One Last Hurdle? – 18 years since Senate Committee called for Jump Racing ban

Racing Victoria meets tomorrow (Wednesday 13 May) to decide whether or not to finally follow every other state (except South Australia) in banning jumps racing. (UPDATE – decision postponed until “later in the week”)

Nearly a year ago, I said such a ban was well overdue. Instead, there was another review, followed by more ‘improvements’, followed by more horse deaths.  At the time I mentioned there had been two other reviews in the previous six years.

At the weekend it was pointed out to me that a Senate Committee report as far back as 1991 contained a recommendation “that relevant State Governments should phase out jump racing over the next three years.” (that is, by 1994). 

I should also note that a minority of the Committee, while “sharing the Committee’s concern about the fatality rate in jump racing”, considered that “improvements to jump racing facilities and practices will alleviate many animal welfare problems.”

Since then, a number of state governments have banned jump racing.  All the improvements suggested as an alternative back in 1991 – and more – have been tried, but the high death rate continues.
A comment left on my previous post on the same topic suggested that “horse racing is one of the most mild forms of animal exploitation” and if you argue against jump racing, “to be intellectually honest you have argue against all animal exploitation.”  A similar question was raised in this recent post by Robert Merkel at LP – I think he personally isn’t keen on jump racing, but is simply pointing out the contrast with far worse forms of cruelty than go on unchecked.

It’s a fair enough point as far as it goes, but if you applied that line of reasoning to most issues, you’d often end up doing nothing. Reform often starts with the easier areas first (although if this issue has already been around 20 years, it probably doesn’t qualify as an easy one). If you insisted on doing the hardest ones first, or on either addressing every problem in area at once or doing nothing, not much would happen.  It’s not that dissimilar to the argument that Australia alone can’t stop climate change so we shouldn’t do anything unless everyone else does.

The Australian’s sports reporter Patrick Smith – a mainstream journo if ever there was one – has done a couple of great columns on this topic. (as he has in the past on excessive, unnecessary use of the whip in horse racing more generally – another area where Racing Victoria has been slow to act)

Please like & share:

45 Comments

  1. Andrew,
    I confess I have not read you previously. Do I understand your view correctly, is it true, as your latest post suggests, that you are against any use of animals by humans? Was it a neat, inflammatory semantic trick or do you really consider any such exploitation cruelty? And though it difficult, if you could convince a bureaucrat to outlaw the consumption of meat, the confinement of animals for their milk and eggs, the wearing of leather and fur, etc, etc, etc….you would?

  2. Kyle:

    Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. While I wouldn’t agree that most people eat too much meat for their culinary pleasure, you are right about Naomi and Claire having an extreme view.

    Andrew is a vegan. I consider that to be an extreme position as well. I’m not sure if he owns a leather wallet, belt, shoes or lounge suite. Perhaps he might tell us.

    The Greens consider us all to be animals. Yet they say we are cruel to our food animals, when animals in the wild tear each other’s throats out and rip each other’s guts out while they are still alive.

    Many people from the extreme lobby have chosen to eat a ruminant’s or rodent’s diet. Instead of taking extreme measures, I think they should continue to push for improvements in the way in which food animals are treated.

    I have 2 relatives who have worked with animals used in research. Activists have made it so expensive and difficult to use animals for research, that doctors now have to test experimental drugs on human beings.

    There are economic/trade issues which are associated with, and cannot be divorced from, a carbon tax. A lot of our food animals are exported to China, Japan and the Middle East.

    The idea that anyone could change the earth’s climate is fallacial.

    When I watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle” I listened carefully to the arguments on both sides. Each side took a 50 year period and tried to use it to prove their hypothesis.

    When you consider that an interglacial period (global warming) occurs for 100,000 years out of every 10 million years, I don’t know how anyone could see this stuff as anything more than plucking at straws.

    We could be in an interglacial period, and maybe not. If we are, there’s nothing we can do about it.

    When Billy Connolly recently tried to sail through a regularly used passage in the Arctic Circle, he had to change course because it was chockablock with ice.

    You might like to read Andrew’s other posts on animals & climate

  3. Kyle

    What I said was pointing to worse cruelty elsewhere is no reason not to act on something which can halted now, even if the cruelty is lesser.
    This is what I took your comment to be suggesting.

    AMong the reasons why it is harder to act on the activities which you rightly suggest involve much greater animal suffering is (a) because there is much greater economic wealth and employment generated through that sufffering, thus meaning far more people would be negatively effected – at least in the short-term – by a halt to such activities, and (b) for the related but more political reason that far more people are accepting of such activities, even though they involve greater animal suffering – presumably because they believe it is more necessary than one particular form of horse racing.

