Big City Life - Put Down

Broadcast Complaint Commission

"Yet again two more innocent race horses die in the Grand National. As long as I live I will never bet on chase racing again and will from this day onward preach to others not to bet on these races. This is a serious matter and I dont need any smart arse comment from anybody regarding this serious state of affairs. "

This was posted after the Grand National. I hope the writer shows the same even handed approach and stops punting on flat racing too. The July is developing quite an unenviable record for fatalities.

Shit happens. Regrettably. Life goes on ( if you will excuse the pun and with respect to the deceased horse ).

I was asked a question today that I don't have the knowledge to answer. I'm sure some here does though.

Why is it that Big City Life was put down, as is the custom with these injuries, right there on the track. I'm not questioning whether he had to be put down or not, but rather the timing and/or method. On a day like the July when there is a massive crowd and huge TV audience with press coverage to follow, wouldn't it make more sense to tranquilize the horse and take him away in the horse ambulance first, or perhaps use a method other than shooting that isn't as dramatic? Is there some reason these aren't options?

Why was the horse put down ? Are you serious ? You'd rather have the horse led off course, hobbling and in incredible pain ? And, from a PR / Marketing point of view, in front of a huge audience of (largely) inebriated, uneducated (in terms of horses) and emotional people??

A (correctly administered) bullet, cruel as it seems, is the fastest and and most effective method. The problem with chemicals is that a) they take time and b) they do have the potential to cause a very unpleasant reaction. Not what you want for the horse or any of the people involved.

Horses are unfortunately not designed to survive much in the way of serious injuries (this doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't try where possible, but one does need to calculate the end result against the emotional stress involved). Unlike prey animals like humans, cats and dogs, horses really do not do well with pain and stress. This goes back to them being in a natural environment where any debiliating injury or illness wouild be quickly ended by a predator.

Speed (ie their legs) are their survival mechanism. Without them, the emotional distress is intense. And in horses emotional distress often expresses itself as colic or other immune reactions.

From a purely physiological point of view, a horse is sadly quite poorly designed and in fact, it does not have any musculature below its knees, so the circulation below the knees and hocks is relatively poor. This is one of the reasons horses do not lie down for very long periods of time. This is also why they often suffer from laminitis which is when other infections may 'lodge' in the sensitive laminae of the feet - the feet are of course encased in the relatively unforgiving horn of the hoof, so any infection there causes tremendous pressure and resulting pain).

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the general design of the horse makes bone injuries very difficult to treat. They are very big, heavy animals who rely on movement and speed. They need to move to keep their circulation going, so therefore compromising their motion compromises their circulation which in turn causes all sorts of knock on effects.

Any bone break needs to be immobilised in order for it to heal, so you can kind of see the dilemma. It is incredibly difficult to immobilise a horse due to its build. They do not lend themselves easily to splints and casts and hanging a horse by a sling is not always a viable option due to their temperament - some of them simply do not tolerate it. In those that do, you are again faced with the circulation issue.

Another issue (as was originally experienced with the Ruffian tragedy) is that they don't cope all that well with anaesthesia. Advances have obviously been made since then, but again, assuming you have pinned and cast the injury under general anaesthesia (assuming the horse survives that and doesn't collapse a lung, etc), you then have to hope it will come out from the anaesthesia relatively safely and not thrash or otherwise compromise the surgery / splint / cast / etc.

All those horrid, nasty negatives aside, yes, there are horses that can be helped and can be fixed (there was an incredible case after the devastation of Hurricane Catrina where a miniature pony called Millie - please forgive me if the details aren't 100% accurate - it might have been a Shetland or similar - was rehabbed after an amputation and managed to adapt to a prosthetic. Apparently the pony is coping OK and is now used as some type of therapy animal to encourage people in hospital.

You can argue the moral arguments all day long. The fact is that, (sorry for the TMI), horses alongside chickens, pigs, sheep and cattle, would not be there if it were not for the fact that they serve some purpose to humans. Most of those examples are used for consumption. Horses are generally used for sport or leisure pursuits. It sounds cruel, but in exchange for using them for racing / breeding / etc we provide food, shelter, exercise and company. It may not seem a fair exchange when viewed from certain angles, but surely it's better than nothing?

However, if we use the animal for our own ends, then we most certainly do have some moral duties and obligations and considering the very essence of what a horse is, our first duty has got to be its welfare. Some may say that that will mean fighting for the horse's life. Others may say that it will mean putting the horse out of its misery as soon as humanly possible.

I'm not sure whether prolonging an animal's suffering purely so that we can assure ourselves that we have 'tried our best' is more in our best interests than in the interests of the horse.

However, I do know that it is never an easy decision to make and my heart and soul go out to Big City Life for his pain and suffering (which I hope were brief), Andrew Fortune for being the one on board when it all happened, the vets on course who had to administer the fatal action and of course all his connections and friends who I know will miss him sorely.

