- This topic has 384 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Eliza
, thank you for your monumental, beautifully researched posting on hunting and fur. Bravo!
Once again, you demonstrate that – as far as our general attitude to animals goes – we’re still stuck in the sentimental seventies. It really is time we got out more, if we’re not to become even more of a laughing stock amongst genuinely civilised nations for our short-term, emotive and ultimately uncaring attitude to animals and planetary resources.
I have been advocating the need for the BHA to bond with racing authorities outside this country in order to fight the shallow sentimentality of the Media, and the determined nihilism of the so-called "animal welfare" groups.
Do you have any other suggestions as to what the BHA might
practically
do about this situation. It’s all very well to repeat the mantra of
"education, education, education"
, but effective though that might be against ignorance, it doesn’t touch prejudice, or outmanoeuvre our dull juggernaut of a national press.
So what can we actually
do
to stop this creeping appeasement?
Eliza
, thank you for your monumental, beautifully researched posting on hunting and fur. Bravo!
Once again, you demonstrate that – as far as our general attitude to animals goes – we’re still stuck in the sentimental seventies. It really is time we got out more, if we’re not to become even more of a laughing stock amongst genuinely civilised nations for our short-term, emotive and ultimately uncaring attitude to animals and planetary resources.
I have been advocating the need for the BHA to bond with racing authorities outside this country in order to fight the shallow sentimentality of the Media, and the determined nihilism of the so-called "animal welfare" groups.
Do you have any other suggestions as to what the BHA might
practically
do about this situation. It’s all very well to repeat the mantra of
"education, education, education"
, but effective though that might be against ignorance, it doesn’t touch prejudice, or outmanoeuvre our dull juggernaut of a national press.
So what can we actually
do
to stop this creeping appeasement?
Thank you Pinza
I think the BHA are taking exactly the right steps; but it will take a while for the press to change. As I said before when working as press officer for a Learned Society it was very difficult to get the press interested in anything not trite or sensationalist.
What we can do is demand accountability from the press as ‘the public’. When they print a story in the press or online then we can respond. It becomes evident on almost any debate on such stories by the public that the informed, educated considered and rational responses are from those who support racing/hunting/fur etc etc and the hysterical emotive and downright lunatic responses from the animal rights advocates.
One example was in the Metro newspaper recently who gave column space to Paul Watson head of Sea Shepherd. The journalist as usual did not challenege his assertion that he is part of a Conservation organistaion. A letter that responded that was printed in the metro was quite brilliant and exposed the organisation for what it is: a terrorist one. The writer went on to point out that the Minke whale hunt by the Faroe Islanders was sustainable and gave Red List details and facts and figures. The result was that through one letter to the press at least some Londoners now know Paul Watson for what he is; and the true facts from a real Conservation perspective.
So it isn’t just up to the BHA – it is up to us as individuals to respond to press articles with facts figures and reliable cites and argument.
One way in which we can do this for example is every time we see the press citing Animal Aid; or as they are really known to companies House ‘the Animal Abuse and Injustice Society’ are NOT an animal welfare organisation or charity; and point out their company tax returns:
http://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/01787309
Folk devils and moral panics are fostered by the press but in the end are not sustainable for long in the face of rational argument and education.
That’s a ton of work Eliza – Doolittle? Not you
Ha ha. Used to it. Keep abreast of latest news on conservation, geography, biodiversity etc and have tons of links stored up. So it doesn’t take long to assemble. You should see what I did the last two days in the lab and plotting my tephrochronology. I just did the posts here in my breaks xx
… but it at least appeared to me as if the national fences this year were narrower to allow for the ‘escape chutes’ etc. So doesn’t this concentrate the runners more tightly? I am asking was a measure introduced on RSPCA advice therefore arguably not party repsonsible for the casualties?
The amount of runners is what makes it a great spectacle and betting event with the general public. Would it not be sensible to make the fences wider and the runners therefore less likely to impede each other?
