PP has this title for an article which begins, "A very intelligent and insightful reader has sent us their thoughts on the broader issues of the Ben Yole matter." I have snipped and attached the last third of it.
It dribbles on a bit but the first attached sentence and the second last and third last are thought provoking - thoughts that many of us wrestle with
You would think that supporting retired horses until say 20yo should be possible under a model where half that life is involved in harness racing - up until say 10yrs of age. It sounds quite humane compared to most animal husbandry.
In this simplified model we would have half the horses in the industry (including pre-racing) and half in retirement and this would be maintained by the number coming into racing age balancing out those going into retirement but this is where it is a dream!
Because we need to breed twice the number that are retiring because half of them do not make it to the track. So what happens to them, those that by 3yrs of age we know are not going to make it - some may still be kept to breed from and some may be rehomed but the larger number would have to be looked after for 17, 18, 19yrs if we are maintaining every horse
In the third last sentence, I think he is being a bit unfair lumping recreational in with racing. When asked if I would own a horse again, I have been known to say - a Clydesdale as I think people have them for pets and their lifespan is not linked to performance. Or I say a well bred filly - thinking that she could go to the breeding barn if she does not make it on the track. Both are probably a cop out.
Probably my biggest problem is the second last sentence as I am not interested in the 'industry' for punting so that is hard to wrestle with - even if I am not a punter I have to face 'the truth' that it is an 'industry' that only exists because of punting
It's midnight, I'll sleep on it.
Reply With Quote