The importance of providing good welfare is an ethical or moral issue; it has no real existence in the physical world; it is subjective and entirely open to definition. The task is made easier by the fact that more and more official bodies are producing welfare codes, from the European Community to the International Equestrian Federation. As a working model the F.E.I (Fedaracion Equestre Internationale) code is probably a logical choice, and appears below, in exactly the format in which it appeared in the NZEF (New Zealand Equestrian Federation) newsletter.

The NZEF believes it is imperative that this Code of Conduct is distributed as widely as possible.

In all Equestrian sports, the horse must be considered paramount.

The well being of the horse shall be above the demands of breeders, trainers, riders, owners, dealers, organisers, sponsors or officials.

All handling and veterinary treatment must ensure the health and welfare of the horse.

The highest standards of nutrition, health, sanitation and safety shall be encouraged and maintained at all times.

Adequate provision must be made for ventilation, feeding, watering and maintaining a healthy environment when horses are being transported.

In the interests of the horse, the fitness and competence of the rider shall be regarded as essential.

All riding and training methods must take account of the horse as a living entity and must not include any technique considered by the NZEF to be abusive.

The NZEF will establish adequate controls in order that all persons and bodies under their jurisdiction respect the welfare of the horse.

The National and International Rules and Regulations in Equestrian sport regarding the health and welfare of the horse must be adhered to, not only during National and International events, but also in training. Competition Rules and Regulations shall be continually reviewed to ensure such welfare is upheld.

Of all the elements of the code, the most wide ranging and open to debate is the second, which is repeated below:

"The well being of the horse shall be above the demands of breeders, trainers, riders, owners, dealers, organisers, sponsors or officials."

Before going any further, we are going to have to look for a definition of just what 'well-being' means, particularly since its use is often interchangeable with 'welfare'. In some cultures there is only one word, which does the job of both but, since it is a conceptual term and therefore varies in its usage from culture to culture, this should not surprise us. According to the concise English dictionary 'well-being' is defined as: Happiness and good health'. Well-being is also said to have a "stronger connotation of subjective feeling in its use. It is used to refer more to the individual’s perception of its state itself. Well-being can be used to mean the feelings which an individual has about both its environment and the consequences of interactions with it." (1.)

So, with this in mind, if we wanted to play with this element a bit we could put up the following propositions:

1. Being kept in solitary isolation is most likely to make a horse unhappy and is therefore against the code.

2. Being stabled is liable to cause high levels of stress and behavioural stereotypes, which occur as a result of sensory deprivation, and is therefore counter to the horse’s well being.

3. Forced weaning causes stress and discontent in both foal and dam, and is therefore counter to the horse’s well being.

4. Deprivation of natural social contact and play produces psychologically unhealthy horses and is therefore counter to the code.

We could go on increasing the size of the list but the point has been made and a longer list would achieve nothing - but was this what was intended when the code was drafted?

If it were, then there would seem to be many management methods that need to be changed in order for the code to have any meaning.

If it wasn’t, then just what should the Code be taken to mean? What it actually says is that the horse comes first and that there are no excuses. So, if horses can't be kept in such a way that their well being is assured because, say, there is insufficient space or money has to be earned, then they should not be kept at all! Tough stuff!

In fact, radical stuff since, for the first time in 6000 years, it suggests that the needs of the horse come first, over and above those of human partners. Of course, for this to have any meaning, the code would have to be applied and enforced. At present, there seems to be little chance of anything but downright cruelty being acted against and, such is the level of ignorance of the horse's nature, it seems doubtful that its 'happiness' is going to be protected in any real sense. So why bother to have such an element in the Code at all?

A cynical person might suggest that the only purpose it serves is to mollify those who decry the use of animals in sport - that it is nothing more than paying lip service. It would be difficult to assure such a person that this was not the case, and that is a great shame, for the majority of horse owners and riders do have an affectionate attachment to their horses, and try to do their best, as they see it, for them. If a person is unaware that, let's say, a horse kept by itself is unlikely to spend the same amount of time lying down as one in a group, and that this means they are unable to spend time dreaming, and that this means in turn that, as with people, their psychological well-being is adversely affected, then they cannot possibly be blamed for breaking the code. If they do know, then it becomes a different matter. Ignorance, so they say, is bliss.

There is also another alternative, and that is to dismiss such knowledge as mumbo-jumbo and seek to destroy the credibility of those who work to widen the knowledge base by making malicious personal attacks. Knowledge is like the biblical seed, it has to fall on fertile soil to germinate. So, if you don’t want to be tied down by a Code of Ethics, you have only to refuse to see any reason why what you do might not be the best method and carry on as before, and for you the Code changes nothing at all.

For the Code to have any impact it must be enforced, but who is going to enforce it and on the basis of what accepted facts or consensus? The probable answer is that this is a hot potato that is going to be dropped and allowed to roll out of sight where it can be happily and conveniently ignored. A simple admonition to "do what you think is best for the horses in your charge" would then be both more honest and of more real value.

Looking for a moment at just why such a Code was formulated, we can list some of the events during which horses were injured and which caused a public outcry at the time. Four separate incidents occurred in 1992, which led to a wave of adverse publicity in the media against what was seen as lack of consideration for the welfare of the competition horse. Three fatal falls happened during the cross-country phase of the three-day event at Badminton, England; NBC news coverage of the Barcelona Olympics produced expressions of outrage by both media and public; a horse suffered a broken back during show jumping at Wembley Stadium arena in London and, lastly, "Mr Brooks" broke a leg during the Breeders cup in Florida, USA. (2.)

We are probably all aware of the liking that T.V. producers have for cutting together sensational falls and "stunts gone wrong", whether human or equine. It produces cheap, re-cycleable programming, satisfies the ghoulish and truth or objectivity come a distant second to ratings. Other, more reputable sources, such as 'Animals International', the publication of the World Society for the Protection of Animals, are also quite capable of linking, on the same double-page spread, photographs of Arctic seals being clubbed to death, bear-baiting using Bull Terriers, and a horse falling in the Barcelona Olympics, with an accompanying caption reading "Cross-Country Cruelty at the Olympics". (3.)

Such items in the media, whether true or not, produce the perception in the public mind that equestrian sport is inhumane, and it is that perception which has to be dealt with. Responsible organisations are trying to improve the welfare of competition horses, and groups such as the International League for the Protection of Horses are doing their utmost to promote good welfare for horses all over the world but, for many people, their attempts do not go nearly far enough and are, of necessity, focused at a level which a majority of people will be willing to support. Show a picture of a horse suffering from malnutrition and most will be prepared to condemn the owner, but show a picture of a well-fleshed horse suffering the anguish of social isolation and few will respond.

Element 6 of the code refers to the promotion of education, but that also only goes so far. If part of that education highlights the poor welfare that results from current, widespread, intensive horse keeping and associated management practices, then don’t expect the NZEF, or any other body for that matter, to take it on with any sort of enthusiasm. Truth, as it is said, is relative, and often makes an unwelcome guest!