I think you are quite right. The "escape chutes" compress the field and make the fences more, not less, dangerous. They are a double disaster, as in allowing the field to go round fences they only serve to highlight the injury of horses and jockeys on the first circuit.
It is highly likely that – if these chutes aren’t removed – there will
never
be another race over the full 30 fences.
You are also spot on with your idea as to what makes the race a great spectacle. The race was reduced to a maximum field of 40 many years ago now, and there is no evidence I’ve seen which indicates that the limiting of field size has reduced the danger of the race – because the fences are more inviting, nobody much "hunts round the outside" any more, and so most runners congregate on that dangerous inner rail.
No. Reduce it further and you might as well do away with the race: it won’t be the Grand National any more, but a rather exclusive, limited handicap chase. And it will be just as "dangerous".
Eliza/Pinza,
good to see some have a handle on this issue. That it should remain a 40 runner race is not up for debate. Of course it should. End of.
Sadly, I think that they
will
reduce the numbers, for no reason other than, those making the decision will struggle to come up with any other solution to the safety issue, and it’s the easy/lazy way out. I hope I’m proved wrong on this……..I very much doubt it though.
The points in the National at which the most horses use the narrowest width of the course are usually the 7th and 8th fences, as no-one wants to lose significant ground at the turns. Yet interference at these fences is quite rare – the antics of Paddy’s Return in 2001 apart, I cannot remember a horse being brought down at these two fences in the last 30 years.
- Total Posts 17716
The points in the National at which the most horses use the narrowest width of the course are usually the 7th and 8th fences, as no-one wants to lose significant ground at the turns. Yet interference at these fences is quite rare – the antics of Paddy’s Return in 2001 apart, I cannot remember a horse being brought down at these two fences in the last 30 years.
Erm… well the 7th is also the 23rd, and you may recall it’s called
Foinavon’s
! Doubtless you’ve seen the result of crowding on the inside on that occasion, when only one horse took the fence towards the outside (and that only because there were about 30 others stuck in the gridlock on the inner!)
And the
Canal Turn
(8th and 24th), is hardly the acme of non-interference. I can’t remember a race where somebody going well wasn’t either brought down or badly compromised there. The number of brought down and seriously impeded animals there over the last thirty years has been very large.
I’d go along with Kifill on this one Pinza, looking back over the last 30 years, I can only recall 3 being brought down at these fences.
94 24th Mister Ed
97 7th Back Bar
08 8th Philson Run
(that one still hurts)Bearing in mind there have been a number of fallers in the midst of the field here, there has been little or no impact on the rest of the runners. Of course, if I’ve missed any, I’m happy to be corrected.
As for the pile ups in this area in 1967 and 2001, it was certainly nothing more than a coincidence that these incidents happened at adjacent fences. If loose horses chose the same course of action at other fences then the outcome would indeed be the same. Just look at The Chair in 79, or first Bechers in 2004, several runners put out of the race by the actions of loose horses.
Good to see though, at least for this particular problem, they’ve reacted to these incidents by giving horses space to run out.
I was away when the interim report was published. I do question whether the BHA have properly looked at this years race or previous history.
There is no doubt the run off areas are adding to the problem at Bechers (what chance was there that they would admit to their health & safety causing a problem?). No horse or jockey went anywhere near the run off at Bechers presuambly to avoid their horse attempting to run out and this added to the congestion in the middle of the fence.
Dooneys Gate was the first fatality at this fence in 12 runings of the race and the first to be killed at Bechers first time round since 1989. Hardly carnage warranting more twaeking of the fence.
As for leveling off the first fence most observers thought horses should be slowed down in the approach to the first. Now they will be able to jump it even quicker and meet the second even faster.
Interestingly the lowering and softening of the 3rd (the once big ditch) resulted in more fallers at the 4th which has always looked more imposing than any other on the run down to Bechers.
Just to prove how the BHA and Aintree pander to the once a year opponents of the race. What happened when two horses were killed instantly at Valentines in the Topham in 2010? Yes you guessed it, nothing!!
