|
|
 |
| |
|  |
Tim Morris's Blog
Welcome to my Blog. I am Director of Equine Science and Welfare at the British Horseracing Authority and will be using this area to tell you about how our team works and discuss some of the major welfare issues.
USING A WHIP IN A HORSERACE IS NOT CRUEL BUT RACING MUST EXPLAIN WHY
29th September 2011
Is it cruel to hit an animal with a whip? If you stopped a passerby in the street and asked them this question their instinctive reply would probably be that it is. It's a natural human response to feel that you shouldn't hit an animal, on the basis that to do so would probably cause unnecessary pain. That is exactly what the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) – the regulator for racing in Great Britain – found when we asked polling organisation SMG/YouGov to put this question to the public.
The BHA this week published a landmark review into the use of the whip in our sport. One of the review's key findings is that under a very specific set of circumstances – including the use of an energy-absorbing whip and strict controls on how it can be used – the whip does not cause pain to racehorses and is not cruel. In fact, the whip plays a key role in good horsemanship, and is important to the safety of both the horse and its rider.
Understandably, this is an emotionally charged issue. The public do not like the idea of horses being hit with a whip in the name of sport. The central principle behind the BHA's approach, however, has been that decisions on how we safeguard animal welfare in all aspects of life – including but not limited to sport – should be based on more than just an instinctive response. Rather, a responsible regulator should tackle the complexities of the issue head on and make tough decisions backed with sound empirical evidence.
So with this in mind, the BHA, as part of the review, commissioned in-depth public opinion research (going well beyond the sort of vox pop described above, which is at best simplistic and at worst, biased) in order to better understand people's views on this issue.
The results make very interesting reading. For example, when asked for their instinctive view, 57% of those questioned felt the use of the whip should be completely banned in racing. However, when provided with information about the strict controls that are placed on how (and how often) jockeys can use of the whip, and its role in safely steering and rebalancing an extremely heavy, fast-moving animal, this number came down to 33%. What we believe this indicates is that while some people (in this study 33%), feel that using a whip on a horse can never be justified, for the majority there is a clear acceptance that the whip can and should be used, providing the right controls are in place.
The BHA also looked very closely at the animal welfare science behind the effects of the whip on horses in the specific context (and this is important) of adrenaline-fueled race conditions. What we found was that under such conditions, when a horse is in a state of high physiological and mental excitement, the use of an energy-absorbing whip does not cause pain if used within strict limits. In sports science this is often termed 'sportsman's analgesia', and it means that whilse the whip stimulates a horse during a race, it won't cause pain or suffering if used properly.
Such research has important implications for racing, and one of the recommendations of our review is that training for jockeys takes into account the latest scientific evidence. However, there is also a wider debate taking place here between two different approaches to the role of animals in society.
An animal welfare approach is based on the idea that wherever we use animals – whether in sport, for food, or in ground-breaking medical research – we should make sure strict rules are in place and that animals are well looked after at all times. This is the approach currently taken by racing, and that approach is backed by respected animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA, SSPCA and World Horse Welfare.
In contrast, an animal rights approach is based on the view that animals should not be used in any way by humans. Those who take this approach feel that sports like racing should be banned and the use of animals in all medical experiments prohibited – even if millions of human lives could be saved through such research.
The BHA's review is a positive step forward for those who support a welfare approach to the role of animals in our lives. As a responsible regulator we have taken the view that the current rules and penalties around the use of the whip are simply not good enough and can be both improved and made clearer.
The changes we have outlined will significantly enhance welfare standards within the sport. We have announced measures that reduce the number of times a jockey can use his or her whip during a race and significantly ramps up the penalties for jockeys who breach the rules. Prize money will be withheld from jockeys who break the rules (if the offence results in a suspension of three days or more) and repeat offenders will face increased penalties and potential loss of their licence to race. The new system will be unambiguous and will provide sufficient disincentive to ensure that jockeys stick to the rules.
There will always be those who feel uncomfortable with the idea of the whip being used in racing. It's up to the sport to be confident in its approach and to explain clearly why, with the right regulation in place, the whip has an important role to play in upholding the highest animal welfare standards.