    Personally, I don’t believe governments should act to unilaterally ban activities which the vast majority of people support – for the pragmatic reason that on government would survive for long if it did so, thus making such an action futile (unless it were a dictatorship, which is a form of government I don’t support – and even a military dictatorship would be likely to be overthrown if it tried something like that).

    And also because of the principle (although it happens to also be pragmatic in its effect) that I believe change is more sustainable if people are convinced of the benefits of moving in that direction, rather than having something the vast majority would totally oppose forced on them from above. This also means change is slower, but it is more likely to stay entrenched as it occurs.

    In the mean time, I can make the personal decision not to consume products which inflict serious suffering on animals, and encourage others to do the same. That’s what I focus on (as well as also pointing out the major environmental damage which factory farming of animals causes, which occurs almost solely because of the growing human demand for its products)

  4. Lorikeet

    You may consider being vegan extreme. Many people said the same of vegetarianism not too long ago (some still do today). I consider the suffering inflicted on factory farmed animals extreme, but obviously most people are willing to tolerate it – I think at least in part because they aren’t aware of just how bad it is.

    However, it’s my right to eat or not what I choose, and I can try to persuade people of the various reasons why I think it is a good idea. I doubt our society will become even majority vegetarian in my lifetime, but I would like to think they would accept that practices like intensive piggeries and feedlots are unacceptable. (and in my view if we want to have a hope of reducing greenhouse emissions by the necessary amount, we will all need to eat a lot less meat and dairy anyway).

    In any case, there is no inconsistency between making a personal decision to be vegan or vegetarian while “continuing to push for improvements in the way in which food animals are treated”.

    “The GreatGlobal Warming Swindle” did not present both sides of the argument, it only presented one. And it is now so thoroughly discredited that even greenhouse sceptics rarely refer to it.

    As for your claim that “Activists have made it so expensive and difficult to use animals for research, that doctors now have to test experimental drugs on human beings.” – this is simply wrong.

    Experimentation on animals continues to grow. No drug is (or should be) allowed into the market place until it has been trialled on some humans by Doctors or medical researchers.

  5. Jumps racing should go. I know that threre are people who will ultimately lose their livelihoods but if we were concerned that nobody should ever lose their job as a result of a government decision, no hard decisions would ever be made. I am confident that if jumps racing does go then something else will fill the void. In cirisis there is always opportunity.

  6. Andrew:

    My father-in-law and daughter-in-law have both worked in research facilities. My daughter-in-law still does.

    I’ve been in these places and worked for a university where various laboratories carried out research. Some of this experience dates back 30+ years. Even back then the animals were, without exception, clean and well fed. At the end of the studies, they were humanely slaughtered.

    Animal studies used to precede trials on humans. Now, very often, they do not. This is because animal activists have insisted upon a “feather bed” experience for animals that is too expensive.

    “The Great Global Warming Swindle” presented the views of scientists on both sides. I watched it myself. Perhaps you have forgotten what it contained, but I agree that incredible crap was presented by both sides.

    It seems to me that no one is telling vegans and vegetarians what they should eat. It’s mostly fanatical vegans who are accusing ordinary people of “suckling greedily” at the teats of a cow, or “salivating over bloodied flesh”.

    These are clearly young people who have been heavily indoctrinated using fear and guilt.

    There are many different classifications of a vegetarian. Some eat fish, honey, eggs and dairy products, which is a much less extreme diet than that of a vegan.

    You still didn’t tell us if you were making use of leather goods.

  7. Andrew:

    Andrew says: “The GreatGlobal Warming Swindle” did not present both sides of the argument, it only presented one. And it is now so thoroughly discredited that even greenhouse sceptics rarely refer to it.

    Thoroughly discredited. ? Yes neither do the greatest advocate of global warming refer to the now discredited AL Gore either.

    But a growing number of scientist are now stateing that cooling is occuring and that our weather patterns have been quite mild of the last 100 years and that Global Cooling has been occuring for a number of years

    Tony

  8. lorikeet

    “Kyle:Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. While I wouldn’t agree that most people eat too much meat for their culinary pleasure, you are right about Naomi and Claire having an extreme view.”

