While browsing Vegan FAQ today I came across a post about horseback riding where I left a comment about six months ago, something to the tune of "Way to display your ignorance, bud." (Hi Luke, if you ever read this. Sorry for being snarky). I then promptly forgot about it and when I stumbled across it again today I was more than a bit embarrassed for myself, but it also brings up a good point, and something that I deal with personally more often than I'd like to. Is horseback riding vegan?
My answer: It depends on your point of view. And maybe sometimes, the circumstances.
I myself had been riding for longer than I've been a veg-anything. Well over 15 years. As many know, I have Rivet, who is a horse and who I have ridden. I rode well into my veganism too. Why? Well, when I first went vegan I had not been introduced to the abolitionist school of thought, only the utilitarian arguments. In my opinion, if you subscribe the the utilitarian school of thought, then no, the two aren't mutually exclusive. As long as you are not causing the horse to suffer in any way shape or form, there should be no problem. I don't believe that horses necessarily get zero pleasure out of all rides either, which makes it even less of a problem.
If you subscribe to the abolitionist view, than no, riding is no more vegan than circuses or zoos. It should be noted that not all vegans believe than animals should not be property, so this question depends on your personal philosophical vegan views.
We must also take into account that the case of the horse is unlike that of most domestic 'pet' animals. Unlike dogs or cats, the principle reason people have horses is to ride them. Horses who are not ridable face an uncertain future, because they're large and expensive and require a lot of upkeep. We live in a culture where people want "bang for their buck" and because their brains are steeped in the idea that horses are meant to be ridden, few 'horse' people are interested in maintaining a horse they cannot or will not ride. This is completely inexcusable. For the mere fact that we cannot sit on their backs, we are willing to forgo years of servitude and mutual affection and ship a beloved friend off to destination unknown. We are willing to forgo friendship and ignore the consequences, and we daily condemn horses to death. Thousands of horses end their lives in slaughter houses, or are 'euthanized' because no one is willing to keep them alive. Their lives are worth something to us only as long as they are useful, despite the fact our relationship to horses bares great similarity to our relationship with dogs. I don't poo-poo the bond between horse and human as Luke from Vegan FAQ does, but I do think our relationship with horses is more one-sided than we'd like to let on.
Many horses live out their lives in what are essentially glorified cages because that is what people seem to think would be best. Many have limited access to outside spaces, and to other horses. Ironically, the more valuable a horse the more we place him in a situation where his natural needs are not met. He is locked up to protect him, but where we see a nice clean stall with decent ventilation, fit for a human almost(!), he sees a cramped box where his only interaction with his own kind comes from a distance of 5+ feet. In this case, a ride is probably a welcome change of pace, must more pleasurable than doing nothing all day long. Despite the fact that I do believe that our use of horses should come to an end, I think that vegans have failed to consider the fact that horses may actually enjoy rides. I'm not saying it's true, but shouldn't we at least consider it? When one takes a dog bird hunting, one is using the dog, but that doesn't preclude the dog from enjoying the activity. The way the world is today, horses are rarely afforded the space they would enjoy in nature. If the only way we can give this to them is riding, and they enjoy the experience, is that wrong? I'm not talking about riding horses in shows, in races, for money or for fame, putting them in danger for human pleasures that do not matter to horses. I'm talking about an experience that could conceivably be enjoyed by both equine and human, where the horse is allowed to do more or less as he pleases, but where we have to be there to insure his safety.
Here is where another quandary comes in. Is it more morally offensive to let a horse die than to ride him? Could riding, or participation in riding activities, be something a vegan could be involved in? Let us examine this hypothetical:
I want to rescue horses from a slaughter auction (or a PMU ranch, a racetrack, or whatever). I do not have enough finances to care for the horses on my own, however, there is a therapeutic riding program in the area which would be willing to pay for the care and upkeep for 15 rescued horses, provided that each horse is used a few times a week in therapy sessions. The therapy sessions involve a minimal amount of riding and pose no danger to the horses. The horses would be cared for into old age and would live out their lives at the center. They will not be stalled, but will be allowed to live in a social group. When they grow too old to be ridden, they will still participate in therapeutic ground activities like grooming and lead walking. For the sake of hypothetical, we'll say that while none of them hate the sessions, some of them would rather be hanging out in the field.
Or how about this hypothetical:
My horse is high strung and energetic, and lives in a small paddock with 4 other horses. Due to land and monetary constraints, I am unable to move him to a larger paddock where he will be able to fully exercise himself. His behavior has become dangerous to the other horses, and I am being told that if he does not stop we will be evicted, at which point I may no longer be able to maintain him or may have to move him to a stall. I therefor decide that I will take him trail riding three times a week to help burn off some excess energy. During this ride he is allowed to run where it is safe if he so desires. Doing this calms his behavior and enables him to continue living in a social group.
