Good Honest Dollar $$

Picture of a steeplechase horse race taken by en:User:Lorax (image via Wikipedia)

Hi all. It seems like awhile since the last discussion on this site. I hope you are all well.

Today, I would like to talk jumps racing and about what I see as a courageous decision announced last week by Racing Victoria, the governing principle racing authority in my home state of Victoria (South-East Australia) to ban all forms of horse races involving hurdles as at the conclusion of the 2010 season.

In in spite of genuine concerns voiced by some participants within the racing industry, I am inclined to agree with the decision.

Horse racing should not be banned outright. But animal welfare considerations dictate that the most hazardous elements associated with the sport should be curtailed. Given that jumps racing involves horse fatality rate of double that of traditional flat racing (see below), its discontinuation is warranted in spite of the significant amount of value that jumps racing adds to the sport and the industry.

 
Sure, jumps do add value to the racing experience …
To be sure, jumps racing does contribute a substantial amount of value to the sport, and things just won’t be the same without it.

Steeplechases have that extra sense of unpredictability about them which many punters find appealling. And for racegoers, daily programs involving one or two hurdle races have more variety than those consisting entirely of races on the flat.

 
… and their banning has a harsh impact …
There is alos no question that this latest move will involve considerable cost for a range of stakeholders associated with the sport:

 
• The racing industry

Hardest hit will be the industry itself.

Whilst the discontinuation of jumps racing may enhance the sport’s public image somewhat, I highly doubt that this will anywhere near compensate for the loss of direct revenue which will no doubt result.

Owners of steeplechase horses will be especially hard hit, not to mention jockeys and trainers who specialize in jumps.

 
• Regional towns.

Also hard hit will be the local economies within some regional towns.

The town of Warnambool, for instance, on the South West Coast of the state, is a case in point, where the famous three day racing carnival held each year in May, which brings in an estimated fifteen million Australian dollars (about $14m USD), and creates 576 local jobs (471 on course, 105 off-course)  within the local area (refer article).

Without the premier event, the 137 year old Grand National Steeplechase, the popularity and viability of the entire carnival may be placed in jeapordy.

 
• Horses themselves.

Some trainers claim that many current competitors in jumps racing face the prospect of slaughter once the ban takes effect.

Trainers also claim that the ban may indeed result in more deaths per year than what it will save, as jumps racing provides an alternative to being put down from the point of view of those horses which are unable to make it in traditional thoroughbred racing.

(Not knowing a great deal about horse breeding, I am not really in a great position to comment, but I don’t really buy this argument.

Surely, there must be a better alternative than being put down for otherwise healthy horses which are not able to make it in racing)

 
… but animal welfare concerns should prevail  
Despite all this, I feel that animal welfare considerations are sufficient to warrant the decision to discontinue jumps racing.

To be sure, horse racing is a dangerous sport, and accidents occur in all of its forms – not just jumps.

But steeplechases are exceptionally hazardous – too hazardous. A submission to a national senate enquiry in 1989 (see below) from the Australian Conference of Principle Racing Clubs estimated that approximately two per cent of all jumping horses are killed or destroyed as a result of horse racing accidents each year [refer PDF file (section 3.20)].

Whilst that figure may not necessarily seem particularly high, it is double the fatality rate quoted in the same submission for flat racing horses, which would appear to indicatethat jumps racing is about twice as hazardous as races on flat.

(These figures are twenty years old, but from what I understand, the death rate of jumps horses has not, at least in Australia, declined particularly significantly since these figures were quoted)

As I said earlier, horse racing should not be banned outright. Nevertheless, animal rights considerations do dictate that the most hazardous aspects of the sport should be curtailed.

Given the high fatility rate associated with steeplechases, that, I say with some regret, means that jumps racing should be stopped.

 
Over to you
Is jumps racing allowed in your state/country?
How would you describe attitudes toward jumps racing in your state/country?

Do you think jumps racing should be banned? Why/Why not?

Image via Wikipedia

Rightly or wrongly, the use of animals in laboratories for scientific experiments is likely to remain a reality for some time.

But that does not mean to say that we cannot work to minimize instances where the practice is used in a wasteful manner, and the case of duplicated experiments, where one group of researchers conduct a particular experiment without knowing that about experiments of a similar nature being conducted by other scientists, represents one area where real gains can be made in this regard.

Toward this end, a European proposal to require sharing of the results of all scientific experiments, regardless of whether they succeed or not, represents a positive step toward the protection of animal welfare.

 
Duplicated experiments and why they are wasteful
Duplicated scientific experiments occur whereby a particular research team conducts an experiment in order to test a particular hypothesis, unaware that experiments of a similar nature have already been conducted elsewhere in the world.

From what I understand, this situation occurs as a result of current practice in many parts of the world, which dictate that scientist share the results of experiments only where such experiments prove to be successful in terms of validating the original hypothesis. Experiments which are not successful in this regard are generally not made public, creating the situation whereby other scientists, unaware of the failed experiment in question, may well conduct experiments of a similar nature, resulting in the effective duplication of the experiment in question.

Not only is such duplication wasteful from a scientific, it is also wasteful from an animal rights viewpoint in cases where the duplicated experiment in question involves use of animal testing.

 
The European proposal
It is for these (very sound) reasons that the European Union is proposing to require public disclosure of all experiments which require animal testing.

The proposal is one of many contained a proposed new directive which essentially represents a revision to EU rules about the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The new directive was approved in a European Parliament Vote earlier this month, but as I understand it, must be ratified by individual countries prior to becoming law in any particular country. (refer article for summary)

Essentially, subject to confidentially considerations, the proposed directive requires all EU countries to share information with regard to all experiments which involve animal testing.

Specifically, article 44 (2) of the proposed new directive states that “.. subject to safeguarding confidential information, the member states shall ensure the sharing of data generated by procedures.” (article 44 (2)).

From what I understand, the requirement will apply to all types of experiments involving animals which occur within the EU, whether they be conducted by government bodies or by the private sector.

 
A strong case for sharing, a weak one against
I broadly concur with recent views expressed in The Economist that this initiative represents a positive step forward in terms of the protection of animal welfare within Europe.

The benefits of eliminating the type of wasteful duplication of experiments described above, both from a scientific viewpoint and an animal rights viewpoint, are clear and beyond reasonable dispute.

In contrast, there would not appear to me to be any particularly strong arguments against the proposal. This is especially the case as the requirement in question is subject to confidentiality considerations, which would appear to address any concerns on the part of companies with regards to the leaking of commercially sensitive information.

 
Some Duplication inevitable, but this is a good start
Naturally, it should be noted that some duplication of experiments involving animal testing will inevitably occur in spite of the proposed directive.

For one thing, the directive applies only within the EU, meaning that laboratories within the EU may still unknowingly replicate failed experiments from laboratories outside the EU and vice versa.

Even within the EU, some duplication will occur. To some extent, scientists may still need to replicate earlier experiments by others in order to check and confirm the results of such experiments.

But for the most part, the proposed new requirement should help to reduce the occurrence of unnecessary duplication of experiments within the EU, and that is a positive step in terms of both scientific progress and animal welfare.