    Oh really? And why is that? Do you think Andrew’s view is “extreme”? I don’t. In fact, I agree with all that he says. I ask one question. If animals, including horses had a voice, and their voices were not only listened to, but had merit due to their ‘weight’ via ballot boxes, do you or Kyle think that many of these practices would still exist? And while Kyle thinks my views are ?? what if Whales could speak? If you learned how a whale died via a harpoon, and having a great intelligence, and taking the time to read and listen to those who’ve spent their lives tracking them, watching them, researching their ‘language’ (Humpbacks in particular)you’d have a better insight into their place in this life, their imput, their right to BE?

    Who said we’re superior? When I raised the question, “Would a Whale do that”? Kyle could only respond with derision, no insight into what I was saying. He then chose to use ridiculous suppositions to counter his lack of insight!

    Only human beings kill and use other creatures for entertainment; for the making of money; to show our alleged superiority, power etc. It’s obscene! The more people feel the need to justify such cruelty only reinforces the horrendous and dark depths of their need to CONTROL! I saw that horse die – ONCE! I don’t need to see another one to convince me of the appalling side of greed. If that makes me a person with extreme views – so be it! I can live with that. What I can’t live with, is harp seals with transluscent coats, bludgened to death in their first 6 weeks of life, just for their pelts, or whales dying in agony for hours, days even, via a harpoon for money, or horses dying in agony in the name of sport,or pigs in ‘straight jackets’ while pregnant, or hens,or??

  9. Andrew,
    I respect your individual choice vis a vis the use, exploitation, consumption of animals. While I won’t cede the moral high ground to you on the point I’ll accept that your’s is a moral stance aimed at easing the sum of suffering in our world. But once again you’ve equated use of animals with cruelty and there I think you display some fanaticism. And as one also concerned with the sum of suffering I stand on guard against fanaticial ideaologies, for my experience and common sense tell me they tend to increase rather than decrease the world’s suffering. I’m somewhat taken aback that you so straight forwardly express a fascistic bent, one checked only by a certain “pragmatism.” Are you proud of your un-democratic, anti-individual views, or unaware of them? That attitude coupled with moral certitude is dangerous.

  10. Kyle

    You can have what you perceive to be the ‘high moral ground’ if you like – I’m not even remotely interested in some sort of morality competition. I’m simply outlining some of the facts and some of my views.

    I am puzzled why you would suggest I have “equated the use of animals with cruelty”. You are the one who originally said (on the previous post on this topic) that:

    “the nobility horses show in competitive flight has elevated them in the common mind above the chicken, the pig, the cow. Millions of the latter can be slaughtered after brief, confined, brutal, joyless lives with no outcry…and nary a thought.”

    Which looks to me very much like you were highlighting the enormous (and greater) cruelty involved in the way many other animals are treated. I apologise if you don’t like me agreeing with you on a key point of your argument, but I still do. I just don’t agree this this fact should be an excuse for not acting to end other, arguably lesser, suffering if the opportunity arises.

    And what on earth is “undemocratic”, let alone “fascistic” (!!) about my view that govenrments shouldn’t try to ban activities if a ban is widely supported by the majority of a community?!

    I’ve argued for individual choice, which you say you respect (even though you obviously don’t), and the approach of making my case to others about why they should consider changing their attitudes / behaviour regarding the treament of animals. You then laughably label this as expressing a “fascistic bent”

    Trying to apply cheap insults in ludicrously inappropriate contexts is hardly a good way to make your case.

    No doubt you love horses, (and unlike others who profess to do so, you probably wouldn’t react to the banning of jumps racing by shooting them in the head). But you’re far from the only one, and others would prefer them not to be put at greater risk of breaker their necks for no particularly good reason.

  11. Lorikeet said:

    “Animal studies used to precede trials on humans. Now, very often, they do not. This is because animal activists have insisted upon a “feather bed” experience for animals that is too expensive.”

    I don’t care if you’re entire family has worked in animal experiementation for their whole lives, you are still wrong. I have been in plenty of animal experimentation facilities and have served on a University animal ethics Committee which approve all research projects involving animals.

    I won’t go on further, as it is off-topic. However, if you can provide details of a single drug that has moved to the stage of being trialled or used on humans without first going through “animal studies”, I’d be very interested to see it.

  12. Andrew,
    I do love horses; you have that right. I love my cats, too. In fact, I value and respect animals in general, including the pig I had for dinner tonight. And although I don’t know him I’d bet (I like to bet, by the way) Butch Londregan loves his horses, despite what you might think. But who knows, he might be some kind of sadist who can’t wait to get out of bed every morning at 4am so he can go torture his animals.
    You don’t want the moral high ground, Andrew? C’mon..That’s your whole thing. You’re not like us barbarians who enjoy seeing horses sent out to “break their necks” for “no particular good reason.”
    And as to your fascistic streak, you wrote it wasn’t “pragmatic” for government to ban practices favored by the “vast majority” of people…for the governments own survival. That’s not a democratic sentiment but that of a tyrant in wait, who’ll slake his appetite by first going after the most vulnerable.

