WORKSHOP 5 (part 2): Jean-Jacques Kona-Boun:
(Saturday, June 30, 8:30pm)
Nonhuman animals, formerly defined as "moveable goods," were redefined in Quebec in 2015 as sentient beings with biological imperatives. The physical and mental well-being of animals may no longer be put at risk (with two exceptions: agricultural use and scientific/medical/educational use). The first test case is animal use in sport. I present evidence from 20 Quebec rodeos (a total of 3 x 45 hours of video data, and many hundreds of hours of close analysis) that the physical and mental well-being of calves, bulls and horses is put at risk in virtually every trial in every rodeo event. The results are particularly striking as Quebec reportedly has the "mildest" rodeos in North America.
Gerber, B., & Young, K. (2013). Horse play in the Canadian west: The emergence of the Calgary Stampede as contested terrain. Society & Animals, 21(6), 523-545.
Kona-Boun, J-J (2018) Analyses. In: Roy, A. Report On Analysis of Data Collected During Montréal and St-Tite Rodeos in Québec (August And September 2017) pp. 37-659
McGreevy, P. D., Griffiths, M. D., Ascione, F. R., & Wilson, B. (2018). Flogging tired horses: Who wants whipping and who would walk away if whipping horses were withheld?. PloS one, 13(2), e0192843.
Sinclair, M., Keeley, T., Lefebvre, A. C., & Phillips, C. J. (2016). Behavioral and Physiological Responses of Calves to Marshalling and Roping in a Simulated Rodeo Event. Animals, 6(5), 30.
Question pour le Dr Kona-Boun : Où selon vous devrait-on tracer la ligne entre ce qui demeurerait cliniquement un risque acceptable et ce qui ne l’est pas, si on considère les autres sports impliquant des animaux comme les épreuves équestres du type que celles qu’on retrouve aux Olympiques (dressage, saut d’obstacles, etc.,) ou les courses de chevaux à fin de pari?
ReplyDeleteHello Alexandra,
Deletefirst of all, we must remind the context before debating of the relevance of examining the other uses of animal beings. We now have a new legal frame for the use of animal beings. Consequently, it is not only acceptable or even legitimate, but also desirable and necessary, to evaluate every use we do of animal beings and to determine if these uses are in accordance with the provisions of the new law. If a new law is created but we don’t re-evaluate and adjust our behaviours to be in compliance with it, then it is a cosmetic and useless law. So yes, after the rodeo the process should continue, every use of animal beings, particularly but not exclusively for entertainment, should be carefully examined from the new legal point of view.
Now, what is an "acceptable" risk? There is no definition for this particular context, to my knowledge, but I would say, to stay conservative, that it is a risk which is not in excess of the normal risks of the every day life, particularly if it is imposed on a subject for the sole purpose of entertainement and if the subject has no choice.
Translation of Alexandra's question: Where, in your opinion, is the line between what would remain a clinically acceptable risk and what would not, if we consider other sports involving animals such as the equestrian events we find in the Olympics (dressage, jumping, etc.) or horse-racing and betting?
ReplyDeleteI leave it to the Workshop participants to reply more authoritatively. The prima facie answers would seem to be:
DeleteThere do not exist norms for "risks that it is 'clinically acceptable' to impose on animal beings (by human beings)." There are no doubt risks entailed by human breeding and rearing of animals in the first place, but breeding and rearing is a different category of "usage" in which the new Quebec Law will need to be tested. This provides a baseline level of risk.
Rodeo usage, however, concerns a further level of risk, over and above the baseline risk of breeding and rearing. According to the new law:
5. The owner or custodian of an animal must ensure that the animal’s welfare and safety are not compromised. An animal’s welfare or safety is presumed to be compromised if the animal does not receive care that is consistent with its biological imperatives. Such care includes but is not limited to ensuring that the animal... (7) is not subjected to abuse or mistreatment that may affect its health.
This clause does not state that animal beings may only be "subjected to abuse or mistreatment that has an acceptable degree of risk of affecting their health." What is at issue is whether it is still legal to add any health risk at all to the baseline risk of breeding and rearing them in the first place.
Otherwise put: Is what is done to calves, steers, bulls and horses in rodeos contrary to their biological imperatives?
(Look at the video clip and reflect on whether the answer is any less obvious than whether Colin Chapman's corgi is happy to see him.)
Two categories of usage (the meat industry and scientific research) are exempt from the new law.
But use for sport and entertainment is not.