.

zsuzsanna04 Wrote:

---

> Why was the horse put down ? Are you serious ?
> You'd rather have the horse led off course,
> hobbling and in incredible pain ? And, from a PR
> / Marketing point of view, in front of a huge
> audience of (largely) inebriated, uneducated (in
> terms of horses) and emotional people??

Perhaps you would like to read my question again. Where did I say anything about leaving the horse in pain or anything of the sort?
I asked a serious question and made it clear that I didn't know the implications. If I did, I wouldn't be asking, would I?

I thought I gave you a full and considered answer and apologise if I caused any offence / misunderstanding.

The horse had a broken limb. There would have been a certain amount of shock & adrenalin going, but the horse would have been in a considerable amount of pain.

Moving the horse to another location would involve either walking it there, or alternatively loading it onto a vehicle - I do not mean to be rude, but cannot see how either of these options could fail to extend the horse's distress and discomfort ?

I have never had to walk with a broken leg, but assume this would be a fairly unpleasant exercise.

I would assume that you have never examined a horsebox from close quarters or travelled in one, so would need to explain that they are not the most comfortable conveyances. First of all, the animal is required to walk up a ramp to enter the box - this is not easy on 3 legs. Once in the box, a horse stands facing forward (in the direction of travel) which again requires the use of all four of its limbs in order to maintain its balance and stand comfortably.

Most horseboxes are designed to carry two horses side by side and are relatively small. There is usually a metal partition down the middle to separate the two horses from one another as well as a bar across the front to cordon off a space that can be occupied by a groom or handler. Horses often use these metal partitions to lean on if they lose their balance when the box stops, starts or goes around a corner a little too quickly. The on course boxes do not usually transport live cargo so usually have their partitions removed.

Should you choose to put a live, injured animal in one of these boxes, you would need to have a human handler in the horse box to look after it and call for the driver to slow down or stop if the animal is in distress or if anything has to go wrong (for example if the animal were to fall over. In which case you would then have a large animal, in pain and in distress, going crazy in a small metal box. Quite probably screaming and thrashing its legs about. With a human trapped in the same space. It is not a fun exercise for anyone involved.

I apologise if this is TMI, but you asked, so I am sketching the reasons why moving a horse is both unfair as well as dangerous to the animal as well as the people around it.

All I can say is that the on-course staff would have assessed the situation and made an educated decision that the injury was beyond repair and the horse beyond saving and also in sufficient distress in order to merit destroying it right there and then. It would therefore have been inhumane to delay the inevitable by moving the horse elsewhere simply in order to spare the public. Immediate action was in the best interest of the horse.

I hope this helps explain a little more clearly.

It does seem that that you have misinterpreted my question, or I wasn't clear enough in writing it., but I think you did answer it in any case.

I did post that I was not questioning whether he had to be put down or not. I assume that it was necessary.
I was not questioning whether the correct action was taken, but rather why it was the correct action.

Regarding the PR part, I most certainly was not implying that we should keep the horse in pain to make sure we don't get bad press.
What I was saying is that, since shooting the horse will give us bad press, why is it done in that manner? I didn't say it shouldn't be done that way, I asked why it is.

The second paragraph of your reply seems to cover it:

"A (correctly administered) bullet, cruel as it seems, is the fastest and and most effective method. The problem with chemicals is that a) they take time and b) they do have the potential to cause a very unpleasant reaction. Not what you want for the horse or any of the people involved."

So, essentially, tranquilizers take too long and could have side effects.

Sorry Sabre - we are crossing over.

Basically the welfare of the horse takes precendence in times like this.

I would assume the following, not knowing much about the intricacies at all.......

1) When a horse breaks a leg it tries to run on it none the less.....This is a horrible scene and can cause damage and trauma to all concerned. It has to be taken care of right there and then.
2) As Zsuzsanna said a bullet is the most effective method.
3) A horse would be too heavy to lift if still alive and thrashing around, that's perhaps why the humane thing to do is take care of it right there and then?

Sad, sad, sad state of affairs but it is part and parcel of racing and a horses circle of life.

Horses need to stand and they need to spread their weight evenly on all 4 legs,if they don`t do this it can cause other problems like Laminitis.

Look at the superstars that have been owned by very wealthy men(George Washington etc) but couldnt be saved,if it was thought to be possible these guys would try imo..


ps who makes the decision to destroy a horse?

Heh, yes, I see we are.

I'm still not sure if I'm explaining the question properly because you again refer to the welfare of the horse taking precedence.
I take that as a given. Yes, it was necessary to put him down, and it was necessary to do it then, there and in that manner.

I just wanted to know why alternative methods are not and cannot be used.
From your detailed replies, I gather that it is too risky, too dangerous, too slow and too painful to administer some sort of tranquilizer and move the horse elsewhere or to use a chemical agent instead of a bullet.

You see, the person that asked me this question loves animals, has no interest in horse racing, and didn't even watch the race. He heard about the incident from a vet this morning, then saw the picture in the paper, and wanted to know why they shoot horses where the public might see/hear it instead of using some other method. I can probably ease his mind with some of what you have posted.