  13. I’m sorry Kyle, I didn’t realise pragmatism equated to being a tyrant in wait, let alone fascism.

    I’m actually interested in reality – you know, reducing suffering and all that. The thing you suggested in your initial comments you were challenging people to consistently campaign against. My apologies for assuming you were actually trying to express your genuine beliefs, as opposed to making a weak debating point that could not even be bothered defending.

    The fact you seem to be only interpret this as being about some contest the high moral ground says far more about you than it does about me – probably for the same reason that you feel the need to immediately resort to smears about me being fascist, anti-democratic and extremist – anything to avoid actually having to engage with the points I am making or even defend the assertion that you yourself originally raised and that I indicated partial agreement with.

    But as you wish. I hereby formally cede the “high moral ground” to you for as long as you like.

  14. Lorikeet; http://www.itv.com/PressCentre/BillyConnollyJourneyToTheEdgeOfTheWorld/Ep3Wk10/default.html

    Billy says: “I just love the fact that it isn’t a given that you can do the Northwest Passage…I can see lots of ice up ahead too. The wind has moved the ice over and we can’t get through because they tried to get in touch with an ice breaker to come and break the ice which would have been brilliant. So we’ve had a change of plans.”

    Perhaps you heard what you wanted to hear?

  15. Lorikeet, sorry, but having worked – along with any number of relatives – in an animal experimentation facility is hardly a badge of honour. So the animals were “clean and well fed”. Was that before, after or during the hideous experiments you carried out upon them? Was there any enrichment in their wretched lives? And how much good does animal experimentation do? Spare a thought for Thalidomide and Vioxx, to name just two. Let the experiments be carried out on humans, I say,

    Kyle what sort of life did the pig you “respected” have before it ended up on your plate? An appalling, but mercifully short life in an intensive pig farm?

    Banning jumps racing is simply “baby steps” in terms of progress for the welfare of animals in a country where intensive farming is ever growing, and we send sentient animals on horror journeys to overseas countries for savage butchering. The views expressed by Andrew here are not extreme; he simply points out the reality of the wretched misery Australian animals (usually other than cats and dogs, which have some protection under the law) spend their short, brutal lives.

  16. Well, the argument has become very complex, hasn’t it?

    BTW, I was a research typist at the university, but if I had been employed as a research scientist, I would certainly have experimented on animals first (not people) for the greater good of humankind.

    Kyle, while being quite insightful in some respects, still wants people and horses to be maimed and injured unnecessarily, (to say nothing of the children who go without food due to their parents’ gambling). I see no reason at all to do something like that.

    On the other thread, Claire compared the size of a horse’s ankles with a human’s, but failed to take into account that a horse walks on 4 legs, and that a creature using 4 legs can carry more than twice the amount of weight on its back.

    In any case, I would prefer horses to be used for farming and recreational purposes. Otherwise they can eat hay and sleep under the trees, instead of being used in pursuit of one the Seven Deadly Sins with resultant injury.

    I am completely opposed to gambling on cock fights and dog fights etc as well.

    Then we have Dolphins wanting to nitpick over a few sentences.

    As for Andrew’s request for details of drugs that haven’t been tested on animals first , I will see if anyone I know can compile a list.

    I will make this point in support of at least some of what Kyle said.

    I think a Patriot or an Humanitarian has as much chance of co-existing with a Greeniot as a person would have of being rocket-propelled through an iceberg and expecting to come out alive on the other side.

    Naomi:

    I think you are ignoring at least 3 basic points.

    There are excellent reasons why animals don’t have a voice and cannot vote.

    I said I was opposed to jump racing due to injury to horses and riders, and the greater evil of gambling.

    You agree with Andrew because you express even more extreme views on pretty much every topic.

  17. NIcky

    Nicky says: Kyle what sort of life did the pig you “respected” have before it ended up on your plate? An appalling, but mercifully short life in an intensive pig farm?

    It had a great life… Well fed and looked after.
    What did you expect …. dress him up like Arnold ?

    Nicky says: Let the experiments be carried out on humans, I say,
    Spare the animals kill the people …. How very green. (Must be a member) because now one else would come up with a statement like that.

    Perhaps we should have arrange funeral escorts when the animals are being transported to the abottoirs. Woud that be respectful enough ?

