On Horses, Four-Wheelers, Plows and Other Machinery

Back in November I wrote "On Homeless Horses and Hawking Happy Meat," after which there was a discussion about horses and their place in our lives. (I’d like to see some discussion about our place in their lives.)

Portia Winters, a horse owner who says it is she who is the "real animal lover," was involved in the conversation. (And yes, I did respond that loving animals isn’t the point.) She recently revived that discussion with:

OK, Let me get this straight. We are not supposed to ride horses or use them in any way? Where would you suggest all the pampered and cherished show horses go? Do you really believe they will just exist in someone’s back yard as a lawn ornament? Horses would not still be in existence if it wasn’t for the want of people to use them in sport. Sorry but I find some of the animal activists to be out of touch with reality and extreme. By the way bits, saddles, spurs, crops etc… are only as harsh and cruel as the human using them. Honestly I think most people of teh opinion horses should not be ridden do not own horses. I do agree that non domesticated animals Ex;Elephants should not be used for our entertainment.

I didn’t respond as I was feeling a bit like she wasn’t listening to the idea that horses aren’t ours to use, so I just published the comment in case someone wanted to respond, and called it a day.

Then I read "South Carolina Breeders Try to Save Marsh Tacky Horses," by Bruce Smith (AP), and thought it might help me craft a kinder, gentler response to Portia than the one that was on the tip of my tongue when I read her comment.

Onward . . .

I would begin by answering Portia’s question: Are we supposed to ride horses or use them in any way?

No. I believe they should spend the rest of their lives at sanctuaries, doing as they please. No bits, no saddles. As far as most people who think horses shouldn’t be ridden do not own horses goes–EXACTLY. Because they are not ours to own and ride. Finally, they would still be in existence, but in much smaller numbers, if we didn’t breed and use them. And yes, those numbers would decrease and decrease if there weren’t adequate habitat to sustain them. But for an individual interested in animal rights, that’s preferable to breeding them to keep them in existence for our trivial interests and uses. Which brings me to the article about tackies . . .

Let’s deconstruct:

• Only about 150 marsh tacky horses remain on the Carolina sea islands, and "breeders are coming together to save the tacky, whose ancestors were left by colonial Spanish explorers." So the horses, like cows, are not even native to North America. (The horses were brought here in the 1500s. You can learn more about them here, at The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. Yes, they are considered livestock.)
• David Grant, who owns two dozen tackies, says: "You have to acquire a taste for these horses. They are not as attractive as an Arabian, a quarterhorse or a thoroughbred, but now that I breed them and use them, beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What’s so useful about them, you ask? "They can take hunters into woods and marshes that can’t be reached by foot or four-wheelers. They don’t flinch when a rider fires a gun from the saddle. Their deep, narrow chests give them more stamina than quarterhorses over long distances, and their hind ends slope downward, allowing tight turns in cane breaks and woods where other horses might have to back out." So they’re like a four-wheeler, but different. (We should start with: they’re living, breathing beings.)
• Another tacky owner, Ed Ravenel, says: "You can work’em, you can ride’em. When you put them in swamps and mud like we have around here in the Deep South … instead of panicking and floundering around, they can just plow right on through it." So they’re also like plows, but different. (We should start with: they’re living, breathing beings.)
• Perhaps the most useful trait of the tacky is that he "can be broken quickly and prove docile for even the youngest of riders," according to the article’s author.
• Finally, farmer D. P. Lowther says: "If a man told me he would like a horse he can depend on to ride, to work, to put into several different disciplines, to haul and not worry about the horse breaking down or faltering or running off, the closest I could come to a guarantee would be one of these tacky horses." Wow, maybe even a money-back guarantee for the commodity that is the tacky.

Observe the way the men talk about the horses. They don’t sound like they’re referring to four-legged sentient beings in the least. They sound like they’re describing farm equipment or motor vehicles of some sort or toys for their children. Why? Because their value to the men is due to how they can be used: as farm equipment and motor vehicles and toys for their children. They want to preserve the breed so they can keep using them.

This brings us full circle to Portia’s concerns. This article makes perfect sense–there is indeed nothing wrong with it–as long as you don’t believe that horses of all kinds should be able to live their lives free of our dominance and intervention. And that’s why articles like this one are so unsettling: because we are painfully aware that the average person in the US will read it and say Yes! Save the tackies . . . so we can keep using them!