What do you think? What about other forms of horsey-exploitation that don't involve riding, like halter showing? What about equine-assisted psychotherapy, where the horse is actually the therapist by reading our body language and responding appropriately.
Your justification for horse riding seems to depend on the idea that the horse may enjoy it. This isn't enough, as far as I'm concerned anyway - how can a horse enjoy being ridden and controlled by another (sometimes heavy) creature? I guess I am just an abolitionist.
Pascal,
You fail to address her hypotheticals; situations that accurately reflect today’s circumstances.
I have had this conversation with many people, and their responses are quite suggestive. I would justify using the horse in both hypothetical’s given certain realities, which were addressed therein. And I am an abolitionist.
I would appeal to Consequentialist reasoning in this regard, however. In fact I may go further and suggest that the horse/human relationship in this capacity is not one of exploitation but equality: The horse working as a therapeutic aid, for example, is quite literally working for his existence, not Jen's financial gain.
For those who disagree with such a justification in these situations, instead relying on "I'm an abolitionist, period!" are accurately described as ideologues.
I don't believe that agreeing with the hypothetical and being an abolitionist are mutually exclusive. Although your argument about the horse "enjoying being ridden" is valid. However, Jen doesn't say otherwise, she merely asks to open a conversation.
I'm going to attempt to address Jennie's hypotheticals. For the first one, rescuing the horses is clearly preferable to leaving them at the slaughterhouse, racetrack etc. I agree that it's better than watching the animals be injured in the course of a race, or letting them be slaughtered, but you're not challenging the systems that put them there. As long all you do is rescue those 15horses, you don't change much in the bigger picture. You have to challenge every racetrack, every slaughterhouse - inform the ignorant, or complacent public. You must do both, rescue the horses and work to challenge the systems imprisoning them.
The second hypothetical has the same idea behind it. For both it seems to be picking the lesser of two evils. Horses should really be allowed to roam freely, and in the second hypothetical - the horse's behaviour is most certainly because of a lack of space. The choices taken lessen the pain but do not address the issue. I would of course want the horse to be in the least pain possible, but a horse should not find itself in that situation in the first place
Pascal,
I didn't mention this before but thanks for participating. Both Jen and I love to hear new voices :)
We agree. As abolitionists, we ought to systematically challenge institutionalized systems of exploitation through various mechanisms - each mechanism is aimed at the end of abolition, of course. 'Welfarism' impedes this end. However, as the hypotheticals suggest, the line is far from clear-cut and simple.
What's suggestive about one's response to the hypotheticals posed is that they involve what could be termed a form of exploitation: use as a therapeutic tool, and in the second hypothetical, the horse is ridden. Now, as I said before, even as an abolitionist, given certain realities I would employ, properly I believe, Consequentialist reasoning and argue that those forms of exploitation are necessary (although not necessarily right or moral). Therefore, these forms of exploitation deserve our rational assent, even though they may harm the abolitionist end.
I say "suggestive" because some abolitionists would disagree with my argument, and challenge the horses use in those hypotheticals. In fact, many have. I would call those individuals ideologues and their arguments ineffective.
I think that if this movement is going to be stable and effective, we have an obligation to temper our idealism, or stridency, when attempting to properly care for those animals already in existence, given harsh realities.
No problem, I'm always eager to hear other people's arguments.
Let me first point out that both Alex and myself both subscribe to the abolitionist position. I would like nothing more than to see horses allowed to live free in what little is left of their natural habitat. I have spent years challenging every aspect of the 'horse industry', including riding, as you will discover if you review the archives.
So onto your points. Yes, to challenge the system is the ultimate goal. I wholeheartedly agree. Just like we would agree that we'd like to challenge the systems by which other domestic animals are labeled property. But how does not rescuing horses accomplish that? Yes, I won't participate in such a system, but the horses will die and no one will be the wiser. When abolitionists rescue dogs, are they not participating in the system? And yet many would agree that we are obliged to rescue them. Is owning a dog not vegan? What if you train that dog in therapy, or agility, or field trials?
In short, these two hypotheticals were not presented as a means to "work within the system," nor as a final solution. They were presented merely as two instances within our current society where veganism and riding might go hand-in-hand. As a vegan, it is my job to make certain any animals in my care have the best possible life under their circumstances, no? In addition to not riding, should I not have Rivet's feet cared for (which he loathes) or given his shots? Those fail to challenge the system too, as does any ownership of a domestic animal.
As far as my appeal to 'pleasure', I was merely posing a question since I had seen it taken as face value that horses do not find rides pleasurable at all and I don't know if I agree with this. I doubt very much if many vegans have ever seen a horse or would know what signals their enjoyment. If a dog can enjoy a walk during which he is 'controlled' by another, why can't a horse? This isn't a justification for riding, but a query I am posing to see if the reason we are so vehemently against riding is due to this, or something else.
Cheers.