Well I can’t give the eloquent long replies, I prefer to keep things simpler. ‘Chasing a terrified animal for miles with a pack of baying hounds in order to kill it is cruel’. You can give all the justification for fox hunting that you want but that is what it boils down to. I would have more respect for the hunting community if they were honest. They talk about conservation etc, but the reason they do it is for fun.
On the original topic I agree with Cormack. Racing does need the permission of the public to take place. As it is, it is a minority sport which the vast majority of public couldn’t care less about. It is for that reason that we have to listen to the public. It is all to easy to take an isolationist view and say stuff em but, we need them. The Grand National is horse racings shop window and is the only race most watch. Public perception is important. To that end we have to do all we can to make it safe. If it does mean to some extent that the character of the race is slightly changed then so be it. It seems that some people have the same old reaction to change. Without change racing will die.
- Total Posts 17716
Well I can’t give the eloquent long replies, I prefer to keep things simpler. ‘Chasing a terrified animal for miles with a pack of baying hounds in order to kill it is cruel’. You can give all the justification for fox hunting that you want but that is what it boils down to. I would have more respect for the hunting community if they were honest. They talk about conservation etc, but the reason they do it is for fun.
On the original topic I agree with Cormack. Racing does need the permission of the public to take place. As it is, it is a minority sport which the vast majority of public couldn’t care less about. It is for that reason that we have to listen to the public. It is all to easy to take an isolationist view and say stuff em but, we need them. The Grand National is horse racings shop window and is the only race most watch. Public perception is important. To that end we have to do all we can to make it safe. If it does mean to some extent that the character of the race is slightly changed then so be it. It seems that some people have the same old reaction to change. Without change racing will die.
With respect, I find this a depressing post. It boils down to this:
(1) Foxhunting."My gut reaction is all that matters. Facts, figures on the welfare of foxes; and the experience of hunters the world over in sustaining ecological balance; these are nothing compared to my own emotional response. And why not throw in a groundless accusation of dishonesty, just to top it off?"
(2) Racing. "
A minority sport, which the public couldn’t care less about. We therefore need to listen to that public."
Huh??
Well, of course Racing (here and worldwide) is anything but a
"minority sport"
. Fact. Don’t believe all you read in the papers.
Next: you haven’t taken any account of the much more nuanced arguments advanced on this thread about what constitutes
"safety"
(e.g. making the fences smaller actually works against safety). Your final snipe at
"old reaction to change"
shows that you haven’t really understood that appeasement is only going to make things worse.
Why not think about those long, eloquent posts you find so distasteful before coming out with what are (in my opinion) crude and shallow ripostes?
Well I can’t give the eloquent long replies, I prefer to keep things simpler. ‘Chasing a terrified animal for miles with a pack of baying hounds in order to kill it is cruel’. You can give all the justification for fox hunting that you want but that is what it boils down to. I would have more respect for the hunting community if they were honest. They talk about conservation etc, but the reason they do it is for fun.
On the original topic I agree with Cormack. Racing does need the permission of the public to take place. As it is, it is a minority sport which the vast majority of public couldn’t care less about. It is for that reason that we have to listen to the public. It is all to easy to take an isolationist view and say stuff em but, we need them. The Grand National is horse racings shop window and is the only race most watch. Public perception is important. To that end we have to do all we can to make it safe. If it does mean to some extent that the character of the race is slightly changed then so be it. It seems that some people have the same old reaction to change. Without change racing will die.
You asked me for evidence; and I went to some lengths to give it to you. By contrast you have not put up any evidence to support your opinion.
Emotive and ‘simple’ arguments generally suggest prejudice not rational objectivity. The word ‘terrifed’ is also used by animal rights activists to describe horses running in a race. Of course it isn’t true; and anybody who knows or observes can see that view is false; so such things need to be confronted and debunked.