Hello Alexandra,
Deletefirst of all, we must remind the context before debating of the relevance of examining the other uses of animal beings. We now have a new legal frame for the use of animal beings. Consequently, it is not only acceptable or even legitimate, but also desirable and necessary, to evaluate every use we do of animal beings and to determine if these uses are in accordance with the provisions of the new law. If a new law is created but we don’t re-evaluate and adjust our behaviours to be in compliance with it, then it is a cosmetic and useless law. So yes, after the rodeo the process should continue, every use of animal beings, particularly but not exclusively for entertainment, should be carefully examined from the new legal point of view.
Now, what is an "acceptable" risk? There is no definition for this particular context, to my knowledge, but I would say, to stay conservative, that it is a risk which is not in excess of the normal risks of the every day life, particularly if it is imposed on a subject for the sole purpose of entertainement and if the subject has no choice.
Reply to Alexandre Boloduc from Marine Cassoret (Marine was unable cto post it directly; if anyone can help her with the posting problem, please do!):
ReplyDeleteAlexandra,
This is a very important question – as mentioned during last night’s debate, the questions raised for the use of animals in rodeos apply to all situations where animals are used in sport, leisure, or entertainment.
Regardless of the use, we must, as in science, apply a cost-benefit approach. To talk about horses, an ethical equitation is one that:
1) Respects the needs (physiological, physical, behavioural) of the animal, so maintains the animal in an environment which meets those needs (including the expression of natural behaviour)
2) Relies on an ethical training method, with correct use of learning theory, with no use of pain, or fear. Since horses are trained mostly through the use of negative reinforcement, one must make sure that the pressure used is quickly reduced early in training, and replaced when possible with light pressure cues or other conditioned cues (voice, etc). So that the horse responds with what we call light aids, in all situations. We must also ensure that they are gradually desensitized to fearful situations with gradual exposure, not through flooding (which leads to the same apparent lack of reaction, but underneath the emotional state is different; because flooding can lead to learned helplessness).
3) Avoids the risk of injury, whether chronic or acute. Rodeo or cross-country may see sometimes catastrophic injuries, so do racing. But do we consider chronic lameness in dressage, jumping, reining, etc. as acceptable?
And here’s the problem – we know that :
1) housing horses in stalls prevents the expression of natural behaviors, such as social contact, movement, and long periods of feeding (they DO get adequate nutrition, but horses have evolved to eat 16-18 hours a day… what do they do with the time left?). Rodeo horses, I agree, may be kept in pastures. But housing is not the only criterium. And can we justify acute stress if the rest of the time they are kept in a group?
2) The amount of pressure used to obtain what we want from horses is not “coded” anywhere by equestrian federations. What is light pressure? This is left to the rider’s interpretation. We know that horses have very sensitive skins and are able to detect very light pressures. And when does pressure ends and pain begins? Evidence would tend to put this line to a few hundred grams. Yet dressage; jumping horses and the like are exposed to sustained mouth pressures of several kilos (1) with little ability to escape that pressure (2). They will habituate to that pressure (in the sense that they cease to respond) but the disappearance of a response is no indication that they are “Ok” with it or that it does not lead to injury (3).
3) the volume of horses that never reach their potential and are “reformed” or send to slaughter is huge (4). This is not necessarily due to injury or chronic lameness (in fact behaviour is a major cause). Does the success of a few justify that a huge number will never succeed , and worse, see their lives ended much earlier that their natural life expectancy? (5)
We already know that the way we wean, train and house horses affects the emergence of abnormal behaviors (6) and that it leads to depression. And that some disciplines , such as dressage, see more horses with abnormal behaviors.
So as to where we need to draw a line, I would this that this is a dynamic process that will be deeply influenced by public opinion. What we consider as acceptable may not hold true in 10 or 20 years.
Marine Cassoret, PhD
(References follow in next posting)
References for Marine Cassoret's commentary:
Delete(1) McLean, A. N., & McGreevy, P. D. (2010). Ethical equitation: Capping the price horses pay for human glory. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 5(4), 203-209.
(2) Christensen, J. W., Zharkikh, T. L., Antoine, A., & Malmkvist, J. (2011). Rein tension acceptance in young horses in a voluntary test situation. Equine veterinary journal, 43(2), 223-228.
(3) Randle, H., & McGreevy, P. (2013). The effect of noseband tightness on rein tension in the ridden horse. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 8(2), e18-e19.
(4) McGreevy, P., Christensen, J. W., Uta, K. Ã., & McLean, A. (2018). Equitation science. John Wiley & Sons.
