05/03/2025
Social licence and horse sports.
Everywhere you look these days, people in the horse world are talking about the social licence to operate (SLO). That unwritten contract between society and a group or business that conducts activities that cause harm- to the environment, people or animals like horses. The loss of social licence can mean that activities that some people love or gain benefit from are banned or so tightly regulated they wither away. Think greyhound racing which is now banned in an increasing number of countries- with New Zealand and Wales recently joining the list.
So there’s understandable anxiety among many in the equestrian world that the SLO is at risk, and suddenly everyone from the racing bodies, to the FEI, USQHA and elsewhere talking about how to maintain the SLO. The main focus of these efforts seems to rest on the assumption that the ordinary members of the public who are piling on the pressure about things like blue tongues in dressage horses or racehorses trying to finish a race with a broken leg swinging in the breeze, don’t really understand the truth about the sport. That only those who can ride a grand prix test or sit a racehorse are the truly informed.
The solution to the public‘s angst and calls for bans or fundamental changes is just better communication. So the public can get the “full”, “real” or “true” picture, that’s far more reliable than those pesky ugly moments in time. Positive communication- that is, stories that are focussed almost entirely on the care and love that competition horses receive.
These stories are all about the process, not the outcome. Meaning that because the care is given (a process) the horses’ welfare must be good (the outcome that matters to the horse). And in service of that narrative, the usual kind of soft sell human interest sorties are trotted out, showcasing specific individuals, some of whom have suddenly seen the light and provide their horses with slightly better care, like a bit more turnout or turnout with a friend. The implication of this approach is that there really isn’t much of a problem with the sport or its impact on the horses, and a hope that on seeing these stories, people will assume they represent the reality for all horses and stop worrying. Ideally, the public then gets co-opted into the normalisation of poor horse welfare and the narratives we in industry tell ourselves to combat the cognitive dissonance that arises because of the gap between how we treat our horses, and what we know about what’s good for their welfare. Such as when a horse is killed on the racetrack, acknowledging that it’s sad, especially for the connections that loved that horse, but justifying it by saying “that’s racing.”
In effect this communication focus is about leaving as much of the status quo in place as possible and convincing the public to see things the way we do. We solve the SLO problem, ensure we keep getting to do the things we love doing with horses and minimise the costs of having to doing it better or perhaps not at all. What is critical about this focus, is that the often highly celebrated but incremental improvements in horse welfare are a by-product of keeping the sport alive, not the point of the changes.
An alternate approach, is to forget about SLO alltogether and consider what’s best for horse welfare. The sport and industry bodies already say that prioritising horse welfare is their chief concern and they all have nice sounding statements to this effect. Some are even saying that positive welfare (however that is defined) is important, not just avoiding negative welfare experiences.
So what would this look like? We already know from the now hundreds of studies, about what makes a good life for a horse, what gives it opportunities for positive welfare, what its needs genuinely are. And a total of zero of those involve being ridden, competed, housed in stables, kept on their own, travelling long distances, jumping huge fences, galloping at 60km/hr, having their jaws clamped shut with nosebands or having their mouths and sides injured by bits and spurs
So herein lies the problem.
Can we genuinely say we prioritise horse welfare and want them to experience positive welfare when we already know that exposing horses to these things leads to poor welfare outcomes? And oftentimes, actively interferes with them gaining what they need to live good lives, often deliberately so, because we are worried our expensive dressage horse might get injured so we confine her in a stable for the majority of her life where she never has the choice to gallop, play or be with friends of her choosing. Based on the science- the answer is no, doing these things to horses impairs their welfare. Which is why, these sporting bodies which say the welfare of horses is their top priority also keep asking for more research, to make extra sure, down to the last Newton of pressure or cm of a stride length, before anything fundamental actually has to change. Like reducing fence sizes or allowing bridleless dressage or at the very least, bridles without nosebands.
If we were genuine about wanting good horse welfare, including ensuring they have positive welfare rather than just avoiding the worst of what we expose them to, we would have to fundamentally change what we do with horses. How we keep them, what equipment we use and what happened in competitions. And that would probably mean some activities went the way of the bear and bullbaiting competitions of yester-year, or that competition fields were vastly reduced because only a few could manage to train and control their horses without relying on bits, tight nosebands, whips or spurs for example. Or that courses were slower, shorter and smaller, meaning that anyone who could ride well could have a shot, rather than only those with access to the million dollar horses and the enormous bits.
The problem with that is that it would upend the whole economics of the modern horse competition world. The breeding, selling, training, the gadget makers, the bit fitters, the sponsors, the competition circuits. And no-one, whose livelihood depends on exploiting the athletic abilities of horses genuinely wants that. Much safer to appeal to the SLO, tell a few happy stories and gaslight the public and even members of the equestrian community who draw attention to the pain, the injuries, the bruises, the stereotypies, the gastric ulcers, the broken legs, the blue tongues, the shying, bucking, rearing, the falls and the deaths, that they aren’t seeing what they see. That the billions spent world-wide on horse care and riders’ love for their horses is enough to ensure those horses live good lives and have good welfare. So all that is needed is more marketing and good stories to tell, and the SLO will be retained, the world keeps turning and hopefully people look away to some other outrage and focus their concern there.
After 40 years of equitation science and equine science research we already know how to give horses good lives and how the things we do to them and expect them to do can cause harm- from minor discomfort to catastrophic. More research will only continue to confirm this because despite millennia of domestication and selective breeding, the fundamental needs of horses are unchanged. So when we talk about the SLO, what are we saying actually matters? Continuing to use horses because we benefit, or genuinely prioritising their welfare and needs? How do we reconcile the love we say we have for them, with the harm that we do?