The idea that ‘change’ is necessarily a good thing also needs some challenge. Change as a reaction to ill informed prejudice is not necessarily progressive or advantageous; indeed it can be the opposite; and especially when based on outdated and debunked animal rights ideology. We do not yet have rule by the (tiny vocal minority) mob. We are supposed to consider the contributions of informed opinion and scientific evidence before arriving at a course of ‘change’.
Whatever the issue; any ‘change’ – whether to foxhunting or the Grand National or any other issue – should be based on rational consideration. So has the ban on foxhunting resulted in better welfare for the fox or stag? Doubtful – may I point out the reaction of former members and directors of the LACS who point that out. The ban was the result of prejudice rather than rational considerations; and dismissed a great deal of evidence for the sake of a political agenda. It also matters little whether we as individuals approve of something; the fact remains that these activities have proven conservation benefits and alternative economic activities on the land in question can have far more long term and damaging consequences for animal habitat. I have already given scientific evidence on this earlier in the thread.
Likewise we should not be interested in ‘change’ to the Grand National course unless we are sure it will benefit the welfare of horse and safety of jockey. The RSPCA was happy at changes already made this year but it did not prevent the fatalities; and in some ways may have contributed to them.
Yes Racing needs to change – my blog is part of the Racing for Change initiative. So I am not against change where it can improve things. But we should not ‘change’ things to satisfy the prejudices of the animal rights lobby who stand against the ending of all animal domestication. The Grand National gets the biggest audience of any race in the world; tens of millions of viewers worldwide. That suggests something about it is what the rest of racing should be attempting to emulate! As well as attempting to improve saftey (which we should only be doing based on rational basis for the nbenefit of participants), we should also be looking at what is ‘right’ with the Grand National that we clearly need to keep because of the massive public interest in it. Turning it into a normal jumps race to appease those who criticise it is of little point when those critics want to ban racing full stop. Racing may be a minority sport; but the Grand National is probably one of the most watched sporting events in the world. We do not want to change that.
Well I can’t give the eloquent long replies, I prefer to keep things simpler. ‘Chasing a terrified animal for miles with a pack of baying hounds in order to kill it is cruel’. You can give all the justification for fox hunting that you want but that is what it boils down to. I would have more respect for the hunting community if they were honest. They talk about conservation etc, but the reason they do it is for fun.
On the original topic I agree with Cormack. Racing does need the permission of the public to take place. As it is, it is a minority sport which the vast majority of public couldn’t care less about. It is for that reason that we have to listen to the public. It is all to easy to take an isolationist view and say stuff em but, we need them. The Grand National is horse racings shop window and is the only race most watch. Public perception is important. To that end we have to do all we can to make it safe. If it does mean to some extent that the character of the race is slightly changed then so be it. It seems that some people have the same old reaction to change. Without change racing will die.
With respect, I find this a depressing post. It boils down to this:
(1) Foxhunting."My gut reaction is all that matters. Facts, figures on the welfare of foxes; and the experience of hunters the world over in sustaining ecological balance; these are nothing compared to my own emotional response. And why not throw in a groundless accusation of dishonesty, just to top it off?"
It is not a groundless accusation of dishonesty. Hunters do it for fun but rarely say that. They just use all the old excuses of conservation etc. If they really want to help conservation and sustain the ecological balance there are plenty of other ways to do it than chase a fox with hounds. You may come out with the protecting the countryside arguments etc but can’t counter the fox hunting is cruel argument.
(2) Racing. "
A minority sport, which the public couldn’t care less about. We therefore need to listen to that public."
Huh??
Well, of course Racing (here and worldwide) is anything but a
"minority sport"
. Fact. Don’t believe all you read in the papers.
Racing is a minority sport. Very few people are interested in it. Some have a bet now and again but would just as soon have a bet on something else. Despite the ludicrous statements that we hear from the likes of Clare Balding, things like the ‘whole country is waiting to see how Frankel does’ no one outside racing is that interested. Most people in the country haven’t heard of Frankel. Where I work,on a shift of about 80 there are only two of us who have any serious interest in Racing. A few others may have a bet now and then but most bet on the football.
The only race which most people watch is the Grand National, they’re not interested in the Derby or other races. It is for this very reason we do need to listen to them. This year brought home to many the realities which have been hidden from them for years. If we don’t listen racing is in serious danger.
Next: you haven’t taken any account of the much more nuanced arguments advanced on this thread about what constitutes
"safety"
(e.g. making the fences smaller actually works against safety).
I haven’t said anything about the recent changes good or bad. All I’ve said is we may need to look at changing some things to make things safer and to influence the publics perception.
Your final snipe at
"old reaction to change"
shows that you haven’t really understood that appeasement is only going to make things worse.
Whereas you don’t seem to want any change as you see it as others messing in your sport and don’t seem to understand that if racing loses the support of the public that will make things much worse.
Why not think about those long, eloquent posts you find so distasteful before coming out with what are (in my opinion) crude and shallow ripostes?
I have thought about them.All they are are long and eloquent posts giving the same old reasons for people to justify the activity to themselves which have been bandied about for years and years.They don’t address the basics that hunting is ‘sport’ that is cruel and done for fun. Please give arguments to deny it is cruel and tell me that the participants don’t do it for fun.Exactly the same as hare Coursing and Bullfighting. Do you support those as well ?
Well I can’t give the eloquent long replies, I prefer to keep things simpler. ‘Chasing a terrified animal for miles with a pack of baying hounds in order to kill it is cruel’. You can give all the justification for fox hunting that you want but that is what it boils down to. I would have more respect for the hunting community if they were honest. They talk about conservation etc, but the reason they do it is for fun.
On the original topic I agree with Cormack. Racing does need the permission of the public to take place. As it is, it is a minority sport which the vast majority of public couldn’t care less about. It is for that reason that we have to listen to the public. It is all to easy to take an isolationist view and say stuff em but, we need them. The Grand National is horse racings shop window and is the only race most watch. Public perception is important. To that end we have to do all we can to make it safe. If it does mean to some extent that the character of the race is slightly changed then so be it. It seems that some people have the same old reaction to change. Without change racing will die.
You asked me for evidence; and I went to some lengths to give it to you. By contrast you have not put up any evidence to support your opinion.
No. I asked for evidence that the RSPCA has lost credibility. You haven’t given any, only your own views and are trying to say that because they don’t agree they have lost credibility. The fact is the RSPCA is one of the most well thought of organisations in the country. Of course an organisation with the words prevention of cruelty to animals in it’s title wouldn’t be credible if it didn’t oppose Fox Hunting. I don’t really think I can give long eloquent posts to say why fox hunting is cruel, I think it is pretty self evident.
Emotive and ‘simple’ arguments generally suggest prejudice not rational objectivity. The word ‘terrifed’ is also used by animal rights activists to describe horses running in a race. Of course it isn’t true; and anybody who knows or observes can see that view is false; so such things need to be confronted and debunked.
I’ve never said that horses in a race are terrified, if I thought they were I wouldn’t be a racing fan, please show me where I’ve said that. I said that foxes are terrified while they are being chased although perhaps you don’t agree with that. I could be wrong of course they may be thinking ‘this is jolly good fun, must do it again sometime’. You seem to have a paranoia regarding animal rights activists and think that anyone who opposes your view must be one of them.
The idea that ‘change’ is necessarily a good thing also needs some challenge.
I never said it was
. Change as a reaction to ill informed prejudice is not necessarily progressive or advantageous;
With respect I have been seriously interested in Racing and attending meetings since around the time you were born so my views are hardly ill informed predjudice and statements like that carry no weight. My opinion on the Grand National or other racing matters is just as valid as yours.
indeed it can be the opposite; and especially when based on outdated and debunked animal rights ideology. We do not yet have rule by the (tiny vocal minority) mob. We are supposed to consider the contributions of informed opinion and scientific evidence before arriving at a course of ‘change’.