(5) Fureix, C., Menguy, H., & Hausberger, M. (2010). Partners with bad temper: reject or cure? A study of chronic pain and aggression in horses. PloS one, 5(8), e12434.
(6) Hausberger, M., Gautier, E., Biquand, V., Lunel, C., & Jego, P. (2009). Could work be a source of behavioural disorders? A study in horses. PloS one, 4(10), e7625.
Marine Cassoret on Conditioned Arousal Mistaken For Willingness and Enjoyment: I wanted to re-visit the last comment we got at the end of the debate Saturday night. After re-watching the debate I realized that when I replied, I took off on a tangent and left out a key point made by the participant:
ReplyDeleteIt was mentioned that rodeos did not just deal with roping and bull/ bronc riding but other disciplines like barrel racing. The commentator mentioned that “barrel racers liked the competition”.
The high arousal seen in horses before they start and their ability to continue / finish the run (which can be seen in racing horses or jumping horses as well) is often mistaken for the horse’s willingness to perform and their enjoyment.
Actually the “excitement” noticed before the run is nothing but high arousal. It is a conditioned emotional response which develops through repeated exposure in a context where they are pushed to run at full speed (you will see this in reformed race horses as well. Suddenly they hear a loudspeaker, or are taken again to an environment that looks like a racetrack, and they will increase their gate or become reactive).
So anticipation of an event is not akin to willing to perform or liking to perform. But it is often mistaken as such by the public and riders alike.
Marine Cassoret, PhD
Hi!
DeleteI was in Alain Roy's class last year and participated in the traduction of Dr. Kona-Boun's expertise for the government (comitee). I also have a horse of my own and have been in the domain for a long time. I feel frustrated everyday seeing horses that do stuff they don't want to do and that are not well treated. I realised that it's around 50% of people who think their horses are just a way of achieving their goal (competition, reputation, making money with breeding, making money with horrible and stressful trainings for horses, who are going to do what they are told because they fear their owner, etc.).
I also get almost every week someone who's telling me 'yeah but my horse likes it, I know him, I pay a lot of money for treatments afterwards, etc.' And I normally can answer to every argument but there is one regarding barrel racing that stays for me. I know what a stressed horse is (mine used to be like that when seeing the saddle), and I know they often look like they want to go and have fun and that they like it. But I now can recognize it.
How about a retired horse (that has done barrel races a long time ago but only for a year or two) that is being ridden in around pen or in a field wathever, and sees a barrel and then goes right up to it and turns and seems to enjoy it. If the person let the horse decide where he wants to go, he chose the barrel. Do you think it is because he has been practicing for two years in his life and that he thinks he likes it but in the end he doesn't ? Do you think it is because he has understood that barrel = happy rider?
I know my question is very specific. But I kind of want to know if you retire the stress of the competition (departure chute, people all around, whips, etc.), if the horse s doing it by habit, or by fun? I know horses have all their own personalities and can like something when an other won't. But this is an argument I get everytime and I can't seem to answer to that.
Thank you!
Daïka,
DeleteWhen we train horses we condition them to produce specific movements using cues (voice, seat, legs, hands, reins, etc). In addition to this, equine learning is very context-specific. Cues from the environment can elicit an emotional response (so called conditioned emotional response, a form of classical conditioning). Other cues (presence of jumps, barrels, etc) can trigger a movement because the horse has practiced it a lot. So the response is elicited without waiting for the rider’s cues. Combined with increased arousal, you can then see a horse seemingly "willing" to rush through the barrel course.
We cannot, however, mistake this motivation to perform with pleasure. I do not need to be dragged into the dentists', or to the bank, or to the gas station. But I am motivated (in the behavioral sense) to do so.
What motivates horses to act is the reward or relief they get from responding correctly to cues. Their rider's happiness has nothing to do with it. Though they may anticipate a rider's reaction (stemming from nervousness, etc) there is no evolutionary advantage to "please" them in anyway.
So habit, definitely. :-)
Marine Cassoret
Thank you for your answer! :-)
DeleteMy pleasure!
DeleteI am adding a link to a study by Waite, Heleski and Ewing (2018) on the correlation between rider's aggressive riding style and behaviour in horses:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558787817301284
As the study showed, horses' behaviours often labelled as "impatience" or "nervousness" at the gate are associated with aggressive behaviour in riders. The whipping, and spurring of these riders does not affect (i.e. increase) the horse's performance, and they increase the chances that unwanted behaviours arise as horses enter the arena.