    Nicky says: The views expressed by Andrew here are not extreme; he simply points out the reality of the wretched misery Australian animals (usually other than cats and dogs, which have some protection under the law) spend their short, brutal lives.

    I dont know of too many experiments that are carried out on our domestic friends, but if that was the case, it would still be preferable to risking the life or well being of another human being.

    Once again your making the statement that we should spare the animals and risk human life.

  18. LORIKEET – “You agree with Andrew because you express even more extreme views on pretty much every topic.”

    I agree with Andrew on this topic and many others, that is true. Why? Because he’s better read, puts forward a better argument, and has compassion, decency and integrity! That’s why? You think that anyone left of your opinion is extreme. I don’t think that finding cruelty to animals or other creatures purely for profit is extreme! If you do, perhaps you need to take a long hard look at yourself!

    Some of what I said was with humour! Such as, would a Whale behave like this etc. It was meant to be funny!

  19. People,
    I’m sure you are all driven by compassion, and obviously an intensity of emotion. But do any of you find it ironic that in that intensity you dehumanize, turning them into monsters in your minds, people who’s only “crime” is having a different, more traditional, attitude toward man’s (I won’t use the word dominion, too biblical) primacy in the world? I think a reasonable person recognizes that with that primacy comes a responsibility to avoid cruelty and to minimize pain. Anything else would be sadistic.What you people do is redifine everything as cruelty. Turning everyone who disagrees with you into sadists.
    Andrew, you’ve taken some words from my original post, Yes, I was making a debating point. The point was that for people who feel like you do, there is this animal Darfur happening on an ongoing basis. Yet you target racing. You think I was being disingenuous in some of the words I wrote. I wasn’t. I recognize the conditions that “commodities” like chickens and pigs are largely raised and then slaughtered. I have no problem with you pushing for better methods, even when it comes to racing. But you don’t want anything better, just prohibition. You want a country without the Melbourne Cup, without the legacy of Phar Lap, and you want the annihalation of a breed and a way of life.
    And finally. Oh, first…Lorikeet, no one WANTS to see horses maimed. And the fact that there are men and women on their backs is a redeeming quality. As for the silliness of the evils of gambling on horses leading to children starving. Any parent of such low merit will find any manner of way to starve his children. And I think the horse racing industry feeds more families than you might realize. Perhaps if you get your way it is you who will be starving children.
    And Andrew, whether you are a fascist or not I guess only time and opportunity will tell. Maybe it’s just my hobby horse to see the danger many places, as it is your’s to see cruelty.

  20. Kyle:

    I grew up with a father who gambled on the horses. If it were not for the opportunities to lose money that gambling provides, my mother wouldn’t have had to worry about whether or not she would have any money to feed 5 children. My father didn’t waste that kind of money on anything else.

    “Perhaps if you get your way it is you who will be starving children.”

    I don’t think so. I think it is far more likely that dads will return home safely to their children, instead of finishing up in body bags, or partially crippled and unable to work to feed their children.

    Some people here have extreme attitudes in relation to food animals, mostly due to their youth, but I don’t think you’re in a position to call anyone else’s ideas or experiences “silly”.

  21. Here I am,the usual fly in the ointment!? Who needs these jump races!? In fact,I hadn’t caught up with this news. Whilst, I am a vegetarian of sorts, and like the courage of vegans, there are some matters dealing with experimentation with farm life stock, I have pressed more than once,and maybe here at Andrews. That is animals as energy producers. I dont ever want to say Andrew is wrong,about it being unacceptable to be cruel to animals.My own close observation of cattle,means, I fully accept they have a diverse range of responses to stimuli at a feeling level and reaction via body movements.Perhaps I have been cruel without inflicting pain,which isn’t highlighted here. Often I have played games with cattle.Get their attention,then slowly walk until I am behind a fence post.Then raise and lower my head above the fence post.They spend sometime staring,it seems,at the fence post.Then,when they are not looking, I dash to the next one and repeat process. All the time trying to be a head popping up above the fence post. After about 12 fence posts, it sort of plays across their minds.If they fail to look I try to get their attention again,and my head disappears ,just before their eyes are in the direction. I wonder sometimes,if I am not having a joke with myself,with my eyesight the way it is, so I have graduated to trying to distract crows with my 100 tone musical Casio keyboard,and other birds. And vocal sounds ,when the oldest of crows lose the assertiveness of sound. I have also appreciated birdsong at storm time,and tried to harmonise,in my own way with the complete phenomena..I am aware of a spiritual matter, now, with thunder storm activity.Church bells and Cathedral and long Tuba tones.