Of course it is the hunting community which is the tiny vocal minority and as was shown during their campaign ( which was perfectly legitimate and their right) some of them were as much a mob as some of the animal rights activists. Of course people only tend to consider the contributions of informed opinion and scientific evidence if it concurs with their own opinion. They tend to dismiss that which doesn’t agree with their views.
Whatever the issue; any ‘change’ – whether to foxhunting or the Grand National or any other issue – should be based on rational consideration. So has the ban on foxhunting resulted in better welfare for the fox or stag? Doubtful – may I point out the reaction of former members and directors of the LACS who point that out. The ban was the result of prejudice rather than rational considerations; and dismissed a great deal of evidence for the sake of a political agenda.
Again you seem to think that anyone who has a different view on the topic to you as
irrational and prejudiced
It also matters little whether we as individuals approve of something; the fact remains that these activities have proven conservation benefits and alternative economic activities on the land in question can have far more long term and damaging consequences for animal habitat. I have already given scientific evidence on this earlier in the thread.
Likewise we should not be interested in ‘change’ to the Grand National course unless we are sure it will benefit the welfare of horse and safety of jockey. The RSPCA was happy at changes already made this year but it did not prevent the fatalities; and in some ways may have contributed to them.
And this doesn’t mean we should not still look at the issue and dismiss any more thought on the matter.
Yes Racing needs to change – my blog is part of the Racing for Change initiative. So I am not against change where it can improve things. But we should not ‘change’ things to satisfy the prejudices of the animal rights lobby who stand against the ending of all animal domestication. The Grand National gets the biggest audience of any race in the world; tens of millions of viewers worldwide. That suggests something about it is what the rest of racing should be attempting to emulate! As well as attempting to improve saftey (which we should only be doing based on rational basis for the nbenefit of participants), we should also be looking at what is ‘right’ with the Grand National that we clearly need to keep because of the massive public interest in it. Turning it into a normal jumps race to appease those who criticise it is of little point when those critics want to ban racing full stop. Racing may be a minority sport; but the Grand National is probably one of the most watched sporting events in the world. We do not want to change that.
- Total Posts 17716
Exactly the same as hare Coursing and Bullfighting. Do you support those as well ?
I do. And to quote Isaac Newton,
"Sir, I have studied the subject. You have not"
. I’m afraid it’s not worth trying to reason with someone whose responses continue to show that he/she has not truly engaged with the rational arguments which contradict his/her prejudices, and can only repeat that the truth of those prejudices is
"self evident"
without offering any facts.
In my opinion, you need to take a cool look at the realities outside your own country, your own place of work, your own television, and your own head. Until then, there can be no debate with you on this matter.
Kenh – just responding to some of your points; hope this clarifies :
I am afraid you do; because it is not evident without evidence! To assume such is indeed a ‘prejudice’. The evidence put to Parliament including from the Royal College of Veterinarians among others suggested that of all the options for dealing with foxes hunting was the least cruel. QUOTE:
"This carefully compiled document published in 2007 in collaboration with the All Parliamentary Middle Way Group comprehensively puts the scientific record straight in respect of the hunting debate and demonstrates that there are not and never were any scientific grounds for banning hunting on the grounds of cruelty."
http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.u … et7-07.pdfI didn’t. Animal Rights advocates do; they think it is ‘evident’. The reason I raised it is because you do not – I think you may be able to produce evidence to the contrary of course
Not at all. I know you are not. But you need to know what they are about; and why they cannot be appeased. As a Geographer with some knowledge and experience of Conservation I can tell you Animal rights ideology ideology is regarded as unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst. I think people in racing may be unfamiliar with this. So I do not think you are ‘one of them’ but suggesting they have any credence in the matter at hand is misleading and the result of unfamiliarity with their ideology.
