Quote:
Originally Posted by jhunt223
I assume that they get put down. A serious question for you.. do they snap the hell out of their legs before they do it just for ####s and giggles? It's nice that they euthanize them as quick as possible, but its still completely unnecessary and it's not like they don't suffer at all. All for the sake of "entertainment".
And what makes it worse is that it's not even entertaining unless you're as drunk as your typical stampede going hill billy idiot is. Yes J-Bo.. it is very much red neck, hill billy crap. Nascar with horses. Humiliating.
|
So here is the question then now that we all agree on the basic facts.
The choices in the current environment for these horses is immediate humane death after their racing career or racing for the next 10 years with a say 1 in 20 chance of dying each year, and the death from racing would be painful for 5 minutes and then you are euthanized. What is your preference for the horse. For me from a utilitarian standpoint chuck racing makes sense.
As a human I would choose life with a high risk of death each year so if someone said we can put you to death humanely or once a year until you die you have to climb Everest. I would live and climb Everest once a year until I died up there.
One reason the heart attack rate might be higher in the chucks is that the horses are older. A horse only lives about 25-30 years?? So are they still racing them at 20 and would age limits reduce the health failure type of accidents?