FIGHTING FIRES
4th August 2011
Director of Equine Science and Welfare Tim Morris
© Racing Post
For my latest blog I thought I would defer to the writing talents of the Racing Post's own Julian Muscat, who recently penned an informative piece about some of the responsibilities and pressures which are commensurate with my role here at the BHA.
Racing’s firefighter who is left to douse flames
Rewilding’s demise in the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes demanded a bout of introspection. For those at Ascot 11 days ago, time froze as the stricken colt arose to canter past the grandstand on three legs.
The image arrested people in their tracks. The desire to be alone was overwhelming – as was the need to forsake convention, to absorb the act of sudden brutality on a horse in vibrant health until that fateful false stride.
In these moments, Professor Tim Morris, the British Horseracing Authority’s director of equine science and welfare, must be at his most lucid. While others withdraw into quiet reflection he must assess with indecent haste how to handle racing’s latest trauma.
Truth be told, Morris has been too visually apparent in the last six months. He represented racing before the media when two horses were electrocuted at Newbury in February. He resurfaced in June when Frankie Dettori flouted the whip rules aboard Rewilding at Royal Ascot. And he was on hand for the King George tragedy involving the same horse.
Most prominently, however, it was Morris who handled the Grand National debacle that saw two horses killed, numerous others in a state of post-race exhaustion and the winner, Ballabriggs, struck repeatedly with the whip before a televised audience of nine and a half million.
The role could only belong to a racing devotee and Morris, with his open features and ready smile, fits that description. One of the most important parts of his remit, he believes, is to advance equine issues in a way that allows laymen to understand them.
Morris’s faith in the way racing conducts itself is so unshakeable that he is convinced people will reconcile the series of provocative images with what he describes as the reality behind equine welfare. If the assumption is considerable, it emphasises Morris’s belief that racing has nothing to hide.
“It isn’t about being a spin doctor,” he maintains, “it’s about being very straightforward and honest. My role is to explain the equine aspects of racing. And because we are very open – for example, in the way we publish all whip offences – we sometimes have to take things on the chin.”
Morris more than most. However, venture that it must be a thankless task and he won’t hear of it. “Not at all,” he says. “You have to be thoroughly realistic. Racing is on mainstream television; it is often in the news and you have to take what comes with that. You can’t have the perfect storyline all the time.”
He cites the Queen’s Derby runner, Hayley Turner’s inaugural Group 1 triumph aboard Dream Ahead and Tony McCoy’s gong as BBC Sports personality of the Year as evidence that racing generates positive media stories. Indeed it does; the rub is that Morris is not summoned in those circumstances.
“Most of the time I am picking up the pieces,” he concedes. “Things can unfold very quickly. For example, I was in the stands at Aintree watching the horses being washed down after the Grand National and thinking ‘great job’ without realising that on television they were focussing on what looked like an unfolding crisis.
“Sometimes it can be difficult, but the only way to get our message across is to keep reiterating that we really do try to do the right thing. We haven’t explained some things well enough, though.
“That’s why [in the wake of the Grand National] I took a whip on to the BBC’s Nine O’Clock News. In racing we have controlled use of a designed whip in very specific situations, which is not the same as walking into a stable and hitting a horse with a stick.
“People say: ‘Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?’ My answer is that it’s easy to have a simple line but hard to get across a complex truth. To explain it in a five-second sound-bite for television news is quite tough.”
The strength of Morris’s convictions benefits one who was brought up around horses. Yet while he acknowledges how alien equine issues are to those who have no Knowledge of them he may not fully appreciate the extent of it.
His unilateral view is that any child of appropriate age will understand why the whip is used in racing so long as it is explained thoroughly. Some children will beg to differ. To the unversed – and they are growing in number – the sight of a jockey raising a whip on a horse is simply too abhorrent to be mitigated.
Nevertheless, Morris is convinced racing has the reach, the means and the intelligence to change that perception. Yet if that makes him sound like a diehard cheerleader for the status quo, he is quick to surprise.
He spent King George day in the company of an academic philosopher who is no passing acquaintance but the head of an ethics committee instigated by Morris himself. “I chose him because he is down to earth and practical, which you don’t always get with philosophers,” Morris says.
