How equestrians conceptualise horse welfare: Does it facilitate or hinder change?

Abstract

More than ever the welfare of horses in equestrian sport is in the spotlight. In response to this scrutiny, one peak body, the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) has created an Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission to protect their sport’s longevity. However, for welfare-based strategies to be successful, the conceptualisation of horse welfare must align across various stakeholders, including the general public. The value-laden nature of welfare makes agreement on its definition, even among scientists, difficult. Given little is known about how equestrians conceptualise horse welfare, we interviewed 19 Australian amateur equestrians using a semi-structured format. Systems thinking and the Five Domains Model provided the theoretical framework and informed our methods. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three themes were identified: (1) good horse welfare is tangible; (2) owners misinterpret unwanted horse behaviour; and (3) equestrians publicly minimise horse welfare issues but are privately concerned. Our results highlight participants’ conceptualisations of horse welfare do not align with the Five Domains Model; participants’ ideal of prioritising horse welfare does not align with their practice; and there is inconsistency between what participants share publicly and what they think privately about horse welfare. These findings can inform the development of programmes to improve ridden horse welfare throughout the horse industry. As a starting point, programmes that provide a safe space for equestrians to explore their private horse welfare concerns, and programmes that build a partnership mindset to facilitate knowledge exchange between all stakeholders are needed.

The Easiest Becomes the Rule: Beliefs, Knowledge and Attitudes of Equine Practitioners and Enthusiasts Regarding Horse Welfare

“…The generalized use of stall housing, social isolation and concentrated feeding reported in this study has been documented by others [8,25]. Participants' justifications for these practices resonate with previous research in different global contexts, including financial limitations [25,[44][45][46][47][48], lack of physical space, labor [25,43], time [47], and lack of knowledge [35,44,46,48].…”

“…For instance, they rationalized the practice of keeping horses in social isolation based on the erroneous belief that the more excitable personality of certain horses could lead to fights. Similar discomfort was also noticed among participants in another study when they overlooked the association between "behavioral problems" and horse welfare, attributing such problems to individual characteristics of the animal [43]. We propose that the barriers to adopting best practices cited in our study are not inherently insurmountable but are perceived as such [50].…”

“…Our findings highlight a dissonance between the practices and the views/knowledge of equestrians, a phenomenon previously noted by others [25,43]. Participants endorsed practices that do not allow freedom to graze, express natural behaviors, and socialize with peers, such as maintaining horses most part of the daily time at stalls, contradicting their conception of animal welfare.…”

“…Similar to a study involving pig farmers [19], sympathetic attitudes and recognition of the animals as sentient individuals were frequent but not enough for participants to support or adopt practices that meet the behavioral needs of horses. Expressing love for horses without corresponding adherence to best practices was not unique to this study [8,43,48]. Our findings suggest that this dissonance does not reflect a lack of empathy or sympathy for horses but rather a distinct understanding of what is best for a horse according to its purpose.…”

“…Remarkably, when discussing the poor management of these horses, they often attributed the behaviour to 'others' while citing personal experiences and assuming responsibility for practices that limit the freedom and natural behavior of high-value horses or involve inadequate training schedules. Luke et al [43] also found a difference in concern for high-value and lower-value horses among amateur equestrians. Leme et al [8] reported that high valued horses were more often kept in stalls than low value horses.…”