Marine
Waite, K., Heleski, C., & Ewing, M. (2018). Quantifying aggressive riding behavior of youth barrel racers and conflict behaviors of their horses. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 24, 36-41.
Hello Daika,
Deletefirst of all, I want to thank you warmly for your help in the translation of the massive report. This was a very appreciated contribution.
Concerning your question of the acceptability of barrel racing if stress is removed, I would like to remind you something very important that many people seem to overlook: that the presence of psychological stress is not the only, nor the most important, consideration to conclude that a treatment of an animal being is acceptable (and now, legal). The most important consideration is: does the activity represent a risk for the health/safety of the animal being. Animal beings, like children, may like to do some things that represent a risk for them and will do these things and possibly get injured if we don’t exert some sort of control. Any parent knows this and many guardians of animal beings too. Even the softer activities performed in rodeos, the gymkhana, would be difficult to improve (from a risk of injury/pain point of view), unless they remove the use of whips, spurs, too sharp turns and time, for example. Indeed, as I said, theses activities are timed and most of the risks I observed were associated with high speed in too tight turns, often causing stumblings, falls and collisions with obstacles. Removing the time factor and the delicate maneuvers in the sharp turns would remove the challenge and the interest for the “show”. It would not be a challenging competition anymore, where professionnal riders compete, but just a relax ride in a big arena! If all these requirement could be met, then may be it could become something acceptable…from a risk point of view relatively to the gymkhana activity.
Daika \ Jean-Jacques,
DeleteThis thread underlines the fact that competition is based to a subjective set of criteria on which we base ourselves to figure out which horse is the best one. The subjectivity is obvious in disciplines such as reining and dressage (where "obedience", "willingness", are left to the judges' interpretation and cannot be evaluated by just looking at the horses). Other disciplines use more measurable criteria such as speed (barrel-racing, etc), jump height and the ability to clear jumps (jumping). This is a very slippery slope as only the "end product" of training is "measured" or at best, appreciated by the judges, with no regard to the methods used to get there. This leaves a HUGE potential for abuse (see McGreevy & McLean, 2009; McLean & McGreevy, 2010) and definitely should be subjected to, at minimum, a deep conversation as to what we feel is acceptable.
Marine Cassoret, PhD
Refs:
McLean, A. N., & McGreevy, P. D. (2010). Ethical equitation: Capping the price horses pay for human glory. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 5(4), 203-209.
McGreevy, P. D., & McLean, A. N. (2009). Punishment in horse-training and the concept of ethical equitation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 4(5), 193-197.
Thank you both for your answers.
DeleteDr. Kona-Boun you are right to remind me that the risk on the animal being's health is what's the most important. I agree that the removal of those aspects would deprive the competition of interest (for those who like to watch that). I think we see the barrel racing as 'softer' since the risks are more obvious in the veal of calf events. But of course, I often hear about horses who got injured during barrel races. Let's see what the comitee will decide.
Hi, thanks for all the work you do! Those pictures were definitely a wake up call for me to think about these types of issues more seriously. I was wondering about what you see as the 'end game' for all your effort. Do you see the rodeo being shut down altogether, or only amended with some more constraints on what activities they are allowed to hold? One of the panelists made the point that an essential component of some rodeo events is the distress and fear of the animals, which is why they select animals that don't habituate. How then can you remove the dangers to the animals without doing away with the practices altogher?
ReplyDeleteJe ne savais pas que les rodéos étaient aussi violents. Je me demande aussi si les animaux participants dans ce genre de compétition peuvent avoir des problèmes de santés mentales à long terme. Le conférencier a bien mentionné qu’il y avait des risques de commotions cérébrales, ce qui pourrait favoriser le risque de dommages psychologiques à long termes. Il y a plusieurs recherches qui documentent des cas de syndromes de stress post-traumatiques chez des anciens chiens militaires, qui doivent malheureusement être euthanasié parce qu’ils sont trop violent pour l’adoption. Je trouverais cela vraiment dommage que les animaux de rodéo souffrent pendant leur participation au rodéo et bien après dans leur vie. Je trouve aussi l’excuse des animaux «athlètes» ridicules, surtout lorsque plusieurs communautés scientifiques ne reconnaissent pas totalement le concept de personnalité chez certaines espèces animales.
ReplyDeleteJ'ai deux questions assez spécifiques pour professeur Alain Roy et pour Me Morello. Étant étudiante en droit, les questions peuvent paraître un peu spécifique.