And if that isn’t enough to raise the hackles of true racing diehards, Morris’s starting point for the much-awaited whip review was to commission an opinion research company to find out exactly what people thought about the whip.
“Some say the whip is a perception issue while others say we should respond to the public, but no-one has actually gone out and asked what people really think,” he says. This is a proper opinion research, not a vox-pop or a poll.
“I have seen some of the findings and I’m not too surprised by them.” he continues. “From previous experience I know that it’s not usually black and white. We are finding a high degree of conditional acceptance, but at the end of it we’ve got to put that research into plain language to explain to the racing community what we are trying to do, and why.”
That sentiment perfectly amplifies Morris’s role as a buffer. On one hand he must explain to insular racing insiders what the outside world is thinking; on the other he must explain to the outside world racing’s myriad complex ways.
Ne’er the twain shall meet? Not if Morris has his way.
In between time he returns to the job’s daily demands, one of which he maintains has an equal resonance for racing as welfare. “People worry about how the levy will affect racing, but a major sudden risk is disease,” he says.
“We commissioned an economic impact study which told us that an uncontrolled disease outbreak in Britain would halve the value of the horse sector in 18 months. That would amount to losses of £3.5 billion.” Vigilance on that front is therefore paramount.
For all his firefighting, much of Morris’s work goes undocumented. He gave lengthy evidence at the BHA’s disciplinary hearing into fellow vet James Main in February – and again at the subsequent hearing at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Then there’s the ongoing Howard Johnson inquiry, which detained him for two days a fortnight ago – not to mention regular racecourse visits and constant assessment of the daily requirement for vets to fulfil the fixture list’s escalating demands.
Overall, it’s hard to gauge whether Morris prefers such anonymity to his high-profile role as racing’s apostle in times of crisis. What is not in doubt is his wholehearted commitment to both causes. Racing should be appreciative of his old-school values dressed in 21st century clothing.
GRAND NATIONAL: ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE – TAKE TWO
8th April 2011
Director of Equine Science and Welfare Tim Morris
Following yesterday's blog (7th April 2011) today there is a little clearer move to debate from yesterday's animal rights dogma, and it's somewhat more from an animal welfare perspective.
It comes as a letter from celebrity supporters of the League Against Cruel Sports, who last year polled on the Grand National. I am actually surprised that only 65% of those polled said "they believe officials should make changes to decrease the risk to horses". Surely that is something any right thinking person would agree with? But the challenge is making changes that don't lead to more risk.
Let's be clear. The Grand National race is a unique event, its risks are clear and open, and the animal welfare approach is all about accepting how man is involved with animals, and our responsibilities to them. Yes there was a fatal injury yesterday, and we have both explained why such injuries can be untreatable, and (despite the "silence" on this misleadingly claimed by Animal Aid) that we are open about this and do make information public.
It is both not about ignoring those risks and doing nothing, but about recognising and sustaining this unique event and making the incremental improvements such as noted yesterday. We do still have work to do.
And whatever the motives of the League Against Cruel Sports in a letter at this time, and despite the emotive and misleading language that there are 'countless' deaths it's a fact that some of them and their supporters do recognise, unlike those who fully buy into animal rights, that man has a relationship with animals.
As they say, The League Against Cruel Sports doesn't believe that sports where animals race against one another are cruel by their nature". Whether its managing and making bird habitats or treating animals kept by people well at least some of the letters signatories understand this and that's it all's not black and white.
So more debate than dogma today.
Grand National: Animal Rights and Animal Welfare
7th April 2011
This blog is in reference to a confusing 'news item' from Mark Kennedy, who lectures in animal welfare at Anglia Ruskin University, calling for a "greater debate about what is going on" regarding equine fatalities at the Grand National.
The article is confusing because he says the race "is morally unacceptable". This is a (perfectly legitimate) animal rights (as compared to animal welfare) position, as taken by campaign groups such as Animal Aid. So, in his view, there is no debate – like Animal Aid says - about all use of animal in any sport or leisure activity - it should be banned.
However, Mr. Kennedy is a lecturer in animal welfare, not morals, and whilst entitled to his views, should not confuse them by stating views as fact. Also confusing is why this is posted on the University website, as these appear personal views and not research results.
In fact there is already relevant research going on funded by British racing to reduce risk, which shows how seriously racing takes the issue of equine welfare.
Animal welfare groups, with whom British racing have a constructive and challenging relationship, are already involved in such an animal welfare debate, as illustrated by the RSPCA’s press release before the Grand National:
"The RSPCA has worked with Aintree officials to introduce various changes to the course in recent years, including adjustments to the fence cores, padded jump protection and additional run-outs for riderless horses. These changes are ongoing, with the welfare of the horse as the main concern.
"The death of a horse at any race meeting is never justifiable and it is crucial that, wherever possible, steps are taken to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring.
"The RSPCA continues to maintain a close dialogue with the racecourse’s management and will address any concerns that may arise at this year’s meeting."
So let’s, at least, be clear what we are debating.
Going Local: Why the “Big Society” = Better Horse Welfare
20th December 2010
Last month’s Spending Review set out the sheer scale of the challenge facing Ministers – and the country as a whole – as the Government looks to get Britain’s public finances back on track. The impact will of course be wide ranging – but what does this mean for the future of animal (and specifically equine) welfare?
There has been much talk about the “Big Society” stepping into the breach as the role of Government changes in response to financial pressures. Whatever you think about this idea, one thing is clear: when it comes to equine welfare, the racing community’s own “Big Society” – encompassing everything from racing officials and veterinarians to stable owners and in the wider equine world other owners and riders – has a long history of stepping up to the plate to ensure high standards of horse care. After all, people who spend their lives involved in racing or other equine pursuits do so because they love their animals.
So those who care for horses will naturally take responsibility for ensuring they are well looked after. The more effectively the equine community can do this, the more Government can focus on the important role it plays in those areas where national and international action is needed – such as combating the spread of diseases like African Horse Sickness and Equine Infectious Anaemia.
The Responsibility and Cost Sharing Advisory Group have now published their recommendations, saying that industry and Government are working together as effectively as possible. The equine community has welcomed the report from this group, saying it is vital it has a place at the table in this new approach.
One good outcome of the report is that the value of the horse to the economy and to society is now recognised by the Government. A wry example of how horses are so central to any discussions on animals was seen on the day of the report's launch at Defra’s headquarters, literally on its doorstep. Defra is located in Smith Square, right next to the NFU offices, and as pictured, right outside its front door were several police horses, even one munching on its haynet!
There are also other important shifts in thinking taking place and not many as fundamental as the move to devolve more powers and responsibilities to the local level, bringing decision-making closer to communities. The coming years are likely to see increasing challenges, but also opportunities, opening up for the horse community to be involved in making decisions that affect animal welfare in the round.
One consequence of this change in approach is that the arguments of animal rights activists – those who would like to see involvement of animals in any sporting or leisure pursuit banned – for 'Government' intervention are likely to increasingly fall on deaf ears. For example, when animal rights campaigners, who seem very exercised on this Government’s whole approach, via an MP who supports their cause, recently called for a full-blown Government “audit” of racecourse death and injury (information on which is already in the public domain and is collected by the racing industry at its own expense), Defra Under Secretary of State Lord Henley, who has specific responsibility for animal welfare, responded by stating firmly in a letter to the Authority that the Ministers are “satisfied that there are enough safeguards in place to protect the welfare of racehorses and agree that calls for an audit of injuries and deaths at race courses are unwarranted.”
He goes on to say that “the Government wants to move to a position where it is not directly involved in Horseracing". The message couldn’t be clearer; the Government recognises what the Authority does already, and expects it to maintain standards, as it currently does. This also means racing will have to continue to find money for horse health and welfare with the existing betting levy (where it’s one of the three statutory responsibilities of the Horserace Betting Levy Board) and also in any future funding arrangements.
Good equine welfare practice on the ground isn’t based on direct Government intervention – funded with taxpayer’s money that is badly needed elsewhere. It is based on cooperation between responsible regulators, the veterinary profession, animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA, SSPCA and World Horse Welfare, and in the National Equine Welfare Protocol (right) and of course last but very much not least the horse owners and riders themselves.
Britain is known as a nation of horse lovers – so what better place for a “Big Society” approach to equine welfare?
|
|
|
