Scenario

Consider a prominent international organisation that has global leadership and regulatory roles in a well-known area of competitive activity involving animals. Participants are members of a global elite, lauded and applauded for their mastery of the exceptional animals they use in their sports activities, some at Olympic levels. Others, not the primary focus here, are raced and are a vehicle for gambling[1,2]. When successful, all such animals are regarded as elite and attract very high sale prices.

The office bearers of the organisation include the following: those who are major funders of its activities; those who have direct international experience of the competitions they regulate; those whose professional expertise relates to the perceived specific needs of the animals; and those who have had direct and extensive hands-on experience of training the animals to compete and keeping them fit to do so.

Historically, these animals have been used for a wide range of human purposes, including warfare, dating back to the Iron Age. They are therefore managed by deeply embedded traditional methods, which are regarded by users as essential for their success. However, throughout the history of their use, until recently, the animals were subordinated to the status of mere unfeeling instruments to achieve each desired human purpose. It is now widely accepted that much of their earlier treatment was brutal. One Iron Age management practice of concern persists to this day.

There has been a progression away from brutality towards more acceptable methods, using as a benchmark more recent scientific knowledge. There is now the clear-cut recognition that these and other such animals can have very unpleasant experiences and suffer as a result. However, acceptance of serious welfare concerns highlighted by the latest scientific understanding has been impeded by the continuing mandatory use of traditional methods and their comfortable familiarity, both fuelling a very strong reluctance to modify or replace them.

Support for this resistance has commonly been sought by reprising the traditional justifications that were advanced for the use of these methods in the first place. In addition, and importantly, the elite participants at the top of these activities have achieved their influence, competitive status and wealth using the methods now identified as requiring modification or replacement. It is apparent that these factors underlie a strong desire to retain the status quo, supported by office bearers in the international regulatory organisation charged with global leadership for these competitions.

During the last 30 or more years, understanding of animal welfare, and especially the fact that sentient animals can have both negative and positive experiences that matter to them, has been demonstrated and validated scientifically. Negative experiences matter because they indicate that the animals can suffer when exposed to specific stimuli; and positive experiences because they indicate that, given the right circumstances, animals can engage in pleasurable activities. Thus, good welfare standards now require both that negative experiences be minimised and that opportunities be available for animals to have positive experiences.

Regrettably, many of the most influential participants in, and the international regulatory guardians of these competitions, learnt their craft when the science of animal welfare was in its infancy. At that stage, it was widely held that animals are not sentient or, if they are, that their sentience could not be studied scientifically. Accordingly, elements of suffering, such as pain, fear and panic, were given only cursory attention, and the signs of their presence were often not recognized. During the last two decades, advances in brain and other neurosciences have demonstrated unequivocally that these animals are sentient, and therefore can suffer when having any one or more of a wide range of negative experiences.

Unfortunately, therefore, many of the participants and regulatory guardians of these competitions retain an outdated understanding of the welfare of their animals. Despite their own out-of-date understanding, they claim success in their overriding objective of maintaining the highest standards of welfare at all stages of their animals’ preparation for, and participation in, competitive events. At the same time, they demonstrably resist well researched and validated initiatives to reduce suffering caused by the continuing use of the scientifically challenged practices.

This resistance has been apparent when the international regulatory guardians of these animals have been approached on numerous occasions by world renowned animal welfare and behavioural scientists, and by other experts, with well-founded serious concerns about some of the methods used. To say the least, the guardians’ responses have been disappointing. As noted, they claim to have animal welfare as their top priority, a statement aimed at retaining public support for the competitive activities they regulate, i.e., to safeguard their Social License to Operate. However, it is hard not to conclude that they seek to deceive the public into believing all is well by downplaying any need for corrective actions based on the latest, validated animal welfare science understanding.

Deception? Is that too harsh? Let us see.

The Seven Pillars of Deception:

Delay, Divert, Discredit, Discard, Deny, Dissemble, Distort

These Pillars represent the various, often overlapping, strategies deployed by the above international guardians when responding to a range of corrective welfare-focused actions, recommended by experts with international standing and/or by organisations well informed by them. This is of concern, because trust is damaged when deception occurs.

Delay

Responses to submissions are delayed for weeks or months, replies sometimes being sent only after written reminders. With submissions having time limitations due to meeting schedules, non-committal responses arrive just before the meetings, leaving inadequate time for follow up queries and/or to provide further submissions.

Divert

The organisation selectively diverts attention away from rigorously demonstrated sources of the signs of pain, fear and panic, towards published misinterpretations of their origins, to avoid taking authenticated, but inconvenient and/or costly, welfare-focused remedial actions. Also, submissions on equipment having negative welfare impacts that are scheduled to be discussed at meetings to evaluate animal welfare concerns, are diverted to an equipment group that does not evaluate animal welfare issues. The apparent primary purpose of these tactics is to delay taking any action to address the noted animal welfare concerns.

Discredit and Discard

Members of the organisation seek to discredit bona fide scientific findings, or internationally recognised scientists; this via unfounded derogatory remarks demonstrating a willed ignorance of the quality, rigour and relevance of the scientific work. The clear purpose is to provide a spurious justification to discard consideration of that work and those scientists’ recommendations.

Deny

They claim there is no, or insufficient, research to support the existence of the specified welfare problems and recommended solutions which are highlighted in key submissions. At the same time, they ignore the accompanying extensive high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific reports. The primary purpose of this denial is to delay taking any meaningful action. Another delaying tactic is to claim that new research projects have been initiated to provide definitive results on matters of contention. Few, if any details are provided of the precise focus of these projects, their timing or funding. In a further act of denial, none of the recognised experts who made the original submissions are asked to contribute advice to guarantee rigorous designs of the proposed definitive studies. It is hard not to conclude that their so-called ‘definitive’ studies are designed to uncritically support the status quo, and to be used for ‘welfare washing’.

Dissemble

Dissembling is apparent when the guardian organisation erects spurious obstacles which are intended to prevent welfare-relevant evidence being presented in person to key committees. This clearly serves an apparent desire of those committees to continue to use their misconceived justification for discarding the evidence.

Distort

To operate in these ways is a distortion of the ‘Principle of Right Action’ and thwarts the expectation that ‘Ethical Behaviour’ will be adopted by all members of this global organisation. Interestingly, an independent advisory commission on ethics and welfare that operated for a short time was disbanded by the organisation, and so has no continuing role.

Now ask yourself if deception is too harsh a charge.

How much could you trust such an organisation?

Footnotes:

[1] See: Thoroughbred Horse Welfare Challenges: From Rape to Relegation. Horses and People, 2024.

[2] See: Improving Sports’ Horse Welfare: A Way Forward. Horses and People, 2024.