ReplyDeleteJe sais que lorsque l'on arrive à un dilemme civil pour savoir si une loi s'interprète d'une façon ou d'une autre, on recherche l'intention du législateur. On dirait qu'en vous entendant parler de l'attente de la réponse du gouvernement par rapport à l'illégalité, j'ai peur qu'il recourt à la recherche de l'intention du législateur. Je doute que l'intention du législateur était d'abolir les rodéos. J'ai l'impression que la loi BESA a été adoptée seulement pour faire plaisir aux défendeurs des droits des animaux, parce que la société ne semble pas prête à changer. Serait-il possible que le gouvernement dise seulement; nous avons recherché l'intention du législateur avec les nouveaux articles de cette loi, et nous concluons que son intention n'était pas de rendre le divertissement de rodéos illégal, il est clair que ceux-ci sont exclus de la loi? Je suis peut-être pessimiste...j'ai l'impression que les retombées économiques de ces activités et le fait que tous les gens qui sont dans les rodéos soient farouches à l'idée de votre poursuite et du rapport de Jean-Jacques Kona-Boun pèsera lourd... À voir.
Deuxième question; savons-nous quand le guovernement souhaite donner une réponse? J'ai vraiment l'impression qu'ils repousseront ce moment avec le changement de gouvernement/les élections qui s'en viennent. Partagez-vous cette crainte?
Si jamais M. Alain Roy ou Me Morello ne peuvent se rendre sur cette plateforme, je peux transférer mes questions directement à Alain Roy par courriel!
La présentation de Jean-Jacques Kona-Boun a été pour moi très éclairante. Je me doutais bien que les rodéos n’étaient pas un endroit plaisant et sécuritaire pour les animaux, mais pas à ce point. La sécurité et le bien-être des animaux utilisés dans les rodéos ne semblent pas être quelque chose de pris au sérieux. En effet, on a vu que les veaux (et les autres animaux) sont maltraités par le lasso. Leur coup se déforme, ils tombent violemment sur le sol, ce qui a des répercussions sur la colonne vertébrale. Parfois, la corde leur cause de graves blessures aux yeux. Il en va de même avec les lassos qui s’attachent aux pattes de l’animal et qui risquent de le blesser, sans parler des risques de traumatismes crâniens lors de la lourde chute de l’animal. Dans la lutte avec des boeufs, la plupart du temps la torsion cervicale est sévère et a de hauts risques de blessures. Aussi, la conduite de chevaux est également très risquée pour l’animal. Ils ne sont pas toujours conscients de leur entourage et risquent d’entrer en collision avec des obstacles, ce qui peut aller jusqu’à causer la mort. Les chevaux peuvent aussi marcher sur la corde attachée à leur coup ce qui crée une flexion abrupte et dangereuse. Souvent, le cheval tombe lourdement, ce qui est également très dangereux et a parfois de graves conséquences.
ReplyDeleteDu côté de la monte de taureau, on a sensiblement les mêmes problèmes. Comme l’a dit le conférencier, il s’agit d’une erreur de penser qu’ils sont plus fort et donc plus résistants. On a souvent remarqué des fractures au niveau des jambes pendant la performance, car ils sont justement plus costauds, plus lourds.
Dans les courses de barils, les chevaux peuvent entrer en collision avec les barils qui deviennent alors des obstacles dangereux et qui peuvent également couper la peau des chevaux et endommager leurs yeux. Encore une fois, dans ces courses, il y a également risque de fractures.
Il ne faut surtout pas oublier qu’on ne peut pas seulement parler des dangers physiques. Il y a également de la détresse psychologique. On remarque beaucoup de signes de détresse chez les animaux (le roulement des yeux, la défécation, tentative de fuite, sentiment de panique, réactions violentes).
Ainsi, toutes les activités que l’on voit dans les rodéos comportent des risques pour l’animal. Je me demande vraiment pourquoi ces activités ont toujours lieu dans la société d’aujourd’hui et pourquoi il y a encore des gens pour aller voir ce genre de spectacles tristes et macabres.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the talk. During last night’s debate, it was discussed that companies doing such practices with horses and cattle would use an economic argument (cost-benefit approach) to justify the continuing of their practice. Similar as the practice done in Spain for the corrida, it seems that they could also use the argument that they use the animals for meat after the rodeo to continue using the animals in such event. Are there amendments to the law in the works to prevent the use of this loophole?
ReplyDelete