  22. Tony. for the record, I am not a member of any political party. And what on earth makes you think that the pig Kyle “had respect for” lived a happy, well-cared for life? I understand that Woolworths Supermarkets in Tasmania are being supplied by a pig farmer facing multiple cruelty charges over sows in undersized stalls, crawling with maggots, and infested with abscesses and other injuries. Woolworths wants to help the farmer “meet its standards” I suggest that those here who are meat eaters should be calling for some truth in labelling.

    Lorikeet, how can you possibly know what is done to animals in laboratories if you were only a typist and external to the whole atrocity? And what makes us think that it’s fine to carry out atrocities on animals because “they’re not like us”? They scream just as loudly, but are hidden from the public view. Your dislike of jumps racing seems to be wholly dependent upon your dislike of gambling.

  23. Nicky:

    I didn’t spend my whole life behind a typewriter. I often went into several different university labs, and also visited the Animal House in which my father-in-law worked (State government).

    My daughter-in-law still works in Federal government labs.

    None of these people are sadists.

    “Your dislike of jumps racing seems to be wholly dependent upon your dislike of gambling.”

    You got it wrong – better read it again – the first thread about horses as well.

    Yesterday on “Landline”, farmers were discussing issues of self-regulation, which they said suits them fine. Part of the answer to the problem of animal cruelty clearly lies with government regulation, not those guys doing anything they want.

    Instead of demonising meat eaters and milk drinkers, I think you would do well to concentrate your efforts on convincing the government not to allow farmers to regulate themselves.

    Are you going to tell us where you work, since you previously said we would be surprised?

  24. Naomi:

    You clearly believe that Andrew is “to the left” of me. I think you are “to the left” of him.

    Do you belong to the Communist Party?

  25. I’m still trying to get feedback on inquiries relating to drug testing on animals. This is what I have gleaned so far.

    For many years, scientists have tried to limit drug testing on animals by first using tissue clumps in the laboratory.

    If their findings are useful, next they test them on animals, mostly rodents, but sometimes dogs and monkeys are used.

    In an Animal House, I once also saw poultry (one duck and one rooster).

    If the findings are good, the drugs are then tested on people with terminal illnesses, who are about to die anyway.

    After that, they are trialled on people with terminal illnesses who are not about to die, and those with severe disease processes who are willing to give almost anything a go to improve their quality of life.

    This week I received information from a Sydney group which is about to trial a drug on patients with schizophrenia, which has previously been used to treat cancer and osteoporosis.

    Another group is trialling an ingredient of cough medicine (dextromethorphan) on patients with fibromyalgia. A drug company is also marketing a product which combines an anti-depressant with pain medication for fibromyalgia. There are also new drugs which combine an anti-inflammatory with paracetamol.

    A naturopathic firm has also developed a product which contains lots of herbs and spices you might find in the pantry to treat the same condition.

    None of these new combinations would need to be tested on animals.

    There seems to be a trend towards using existing drugs on multiple illnesses, which must cost less and doesn’t require further testing – only clinical trials on humans to determine efficacy.

  26. Lorikeet! Your last post on this subject posted by Andrew,strays like Ido.Andre ,obviously doesn’t mind the straying because,in a roundabout way it is still animal rights and welfare related.The last word on why banning jump races,for me came from a spokesman from the R.S.P.C.A. who not only sounded personally offended ,by the lack of banning his personally being offended was OK entirely after many years of trying to get jump racing banned. At DavidIcke.com was a site about Pyramids and their power,and why that stuff should be taken seriously.There are small groups of like minded people in Australia.The Russian research on drugs there,oil, the use of radar and a few other matters, meant ,or means quite a lot to me.I wonder if horses sense pyramids,and would they sense a pyramid at the starters block.One could safely assume that if horses did, Race Clubs would build multiple pyramids along racetracks for real reasons that are also PR. friendly. I was wondering about vortex tube apparati I often mention in relationship to environmental and Ecological problem solving..like,maybe, fish kill in stagnant oxygen declining waters after flood..I would like to see the Russian experts on Pyramids in Australia..I however think,that a conservative non experimental mindset at Universities and media would be discouraging.But not here!?

  27. Lorikeet- you are confused between Nicky and myself. Although we seem to share some of the same values.
    Remember I am the 22yo (now 23) “cult leader” vegan as you labelled me back in April/May on another topic about a book on Animal Law in Australia (BTW thanks for the review Andrew – I have the book and its very informative)
    I operate a Model Agency in Brisbane – since you are on a need to know basis. I also have another company in the Pacific Islands in a different industry.

    Have you seen this video Lorikeet? http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/earthlings.php

    Have you read the book titled “Animal Liberation” By Australian Peter Singer??? I would suggest this for you and other people that share your opinions despite obviously knowing everthing.

    Ban the Jumps Racing – exploit a pokie machine if you desperately need to gamble on something.
    Who cares if racing is a part of Australia’s history? So was the Stolen Generations ? So was convict lashings and torture? Do we want to still continue with these kinds of practices too because they are part of our history?

    For those that are concerned with peoples jobs (I prefer the term “chosen profession”) being lost or their livelihoods destroyed then consider that the men in the Chimney Sweeping Industry (or whatever they called it) that employed the services of small children to sweep the chimneys out for a few cents despite being hazardous to their little lungs and lives as they fit easily into carcinogenic chimneys. These people claimed at the time when people lashed out against using children in chimneys that “their livelihood would be lost and the industry may become obsolete” if they had to find alternatives to children in chimneys (as alternatives would surely be expensive).
    You may say it is off topic – but think about it.

    BTW – All Vegans are not members of the Greens – I am not.

  28. Alicia:

    No one on this blog claims to know everything, but it’s sometimes well worth listening to others, especially those with greater life experience, to gain a bit of perspective.

    I can assure you that many of us have seen footage such as that provided in your link, possibly before you were even born.

    There are some things about Peter Singer that I don’t like. I would not buy his book so he could make money.

    I have no problem with people making money out of animals, but it just depends on what they’re doing, and who or what else it might affect either positively or negatively.

    I am against jump racing, as I cannot see a positive of any kind.

    Are we to assume that you don’t have anything made of leather e.g. shoes, handbags, wallets, belts, saddles, lounge suite?

    Since Nicky is against using animals for drug testing, I’m wondering if we may assume she has put her name at the top of the list of Human Volunteers?

    I make no apology for having a greater interest in the welfare of human beings.

    I don’t think I have you confused with anyone else, but I do see slight variances in extremism between you, Alpha Brain and Nicky.

  29. What the hell are you pathetic people, talking about! Get a life!
    You are so worried and concerned about the pain and suffering?inflicted on the horses, (who by the way to you total morons and uneducated) love to do it.
    What is next to be put under the hammer? all jumping events including pony club and the Olympics?
    You say you will find a home for all these so called “mistreated and maligned” horses. Where ? In a paddock, with no regular hoof trims or guaranteed feed and attention? I challenge anyone from your do good organisation to debate the subject with me,face to face.

  30. Well, Lewis, you certainly put up a well-reasoned case for your side of the discussion. “Horses love to jump.” Yup, I’d say people who have watched them in the bush, or on farms, etc, would agree.

    That doesn’t really have anything to do with mistreatment of animals in the racing industry, though. Humans who love to run and jump, would certainly endure pain and suffering if whipped and forced to crowd together in laneways, running for the far end at the behest of their masters whose concern is to make a profit from their being first to the end. Because of thier physiology, horses are more prone to serious consequences from a fall … and even the process of the race can cause damage to their lungs which can cause a fatality or disability, which is usually the same thing in the racing industry. If any horses fall and are killed or euthanased it is after all part of risk management, inevitable if you set things up that way … and that’s the reason the outcry has arisen – the types of races that are run.

    The setup is for the profit of the industry .. not for the enjoyment of the horses, as you would know, Lewis, if you lifted your eyes from your wallet.

    As for your comparison with Pony Clubs, where the aim is NOT money, and one presumed checks on the riders’ behaviour ensure that the ponies don’t suffer, I wonder that you even try to present it.

    The Sacred Olympics are another issue entirely … but at the risk of outraging the nation, I would say that IF there is mistreatment of the horses in that field of endeavour, then a stop should be put to it, as well. Since as far as I know, the events involving horses in the Olympics don’t involve steeplechase or hurdling in groups, which is the most dangerous type of horse race, perhaps you might on reflection feel you have not drawn a valid comparison, and come back with some thing thing better than “Horses love jumping.”

  31. So what if a few horses die every year? There are plenty more where they came from, and its probably worth several deaths for the sake of entertainment for thousands.
    All that needs to be done is for everyone to agree on a ratio of deaths/people entertained. Once that is established it should stop many arguments about whether or not a lot of sports, and other forms of entertainment, should be banned. And as for those that say possible death is not a legitimate, or morally right, form of entertainment; Why not? We kill animals for food, and everyone likes to be entertained. As long as the cost is not too high, which it isn’t, then jumps racing should continue.

  32. Someone just pointed out to me that there is discussion on this topic every year and outrage on this topic …meanwhile, where is the outrage, where are the people clogging the streets about the transport of prisoners in Western Australia that kills them? Not trying to drag this off-topic, but it is an indication of the priorities of some of us. Me included, I guess. The ideal woudl be to have humane treatment of all sentient beings. Why do some of us think it is OK to flog horses along a track so we can get excited and a few of us make money?

  33. DOLPHINS:

    Dolphins Says: meanwhile, where is the outrage, where are the people clogging the streets about the transport of prisoners in Western Australia that kills them?

    Another example of why private enterprise should not be responsible for any of our emergency, policing and military duties.

  34. Lewis Warner & Jingles Porjab:

    Thank you both for proving that I have a moderate view where animals are concerned.

    You people also seem to be ignoring the fact that jockeys are also injured and killed in jump racing. Don’t you even care about your fellow human being?

  35. Presumabnly Tony the same reason the State should not employ police on Palm Island or elesewhere.

    It’s not generally useful to draw definitive conclusions from single incidents.

  36. Ken: GSL, the company involved, are the ones who “ran” the Woomera camp where so many refugees were dreadfully treated, and also Baxter … ditto. Not an isolated instance …

    Lorikeet: the jockeys are free to choose whether to take part or not, and capable of giving informed consent to put their lives in danger. Horses, however, are not. (Nor dogs, in another brutish industry.)

  37. Dolphins – I dont think allegatiosn of policw brutality aer isolated either the validity fo the point stands.

  38. I wonder if Jingles or Lewis Warner would like to take the place of the horses? Since they see so much positive in the sport. Perhaps we should whip the sh*t out of them and see how many people are entertained? Lorikeet you will grab at anyone who is a speciesist like yourself. I dont deny that you are “the norm” when it comes to our attitude to animals particularly those used for food and sport. Being in a majority does not mean that your views are correct. Da Vinci was an animal rights activist and a vegetarian – does your IQ exceed his Lorikeet? IQ of a genius? Isnt that what you said? Mine is 145 – do I qualify as a genuis too?

  39. OMG the thought of a mensarian standoff – whips at 10 metres. Horses can never be so cruel as humans

  40. Alicia:

    Unfortunately I have never met Leonardo da Vinci, but he does sound like he could be some kind of extremist.

    There is nothing wrong with being moderate or normal, but I do have a problem with name-calling such as “speciesist”. I make no apology at all for understanding the difference between a person and an animal.

    I’m afraid you have struck out in the genius stakes/competition, and are more than 30 years behind on life experience also. BTW it is quite common to find highly intelligent people supporting destructive cults.

    BTW I did say that I was AGAINST jump racing, because I didn’t see it as having ANY value, except maybe for the bookmakers.

    BTW I went to a union demonstration recently. Members of the crowd behaved themselves admirably, and the police were very kind, making sure no one got hit by passing cars.

  41. Lewis Warner, a man who labels us morons (what is your profession I wonder Mr Warner?), I also accept your proposal to debate this in person should you so choose. This being a very bold claim. Please contact Andrew should you require my email address for this purpose. Anyone else that thinks that they require a personal discussion on this topic (Lorikeet?) or the rights of animals I would be more than happy to remove your bubble that you are living in should you allow me the chance. I look forward to the opportunity to educate the uninformed and mislead. Once again, I am not from an organization (or The Greens Party) although I am sure you probably are (The Super Educated Non-Moronic Horse Lovers/Exploiters Organization of QLD?)

  42. Alicia:

    If you want to pursue your animal rights activism, I suggest you try to ensure that animals are humanely raised and slaughtered, but please do not try to dictate what others may eat.

    As for the matter of mulesing previously raised, according to “Landline” recently, 60% of farmers have already ceased this practice, with all mulesing to cease by 2010.

    I’m still wondering if the discomfort of repeated flystrike would be preferable to a one-off mulesing. One grazier said he now shears his sheep 6 times a year, because the wool mills want shorter fleece. He said it is costly, but I guess it might also help the flystrike problem, at least at the rear end.

    Please develop a moderate view and cease accusing other people when they are eating a normal diet.

    I will be quite happy for you to eat any extreme/alternative diet of your choosing, as long as you are acting within the law.

  43. It’s Peter Singer, Tony, not Stringer.

    And it might be more intellectually honest to quote what Singer has actually said, and why, rather than quote what other people say he has said.

  44. Pingback: Rodeos

Comments are closed.