|
Post by portiabuzz on Jan 7, 2010 14:35:14 GMT 1
agree Mandal, i know they need support but someone has to make a stand
|
|
|
Post by jennyb on Jan 7, 2010 14:35:33 GMT 1
The BHS are also a large charity relying on memberships, donations and exam income from the general equestrian community in order to survive. Their Chief Exec has been damning of the blue tongue incident and hyperflexion, and has seen an increase in membership as a direct result of the public support for his strong stance. I see what you mean Ruth, but in light of the BHS's approach and the public's reaction to it, I see no possible justification whatsoever for WHW to be sitting on the fence here...
|
|
|
Post by portiabuzz on Jan 7, 2010 14:36:33 GMT 1
exactly, PP didnt hesitate to condemn it!
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 7, 2010 14:40:26 GMT 1
I see no possible justification whatsoever for WHW to be sitting on the fence here... I agree!!! It's all in the title... World Horse Welfare!!!
|
|
|
Post by jennyb on Jan 7, 2010 14:41:14 GMT 1
Also, seemingly after my second email to Mr Owers accusing him of sitting on the fence, he sent a more strongly worded reply to Sylvia Loch's email to him (she also expressed concern over their "statement" in The Observer) stating that "WHW do NOT accept rollkur as a 'valuable training method'. Instead, they are researching the way forward to discredit its use". Note, this is a quote from Sylvia's facebook group, I don't know if it's a verbatim quote from Mr Owers.
But it does sound like perhaps he is starting to realise what a serious gaffe he has made, misquoted or not. Let's hope he comes out and condemns it like the BHS had the guts to do...
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Jan 7, 2010 19:18:29 GMT 1
I've never met the chap, but he's coming across like the Boris Johnson of the equestrian community... ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 19:43:47 GMT 1
I'm possibly going to make myself unpopular here but I'm confused at why this person and WHW in general is getting such a negative response over a misquote. He's not the Boris Johnson of the equestrian community, he's been misquoted! Ok, he and WHW may not have come out against rollkur as strongly as some would like, and I understand that is annoying if that's an issue that is dear to your heart.
I guess my feeling is that WHW is a rescue/rehab/etc charity that also actively promotes and campaigns for the good management and care of horses worldwide. It's not a riding organisation like the BHS and I don't expect them to issue statements on riding and training practices in the way you would expect of the BHS. Of course you'd like every rescue centre in the country to have a view on something like rollkur, the use of the whip in racing, and a whole host of practices that we find abhorrent. Would you, though, expect every charity to have its finger on the pulse of every issue, even if it is an issue that impacts the welfare of horses? I wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by gwenoakes on Jan 7, 2010 19:55:25 GMT 1
Misquoted in one paper I would be able to accept, but misquoted in TWO?? No way, not unless the reporter was moon lighting!
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 7, 2010 19:58:36 GMT 1
The thing is Liz that WHW is being consulted as part of the 'investigation' into the blue tongue episode/rollkur. The fact that they have agreed to be consulted to me means that they are at the centre of a very strongly charged issue, so I would expect them to be doubly careful about how things are worded so they cannot be misinterpreted/ misrepresented.
Hopefully the newspaper will make a statement or publish an apology re the alleged mis quote. I suppose I may be over reacting ( for me this has become symbolic of human ego over what is in the interests of the horse!) but I really do think WHW should take a stance on welfare grounds.
|
|
|
Post by jennyb on Jan 7, 2010 21:16:50 GMT 1
Liz - that was my point in my original letter to WHW! I said they were getting involved in something that they clearly did not understand. They should stick to what they do best - general welfare and transportation issues etc. The man clearly does not understand enough about the issues to be making a comment.
And did you read his response to me at the beginning of this thread? Yes, he was misquoted, but even if they had printed the quote verbatim, they are STILL sitting on the fence on a majorly important issue which, as a welfare organisation, they ought to be condemning if they choose to get involved!!
And as mandal says, WHW are being "consulted" by the FEI in their investigations into rollkur. Why??!!! What the heck do they know about it?!
Maybe this issue is not dear to your heart, but it has shocked and outraged too many people, for too long now. You cannot expect a major welfare organisation, whoever they are, to issue a wishy-washy statement about such a key issue to TWO national newspapers and expect people not to get upset about it! I am utterly fed up of the way these horses suffer in the name of sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 22:01:11 GMT 1
Yes, I have read both threads Jenny. I have no idea how this quote came into being. He may have been the wrong person to put before the journalist, there may be others in the ILPH who are better informed. It might be the beginning of their involvement and he's not up to speed yet. And it might also be that he's wanting to have the science in front of him before he makes more definite statements - I don't know. I just feel that there's a disproportionate reaction here because of one misquoted statement.
The other thread started judgements on WHW as a whole, on willing horses to the organisation, on their level of commitment to horses - because of one interview on one subject. That bothers me.
I'm not informed enough on the extent of the charity's involvement, or of this individual's own knowledge of the subject, where the investigation is at, all that sort of thing, to make a true judgement myself. Given that at the start of the other thread, no one even knew who he was I'd say that's probably true of other contributors here. We seem, then, to be making assumptions and judgements based on very little information.
Don't for one moment think that I'm not equally upset by rollkur and its abuse of the horse. My point, though, is that it is just one issue of many that confront horses in the name of sport and pleasure. I don't expect every equine organisation to give the resources necessary to keep fully informed (emphasis on fully) of every issue.
|
|
|
Post by jennyb on Jan 7, 2010 22:34:10 GMT 1
"The other thread started judgements on WHW as a whole, on willing horses to the organisation, on their level of commitment to horses - because of one interview on one subject. That bothers me." It *really* bothers me that people are evidently leaving their horses to an organisation who openly admits to putting horses to sleep if they can't rehome them, and not realising that their horse might be pts if the charity can't rehome them!! Yes, arguably they should read the small print, but for those that don't, surely they should be made aware so that they can make an informed choice? And I did not digress into that subject lightly, I have known about that policy for four years and never said a word on a public forum before because I anticipated this kind of response. Personally, I find that policy utterly abhorrent, but I know it doesn't bother others as much as it bothers me. "Don't for one moment think that I'm not equally upset by rollkur and its abuse of the horse. My point, though, is that it is just one issue of many that confront horses in the name of sport and pleasure. I don't expect every equine organisation to give the resources necessary to keep fully informed (emphasis on fully) of every issue." Which is why I stated above that an organisation which does not generally have anything to do with competition or training of high level competition horses (other than hosting some shows - does that give them reason not to upset the apple cart? Hmmm...) should not be wading in on this issue. It needs someone, or an organisation, who has deep knowledge and appreciation of the issues at hand. Patrick Print is an FBHS with a strong interest in classical training, dressage and an interest in the subject at hand. He is well placed to comment. Reading Mr Owers resume does not indicate that the same can be said for him. Just because he is a vet, it does not make him an expert in biomechanics, nor mean that he has specialised in treating competition horses exposed to this kind of training. I will say again - an organisation who does not use it's resources to keep fully informed on this issue, should not be at the forefront of this current debate. I'd be quite happy if they bowed out and carried on with their normal work.
|
|