Foxes have no natural predator in the UK because we have removed it from the eco system. To reintroduce it appears to me reasonable – in the same way falconry controls pest birds. The fox like all wild animals expects predation as is evident in its behaviour; it runs and does not remain motionless which is the behaviour most associated with terror. The alternatives in wildlife management to hunting have regularly caused major welfare problems with wild animal populations; including disease in several case examples such as rabbit and deer. There appears to be very little concern with animal welfare as long as someone in a red coat isn’t involved
Of course – perhaps more valid! You would perhaps know more about fence construction than I so would heed your opinion. Indeed I am a newcomer to racing so your knowledge based on experience of racing carries far more weight than mine. On the issue of animal rights however – with respect – I have ten years of professional experience which has frequently involved confronting their irrational arguments. Hence feel I have something to offer with regard to this debate. One cannot appease the animal rights lobby. With regard to hunting in the broader context and fur trade I have particular specialist knowledge. The RSPCA in taking up positions against foxhunting and fur did little to damage support for them; apparently the support for both has risen (again I provided detailed evidence. Those who appreciate that these activities have strong credentials in supporting conservation goals are now likely to remain alienated from the RSPCA. That would include supporters of the IUCN who have a strong stand on sustainable use; but are by nature what I would describe as people who really care about animals. In addition; through spending astronomical sums of money of their campaigns while putting thousands of animals down (presumably due to cost considerations) has done little for their credibility: there is now a strong objection against their policy of destroying animals (again I gave an example of this).
So I gave you the evidence for which you asked.
My point in raising this was to show that Racing should not fear and appease the RSPCA : the measures adopted suuggested by them arguably may have contributed to the problems we saw; and if they wish to retain an influential role it would be better all around if they remained working with racing not against it. I hope they do
I haven’t seen any evidence from you or any other reliable source on the issue of hunting that has much rational credence. I arrived at my own opinions through having pursued an academic career in Geography which concerns itself with the impact of human and natural change on the Earth. I concur with most scientific observation that hunting happens to have a massive beneficial role in protecting habitat. I am not at all interested in hunting otherwise. So I think you could say that my opinion is both expert (within the confines of the forum at least)and objective. As Tony Blair pointed out he considers the legsilation on hunting a mistake as while he would not hunt he underestimated the validity of its importance in countryside. That is the point: we can all have an opinion but the opinions of those to who are closest to and most knowledgeable about something need to be heard – and if they have rational evidence to support their case then they should have been listened to.
The Animal rights lobby support terrorism including bombing and targeting individuals and public with terror campaigns such as the poisoning of products. I think you will find that the Hunting lobby have by contrast accepted the law and while some continue to campaign for repeal others are happy working within it
No what I said is that an opinion is only as valid as the evidence on which it is based. You appear to be offering an opinion without any evidence to support it.
‘prejudice’ definition:a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictionshttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/prejudice
My opinion may be challenged of course but it is based on a little knowledge of the subject of Conservation not on a preconceived idea; and I produced some of that in response to your request for you to consider.
I agree – where did I say we should not? What I am saying is we should do that because it is in the interests of safety for horse and rider and not for the perceptions of the public. The ‘public’ actually supports the Grand National more than any other race in the world!!! When we discussed the public response to the BBC I pointed out that they got very few complaints next to an episode of Eastenders!! So I think actually the public don’t care much about horse welfare; animal rights advocates want the thoroughbred neutered out of existence; and actually (evidence that we are all still talking about it here!) those in Racing care most. The changes that are made to the Grand National therefore should be made by specialist opinion of riders,owners, trainers, vets, fence builders, animal welfare experts etc etc. This is not my specialist area of knowledge so I do not want expect to have an input. But we definitely must be careful we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater through pandering to those who have grievances against all horse racing; especially when the Grand National is the race that most of the public are interested in – it therefore must be doing something right.
