WELFARE WATCH

A study earlier this month reported oral lesions in almost half of upper level dressage horses inspected at a competition. What is perhaps more troubling than this fact alone, is that this number was not typical of what inspections ordinarily find. The difference? These inspections are normally announced.

The question the Danish researchers were looking to answer was actually whether there is a link between how much horses open their mouths during a test and the presence of lesions (wounds in the mouth). Not only that, but would the horses display other behavioural signs of discomfort too?

In order to answer this, 11 of the 22 horses entered at Intermediare I level were randomly chosen for inspection immediately following their test. Of these 11 horses, five of them had oral lesions. That’s almost half of those inspected!

Independently of these inspections, a researcher with access to video footage of the horses’ tests scored each horse for several behavioural signs of discomfort including mouth opening, tail swishing, and hyperreactivity (e.g. spooking).

Notably, this scoring was carried out “blind”, which means the researcher watching the video footage did not know which horses had lesions in their mouths. This is really important. Imagine if you were observing a horse and knew that the one you’re currently watching has a mouth full of wounds. It would be incredibly difficult not to expect signs of discomfort or not to fixate on that horse’s mouth.

Despite the small sample size, there was a clear and significant statistical relationship between how often the horses opened their mouths during the test and the presence of lesions in their mouths immediately after.

Under Danish Equestrian Federation rules, oral lesions lead to disqualification. So, following the inspections, the five horses with lesions were indeed eliminated. Now you’re probably wondering, is this normal? Was it always the case that 50% of inspections lead to disqualification?! And, of course, the answer is no. So… why not?

There are a few things that made these inspections different. The first is that they were carried out after the tests and not before. This may lead you to think that these mouth injuries are being caused by the riders during the test. But the researchers (who are also vets) tell us that this isn’t the case.

The lesions found in these horses’ mouths appear to be consistent with pressure wounds caused over a long period of time.

In other words, these horses are regularly ridden in such a way as to cause ulcers in their mouths that do not fully heal.

Another difference the researchers point out is that inspections are ordinarily announced before they are carried out. This gives riders a chance to withdraw if they know or suspect that their horse has oral lesions.

It is incredibly difficult to track down the data on previous events to say if more people do indeed withdraw when an inspection is announced. I for one would be interested (or horrified) to know if riders knowingly bring their chronically injured horses to a competition, fully intending to ride them, as long as no one announces an inspection.

And then there’s an even more cynical view to consider. The one the researchers didn’t voice in their paper: what if it’s not the riders pre-emptively withdrawing? What if it’s actually inspectors routinely letting horses with oral lesions slip through? Would that actually be a surprise to any of us?

This study was carried out in Denmark, but oral lesions and dressage horses are not strangers to one another and there is plenty more research out there hinting at the scale of this problem.

There is a long list of things we could be doing to improve the situation and clearly how inspections are carried out - and perhaps by whom - may be part of that equation.

Training practices and equipment use (and fit) is of course another area that needs improvement. For example, tight nosebands have been linked to higher incidences of oral lesions. Another suggestion is for judges to take behaviour more seriously in their scores. But subtle signs of pain have become so normalised in the horse world, let alone in the tension-filled performances of upper-level dressage horses, that it is difficult to imagine where to begin.

And that brings us to the final realisation from this study, and one that I find deeply saddening: these horses, despite the undeniable pain they were in, showed few other outward signs of their suffering.

There was no detectable correlation between the lesions in their mouths and the other behavioural indicators of discomfort. They didn’t swish their tails more than the rest or put up a fight. There was no “hyperreactivity”.

When riders are taught as children that a horse can never be “allowed to win”, where a horse’s misstep is met with punishment, and even surgical manipulation isn’t off-limits for a ribbon, it’s difficult not to recoil at how we have silenced the voices of these animals.

How can we ever hope to speak for them, if we've conditioned ourselves not to listen?

Dr Dee Mamuneas is a lifelong equestrian and horse trainer with a PhD in animal behaviour. She encourages horse lovers to explore kinder approaches to horsemanship that put welfare first. She advocates species-appropriate management practices, champions the individuality of horses and their humans, and promotes horse-friendly training methods. Dr Mamuneas is also the co-founder of Good Horse (www.good-horse.com), a website that promotes effective and ethical approaches to horsemanship.