses are raced, and raced hard - and at two years old, a horse is still growing and developing joint and skeletal structure, muscular strength, mental maturity, etc. Which means they’ve been *training* while they’re still babies - less than 2 years old. And this is a big part of the reason for the breakdowns you see on the tracks - those still-growing little bodies just aren’t ready to be pushed that hard.
And why the push to start them so young? Well, *money* of course! Those little baby Thoroughbreds are EXPENSIVE! Expensive to buy, expensive to keep, expensive to train - the sooner they begin paying back dividends (in the form of winnings) or show that they’re not going to “be a contendah” so that further investments in their racing career can be ended, the better it is for the bottom line.
And THAT is what I seriously dislike about the racing industry.
Why can’t they just let the babies grow up and get strong, and THEN start running them? (I know the answer to that, of course - $$$)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 8, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I live in New Zealand now, and American ex-pat, and have found that I can buy horse meat from the raw petfood retailer. I emailed them and asked if I would be feeding my dog someone’s former pet, and they replied that no, these are horses are no longer needed. They are not raised for meat but some other purpose. I bought some to try, and my dog and cats love it. The horse’s demise was a by-product of some sport or work, probably racing, and it’s last use is to feed my pets. I’m thankful for the chance to buy the meat because otherwise the carcass would be burned or buried, wasted.
BTW they also have greyhound racing here.
And, we just had another dog mauling, despite strict dog control laws. The problem is enforcement. See the New Zealand Herald for gruesome photos of the 2 year old with 290 stitches in her face. The paper writes very inflammatory articles with unsubstantiated statements and opinions. I come here for balance! Keep up the good work.
Comment by Margaret — August 8, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
I live in New Zealand now, and American ex-pat, and have found that I can buy horse meat from the raw petfood retailer. I emailed them and asked if I would be feeding my dog someone’s former pet, and they replied that no, these are horses are no longer needed. They are not raised for meat but some other purpose.
Not raised for meat, but for “some other purpose.” “No longer needed.”
Sounds like, potentially, someone’s former pet. Remember that pet horses, unlike pet dogs and cats, because of their size and lifespan are quite likely to get sold on at some point, by still-caring owners who expect it to become someone else’s pet, but that doesn’t always happen. They can wind up in the hands of jobbers, and on their way to the slaughterhouse.
Comment by Lis — August 8, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
of course it was someone’s pet.
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 12:04 am
“of course it was someone’s pet.”
Maybe or maybe not - there’s no way to know from the information Margaret presented here.
However, I do wish the retailer she cites had not been so evasive in his answer. The source of the horsemeat could have been former racing animals, retired broodmares, agricultural livestock no longer able to work, etc. And yes - the list of possibilities DOES include “someone’s pet”.
Far better for the retailer to be honest and say that the horses they get come from a variety of sources and leave out the “guarantee” that these were never pets. Because in all likelihood, the retailer simply cannot know whether any of them ever were or not.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 9, 2007 @ 6:25 am
When it comes to using animals for sport, here’s the line I draw: is the welfare of the animal the first concern? The animal has no choice about their participation. With dog-fighting, it’s easy to see the lack of regard for the animal. Not so easy with racing (dogs or horses from my POV), but it’s still there for anyone caring to look.
In flat-track horse racing everything is geared towards keeping cheating to a minimum by regulating performance enhancing substances. But what about having regulations geared towards the well-being of the horse? Age restrictions, training restrictions — heck, I don’t know what heading something like abolishing the practice of pin-firing would fall under. (But it’s a barbaric practice that is done for the benefit of humans who can’t seem to understand the words, “lay-off” as in, lay off the work this horse is doing.)
And what about Lasix? It’s a diuretic used to prevent nose bleeds during races. So it effectively dehydrates the horse before they give a supreme athletic effort. (What about kidney or liver function?) Not horse-first thinking. (Has anyone bothered to figure out why nosebleeds happen anyway? It’s not a natural condition, so something pathological must be going on.)
Horses will, for the most part, happily run themselves into the ground despite any physical discomfort and those of us who place the horse’s welfare first think that it must be prevented from doing so. In the mindset of flat-track racers, it must be encouraged to run itself very close to into the ground. As close as possible. Not horse-first thinking.
It’s so easy to pick on flat-track racing. I could easily pick on Quarter Horse futurities and shows for the same reasons. And Tennessee Walking Horse shows for all of the training abuses. And dog agility people who run their dogs too hard without understanding the physical and metabolic abuse they dish out. The point is the animal’s well-being should come first, no matter what the venue. Remember, they have no choice — humans choose for them.
Comment by Deanna — August 9, 2007 @ 7:27 am
I’ve never understood why animals always have to “serve” some human use. Why can’t all animals be appreciated just because life in all forms is such a miracle?
Comment by CherCat — August 9, 2007 @ 7:55 am
Amen CherCat
Comment by Julie — August 9, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Second the Amen from Julie regarding CherCat’s comment.
Comment by VJ — August 9, 2007 @ 1:44 pm