Hope that clarifies my position as I am not saying make no changes – on the contrary. Just that it is not wise for change to result because a perceived public response. I have yet to see evidence of any mass public furore. Change has to be for the participants; and suggestions made by the participants (owners trainers jockeys etc) veterinarians and welfare experts within the Sport. Including suggestions from the RSPCA if they wish to continue to have an input; but they have to be based on rational premise. A whip ban is not relevant; though strict enforcement of existing whip misuse is sensible
Just read the entire thread.
It’s five to three! Got totally engrossed in it. Some of which I agree and some disagree. Will be back tomorrow (or rather today) with my feelings on the subject/s…But will start by saying about hunting:
Anyone who believes fox hunting is cruel should give an alternative way of control.
With fox hunting the fit fox can get away. An old or unfit fox rarely gets away (that’s called "natural selection"). So therefore, does not suffer a long and painful death.
With shooting / lamping, there is no way of knowing whether the fox being killed is healthy or not. Fox can be injured badly in a shooting and as a consequence suffer a long and painful death.
With gassing the fox has a …. you get the picture.
Fox population needs to be controlled.
Fox hunting is the least cruel of all control methods.If the fox looked like a rat the general public would have no problem with hunting.
Now I really must get to sleep.
Value Is EverythingMixed feelings about the proposed filling in of the drop at Becher’s. Do agree with abolishing drop fences, horses presumably expect a drop of the same size as take off side. However, making the fence easier will no doubt mean jockeys taking the fence even faster and speed kills. More runners will go towards the inner to save ground. May be making the fence progressively higher near the inner might stop this. Otherwise the course could favour prominent runners to an even greater degree than it does now.
Combination of speed and firmness of ground makes a fall more dangerous. So making fences easier is seldom the answer. Harder surface for both horse and rider also means a bigger percentage of injuries if not death. Softer ground = less speed, so more watering is a no brainer. With so little racing, grass can probably take more watering than the average course. In my opinion they should aim for good-soft conditions. That way if they get it slightly wrong, which with an inexact science can happen, it should end up no firmer than genuinely good ground and no softer than soft. I’d like to see the National abandoned on heavy ground, to ward against exhaustion and an unsavoury spectacle / perception. Although like the banning of “hard” ground, suspect it will probably just mean the “official” going never reaches “heavy”.
Seems to me either a longer or shorter run to the first would be beneficial. Longer gives runners a larger time-span to get more fanned-out and possibly less of a cavalry charge to get a good position before the first. Track conformation means the start can’t be moved backwards, so may be getting rid of the first fence could be an option. However, best option is probably shortening the run. With horses unable to reach dangerous speed before jumping. Although a reduction in field size to avoid over-crowding would need to go hand in hand with such a change. Reduction in number of runners is in my opinion needed anyway.
Argument for 40 runners is based on the width of course. With run-off areas newly introduced, fences are presumably narrower anyway. Not that I am against run-off areas. Mick Fitzgerald’s career ending fall saw horses jumping near to him second time around. Surely it is best for runners to avoid the fence altogether? Far greater risk of horse landing on prostrated horse too. May be easy enough to avoid one horse, but what if more than one is the other side?
Three fences are on a turn. Can only remember one horse who took the outer of Foinavon and that was Foinavon. All jockeys use the inner of the Canal Turn, 40 (or however many are left running) using around 3 horse widths of fence is asking for trouble. I remember one year two jockeys narrowly avoiding serious injury by sheltering as close as possible to the fence, with what seemed the whole field jumping over them.The Paddy’s Return incident, taking out most of the field at the Canal Turn did have something to do with number of runners. With so many horses heading for the same part of the fence leaving very little room to manoeuvre. Although Paddy’s being blinkered was another contributing factor, not being able to see those coming from his side view. Something that should also be looked at. Any loose blinkered horse is much more unpredictable.
My opinions are my own, I don’t alter them to appease Animal Aid or any other charity. Racing should alter the course only if it is the right thing to do, not to appease anyone.
Value Is Everything
(that one still hurts)
It’s five to three! Got totally engrossed in it. Some of which I agree and some disagree. Will be back tomorrow (or rather today) with my feelings on the subject/s…- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.