malgre tout media logo with sign
Advertisement
7 minutes

Welfare: How wild should horses be?

welfare how wild should horses be
welfare how wild should horses be

How wild should horses be, and what is good welfare, really? Is it just about avoiding hunger, or is it also about having control over one's own life? We have explored these questions in this article.

Advertisement

Read also: REWILDING: How and why it is being done in Europe

The issue of using horses and cattle for rewilding and the creation of biodiversity in special natural areas has sparked a fierce debate. Peter Sandøe is a professor of ethics and an advisor to the government's national nature parks. He has examined the Danish debate on national nature parks in the media between 2018 and 2022. According to him, the disagreements revolve around four main points.

  1. First and foremost, there is the general perception of equine welfare: whether the animals suffer or live a natural life.
  2. Next, there is disagreement about whether the supervision of the animals should be individual or based on the herd.
  3. Feeding is also one of the main points of debate, which is about whether there is a need for supplementary feeding, or whether the animals should live wild without feeding.
  4. Last but not least, there is the question of death. Should animals die a natural death, or should we intervene by euthanising or moving animals? It is a topic that arouses strong emotions.

What is good animal welfare?

According to Peter Sandøe, opponents and proponents of national nature parks have very different perceptions of what good animal welfare is.

Advertisement

A central point is whether good welfare is understood as merely avoiding suffering, or whether the significance of welfare also involves being able to unfold and live a natural life. He explains that the concept of welfare has changed from a narrow view of avoiding suffering to a broader understanding of positive welfare, such as emotional engagement, self-determination, and freedom.

Former veterinarian, Lene Kattrup has stated that she is sorry to live in a country where there is a risk of seeing starving animals in the new, enclosed national nature parks.

Read also: Meet the Camargue horse: It runs (almost) free in the wetlands in France

  • Animals that are desperate with hunger and will become weak and emaciated. Supplementary feeding is strictly necessary. If you have free-roaming animals in winter, there should be a law requiring animals to have supplementary feed according to their needs, she believes.

Bengt Holst, former director of the Copenhagen Zoo and chairman of the Animal Ethics Council, is part of the scientific advisory group for national nature parks, and he believes that animal welfare is about two things: the absence of negative experiences and the presence of positive experiences. He believes that the animals to be released into national nature parks will be able to live a life without limitations, as they will have more behavioural options than their stabled counterparts.

Advertisement

Professor Jens Christian Svenning, a biologist and member of the expert council on national nature parks, believes that wild horses have some welfare benefits that domestic horses do not. He says that well-fed stable horses do not necessarily have a better life than wild horses. They are stabled for many hours until we have time to ride them but do not have the opportunity to meet their natural needs in the same way as if they live freely in nature.

Supporters and opponents have very different views on what good welfare is.

According to Peter Sandøe, there are different views on welfare in national nature parks, where some focus on the absence of suffering, while proponents focus on the possibility of natural behaviour. The disagreement also builds on concerns about whether individual animals suffer. The free life offers good opportunities for positive welfare, but also challenges in avoiding negative welfare.

Animals gain greater autonomy by living freely, and this can help them adapt when there is a shortage of food. He believes that this can mean that the impact of this shortage will be felt less intensely than when, for example, confined pigs experience restrictive feeding in an intensive pig production system. However, he believes that there is a clear trade-off here. Considering this, in some cases, we believe that the prevention of significant and widespread suffering should trump positive welfare.

Read also: Creating a safe haven for rescue horses in Andalusia, Spain

Supervision of the animals

A significant concern surrounding national nature parks is whether the supervision is adequate. The law has opened the possibility that the animals can be supervised regularly instead of daily. Yvonne Johansen, the chairman of Animal Protection, believes that less supervision would be a deterioration of the animals' welfare and legal rights.

"If we say that it is okay to view the herd as a whole, we move away from protecting the individual animal," says Yvonne Johansen. It simply won't work if the premise becomes that the individual animal suffers as long as the herd is doing well enough, she believes.

Advertisement

Bengt Holst, chairman of the Animal Ethics Council, believes that proper supervision can be conducted even if it doesn't happen daily. Animals don't become emaciated overnight; it is something that happens gradually over a longer period. He finds that the question of exemption has unfortunately become a key point in the discussion, and he doesn't believe there is a need to exempt from animal welfare laws.

Anne Hels, a veterinary officer in Veterinary Nord, believes that farm animals are treated as production units without individual supervision, and millions of production animals in Denmark live under questionable conditions.

