Beyond the Bit: A Matter of Conveyance

Special to Tuesday’s Horse
Written by CATHERINE GORE

England in the late 18th century was sometimes called a “hell for horses.” As such I’ve often wondered how a person could have lived then, or at anytime earlier, when using horses for travel and transport was unavoidable in much of the world. I’ve wondered how anyone with any propensity at all for empathetic feeling could bear to see so much suffering around them, let alone actually use all the different modes of conveyance which exploited horses, as the average person had little choice but to do so.

In fact, though relatively few in number, there were exceptional individuals who took a stand against the abuse of horses in their midst. In Romanticism and Animal Rights, David Perkins notes the American Quaker, John Woolman whom he says “refused to use the stagecoaches when he was traveling in England. He had learned from friends that their fearful journeys often killed or blinded the horses. For the same reason he didn’t use the public mails.” Perkins also quotes Lord Erskine, speaking in Parliament in 1809 referring to “the common sight of post horses panting – what do I say! Literally dying under the scourge!”

Anonymous engraving of a stagecoach in England

Anonymous engraving of a stagecoach in England

Though it might appear I’m singling out Britain, as we know, the abuse of horses knows no national boundaries – it occurred, does occur, everywhere. The ASPCA, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the world’s first organized animal protection group, was founded in England almost forty years earlier in 1824 by a group of animal welfare advocates lead by anti-slavery champion William Wilberforce MP. Then there was Henry Bergh, “The Great Meddler”, who founded the ASPCA in 1866 mainly in response to the under-watered, starving, beaten, dying horses he saw on the streets of New York City.

I can only conclude myself that populations living in the pre-motorized era instinctively checked any concern for the well-being of the oppressed horses they saw daily and everywhere. And that this suppression of feeling was achieved by a learned behavior of viewing horses essentially as objects, not sentient beings. Millennia ago, when horses were turned into vehicles, they effectively became “things.” Dominating them essentially required us to objectify them as though they were machines. No doubt there have always been lucky horses who have been loved and cared for, just as today. And just as some of us today might also care for our cars, for there are indeed many among us who profess to “love” our cars.

I also wonder how people can consume meat, dairy and eggs knowing about all the suffering that goes on in those industries, but I also know how those industries go to great lengths to prevent (and protect) the public from seeing the atrocities. In pre-motorized times, however, the suffering of horses took place in full view, and participation in such suffering was all but unavoidable, more so even than the consumption of animal products. Even so, wounded, scarred and lame horses were often used at night in order to hide the effects of their abuse.

The legacy of horse enslavement seemingly extends into our consciousness so deeply that the concept of the horse as vehicle may be considered a kind of archetype, a universally understood “idea” of the horse, so that we unconsciously perceive them as vehicle-objects for riding and pulling, with their strong bodies and perfectly formed backs, created naturally, for us to sit on.

We still refer to the basic unit of engine power as “horsepower,” and when we finally relieved horses of much of their burden with the invention of trains (though finding other ways to abuse them instead) when first introduced, trains were called “iron horses.” Same object, different material.

Horses were used as “things” for so long, for eons, the concept of horse as vehicle, as big, strong object, persists in public consciousness, while the pleasure and entertainment activities for which we use horses today perpetuate that perception. I simply have no other way of comprehending how thousands of people every year get into the horse-drawn carriages in NYC, how millions of people every year can walk past these poor shackled animals, and ignore the injustice of forcing them into that noisy, urban, nose-to-tailpipe existence.

Today, horses used for racing, jumping shows, polo matches, the circus, for hayrides, the rodeo, might as well be cars or bicycles. (Hey, if one breaks, get another one). Perceived as physical objects, horses are invisible as feeling, sentient beings with their own interests and needs.

Horses at all the horseback-riding outfits around the country are essentially objects to the strangers who come through eager to rent their backs. Just the other day I drove past one of these businesses and saw at least twenty horses standing out in the hot sun, completely saddled, like bicycles lined up for rent. Indeed, I have always found that we make a great assumption in believing horses don’t mind having us on their backs.

And when a horse is no longer useful she is discarded, like an old or broken appliance not worth keeping around. After all, you can’t curl up on the sofa with an old or lame horse. She is often sold, continuing her downward spiral of uncertainty, each time worth less and less, like a car with so many added miles on it.

I wonder if what resonates in the public’s consciousness at the sight of wild horses, at simply knowing there are wild horses, is a recollection that stirs beneath our deep-rooted perception of horse as vehicle, of a knowing that these horses are as it should be – untouched by humans, unencumbered, unburdened, bit-free, free.

Ask not what horses can do for you; ask what you can do for horses.

Catherine Gore is an animal rights activist, movie script supervisor, and community college English instructor living in Northeast Pennsylvania. Catherine has an M.A. in English literature from Brooklyn College, and a B.F.A in filmmaking from City College of the City University of New York.

Kentucky horse welfare councils can’t leave slaughter off the table

I was reading along in an article entitled “Kentucky groups make strides to aid horses” written by Gregory A. Hall in the Louisville Courier-Journal.

The articles states:

The state’s new Equine Health and Welfare Council, formed less than nine months ago by the General Assembly, held its first meeting in November, and veterinarians who pushed for the council’s creation have joined forces with another new effort, Horse Aid Live, which raises money for needy horse care organizations.

“There are a lot of people trying to do something about this,” said Ginny Grulke, executive director of the Kentucky Horse Council, a Lexington nonprofit dedicated to the protection and development of the state’s horse community. “We’re not ignoring it. We’re addressing it (and) doing the best we can.”

Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? You may recall I was very critical of the EHWA when it was formed, and have been for the most part no fan of the Kentucky Horse Council. The KHC operates under the umbrella of, or at least in conjunction with, the American Horse Council in Washington DC, a pro horse slaughter organization.

The articles continues:

A study by University of California Davis researchers published in the December issue of the Journal of Animal Science found the most common factors cited for an owner giving up a horse were financial or physical problems.

Again, good. But it was too much to ask for them to stop with that.

The articles then states:

A related issue is the closing of U.S. slaughterhouses that supplied foreign meat counters.

It goes downhill from there.

So, how do they explain that more American horses are killed in slaughterhouses now than when horse slaughter plants were operating on U.S. soil, just for starters?

How transparent they all are, and how very tiresome it all is. Yet, it is an extremely tough position to be in.

The horse industry needs breeders in order to continue. Breeders are the members of the horse fraternity who, with few exceptions, are unrelentingly pro horse slaughter. The public are more aware than ever that American racehorses are routinely sent to slaughter, and this knowledge continues to damage racing’s reputation. Word of warning. No amount of “do gooding”, whatever the motivation, is going to offset the horrors of slaughtered racehorses in the public mind.

Important to Note: Horse Aid Live, while working with the organizations mentioned above, is not known to be pro horse slaughter, and no implications were made that they are.

Read full article here >>

Mid term election results not great for horse issues

There is disappointing news in the mid-term election results for horse protection issues.

Sen. Harry Reid, the instigator of the notorious Burns Amendment legally exposing our wild horses and burros to slaughter (according to Sen. Burns), remains. As U.S. Senate Majority leader, Reid has to date ignored public pleas to move the bill barring the slaughter of American horse at home and abroad to the Senate floor for a vote. The Democrats maintained their majority in the U.S. Senate, so no imminent leadership change there.

The Republicans took back the U.S. House, which leads to the return of Rep. Bob Goodlatte as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Goodlatte is equally as notorious as Burns, perhaps more so. Goodlatte expended considerable time and energy derailing every bit of federal legislation that would ban horse slaughter and transport to slaughter when Republicans previously ruled the House. Expect more of the same from him.

There is a glimmer of encouraging news.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, who is a friend to wild horses and burros, retains his seat in the House after a very closely run contest against an opponent heavily backed by Sen. John McCain.

While the wild horse and burro issue has remained a federally fought battle in Washington and in the courts, many of the major showdowns on that other big welfare issue, horse slaughter, have taken place at the state legislative level for the past few years. A prime example and probably the most active of horse slaughter proponents at the state level is Rep. Sue Wallis of Wyoming.

Referred to as “Slaughterhouse Sue” because she appears to spend most of her time working to bring horse slaughter back to U.S. soil by opening a plant in her home state of Wyoming, remains after yesterday’s mid-term elections. However, what power Wallis has depends not so much on her State seat but from funding by major corporate backers of her horse slaughter plans.

Regardless of the outcome of the mid term elections, it is important to remember this.

Horse protection issues are historically bipartisan, meaning that there is more or less equal support from all parties, and not seen as strictly Democratic or Republican, conservative or liberal. Horse protection issues typically fare no better or no worse because of who controls Congress. However, horse protection legislation faces stiff opposition from highly placed politicians and some of the richest, most powerful lobbyists. They are the ones to watch.