"It is a paradox that we do not want animals in national nature parks to be treated differently concerning animal welfare laws, but at the same time, we are more attentive to welfare problems in wild horses than we are to other livestock," she says. According to Agriculture and Food, more than 26,000 pigs die every day in pig production, and 99% of all farms are run as intensive large-scale production.

Peter Sandøe believes that welfare fundamentally belongs to the individual, not to a herd or other collective units, and he thinks that welfare monitoring should focus on the individual animal. However, he points out that Danish legislation for production animals often focuses on the group as a whole, especially within pig production. Although welfare should focus on the individual, it will not always be practically possible in national nature parks. Considering this, collective monitoring could be a reasonable compromise, as it will protect against widespread suffering.

Read also: What exactly is a horse? Seen from the perspective of evolution and the horse owner

No supplementary feeding

One of the main points in the rewilding philosophy is that animals must not be fed with supplements. The reason is that the extra feed adds fertilizer, which is bad for nature in the area, and supplementary feed makes the animals more passive and dependent on humans.

Morten D.D. Hansen, a biologist from the Mols Laboratory, believes that horses will keep a distance from humans if they are not fed, while they may become too close if they are fed and accustomed to humans.

Veterinarian Lene Kattrup disagrees with this view. She believes that it should be a legal requirement for the animals to have supplementary feed during winter, adapted to their needs.

Advertisement

Veterinarian Lotte Bøgedal is concerned about whether there will be enough food or if the animals will starve. She expresses fear that the animals will be forced to eat poisonous plants and bark if there is not enough food. Horses are not forest animals but are designed to live on open grasslands.

Peter Sandøe believes that by avoiding supplementary feeding, we achieve the goal that the animals do not become passive recipients of human care. Instead, we enable them to have control over their own lives. It also helps to re-establish the ecosystem, so it benefits both parties, he believes. Regarding whether the horses are starving, he emphasizes that being hungry is not the same as starving. It is good for horses, as well as for humans, not to always have access to all the food we desire. Just as too much food can cause lifestyle problems for humans and lead to obesity, too much nutrient-rich food can create serious welfare problems for many animals, especially dogs, cats, and horses in human care. Hunger is a natural part of life, and weight loss during winter does not necessarily indicate a lack of welfare, says Peter Sandøe. It is essential to consider individual horses, even though there are good reasons not to provide supplementary feeding, explains Peter Sandøe. The first generation of animals initially released in national nature parks may not be used to finding food independently, and a gradual adaptation may be necessary before they are released. Peter Sandøe also emphasizes that starvation and suffering cannot be accepted, as it previously occurred in a rewilding project in the Netherlands.

welfare how wild should horses be (1)
Horses are not forest animals, but rather, they are designed to live in open grasslands.

Read also: 10 reasons why equestrian sport is the world´s best hobby and lifestyle

A dignified death

The association "Stop Mistreatment of Animals Behind Fences" fears that in the upcoming national parks, we will have to accept a nature where emaciated, half-sick animals, and even carcasses, become part of family trips. Talk of carcass sites causes disgust among the general population.

Some rewilding advocates have told Danish Radio that in their belief, death is an expression of life, and animals should have the right to die a natural death. They think that animals should be allowed to age and weaken and have the right to die naturally. They also believe that the presence of carcasses benefits the natural cycle. The Animal Welfare Act stipulates that incurably sick or injured animals in human care must be euthanized if letting them live would cause unnecessary suffering.

Advertisement

Researchers have not commented on breaking the law, but statements like these contribute to the reluctance surrounding the rewilding concept among people who care for horses, according to Peter Sandøe. A natural death can be peaceful, but in most cases, it is very painful, and Peter Sandøe distances himself from statements that animals have the right to a natural death. He absolutely does not share the view that animals should be left to die on their own. When animals no longer benefit from living a free and independent life, euthanizing or removing very sick or injured animals is the only way to ensure the animals' basic welfare rights, says Peter Sandøe. He does not believe that national nature parks can be compared to wild nature. The animals are not wild but belong to a category between domesticated and wild animals.

Potential for mutual understanding

We need a new view of nature, and a shrill debate does not help understanding, says Peter Sandøe. He believes that there is potential for finding mutual understanding between proponents of national nature parks and those concerned about animal welfare if welfare is interpreted to include animals' right to self-determination and natural behavior.

"We have a responsibility when we put animals behind fences, and there is a need for ongoing and proactive supervision. The supervision must ensure that action is taken before compromised welfare occurs for the animals," says Peter Sandøe. Overall, he concludes that being a horse in a national nature park is a good life.

Read also: Perspective: How do horses see the world?

Share
Advertisement
Advertisement

Related articles

Advertisement
magnifiercrossmenu linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram