Is Horse Riding Cruel? Vegan? (Rethinking the Debate That Just Won't Die)

Of all of the controversial topics I've covered,
nothing has drawn the ire of the internet

as much as questioning the ethics of horseback riding.

In the years since my first video on this
topic, I've realized a few things.

One:

horse

people

are

passionate.

And two: there’s a lot I failed to address.

In fact, I've been rethinking my approach
to this debate entirely.

So, is horse riding cruel?

It is vegan?

And is there any ethical way to ride a horse?

(cracks neck)

Let's do this

Hi, it's Emily from BiteSizeVegan.org, where
you can find all the sources for this video,

and my entire Horse Riding Ethics series.

Before we discuss whether horse riding is
cruel, I want you to think about another question entirely:

Are horses meant to be ridden?

You see, the question of whether horse riding
is cruel tends to result in heated debate

over which methods or schools of riding are
best, with riders insisting that horse riding

is not harmful if done "correctly."

Any physical or emotional harm caused by riding
horses is due to inexperienced riders, poor

use of equipment, or any other number of factors.

But all of this debate over how to ride horses
"properly" presupposes that there is an acceptable

way to use another being for our own purposes.

Even the very question of whether horse riding
is cruel risks implying that the only problem

with riding horses is whether they suffer.

The foundational ethical issue with horseback
riding isn't whether it hurts horses

—it's the presumption that they are ours to use in the first place.

That horses are meant to be ridden.

We'll explore this further throughout this
video, but I wanted to plant this seed before

we get too lost in the weeds—and before
the vast majority of YouTube viewers leave

the video entirely.

(And they're gone...)

Let's start by addressing head-on four common
arguments in defense of riding horses.

The most basic argument in the defence of riding horses is that
horses need exercise.

This also comes with the most basic refutation:
so do dogs, cats, and human children—yet

we've somehow found a way to provide such
necessary physical activity

without mounting any of them.

Yes, horses—like all animals—need exercise.

And if riding them is the only way they are
allowed to receive that exercise, then yes—it's

more beneficial than being stuck in a stall
24/7 But the choice of being ridden or receiving

no exercise at all is a human-created false dichotomy.

The reason horses even need humans to provide them with exercise

is that we have confined them in the first place.

A second argument is that riding provides
horses with an enriched environment and stimulation.

As with exercise, these are valid needs of
any living being—and fully achievable without

being mounted by a human.

Again, if horses weren’t deprived of enrichment
and stimulation by humans in the first place,

they wouldn’t need to be given enrichment
and stimulation by humans.

Now, I know I've been a bit flippant in my
responses to the first two arguments, but

I'm going to take some time on the final two
because they speak to profoundly important

dynamics in how we conceptualize our relationships with horses.

The assertion that horses enjoy being ridden
comes in many forms, but almost always starts

with "but my horse loves..." and insert: being
ridden, going to shows, wearing a bridle,

having a bit, running the barrels, and what have you.

Horse riding advocates describe how excited
their horses are when they see it's time to

go for a ride, listing behavioral signs of
enjoyment versus those indicating distress.

Rather than debate the meaning of equine body
language, let's assume—for a moment—that

a horse does show excitement about being ridden.

This excitement has to be viewed within the
context of the limitations we've placed upon the horse

What else do they have to look forward to?

When your options are staying in a stall or
getting to go outside—albeit while being

ridden—which would you choose?

Adapting to the limits of confinement is a
survival mechanism in all animals—humans included

Think of how imprisoned people find ingenious
ways to fulfill the need for social and communal

interaction, intellectual stimulation, and physical activity.

They may very well come to enjoy any time
they have outside their cell and excitedly

anticipate things that, to non-imprisoned people, seem trivial
or even unappealing.

But within the limited framework of confinement,
they adapt to stay sane.

This re-frames the issue entirely to the ethics
of domestication itself—something explored

by former horse trainer, trader, and rider
Ren Hurst in my interview with her:

Most people have no idea that the animals
they are spending time with are in an absolute

state of learned helplessness, of conditioning,
that doesn’t even allow you to experience their true nature.

What you are experiencing is like this empty shell version...
of the animal in front of you

Even if we could accurately determine consent
from other species, true consent cannot be

freely given under unequal
power dynamics and constraints.

This leads us to what I think may be the most
painful defense for riders to confront:

the love they feel for their horses, and the deep
emotional bond formed through riding.

To those of you who ride horses:
I do believe that you love them.

I do believe that you feel a deep emotional
connection to them.

And I believe that the depth of that love
is precisely what makes it so profoundly painful

to question the true nature of your relationship with them.

I also understand the resistance to having
that bond questioned by me—someone with

no background in horse riding.

So, I’ll again defer to Ren Hurst,

You have to almost experience a truly free horse…
otherwise, your perception of what

horses are and how they behave is really skewed.

This is a being you have placed in your control
and in your care, and then you call that “love.”

I mean, there’s nothing “loving” about
using someone for your own personal benefit.

That’s not a loving relationship, and it’s
not an equal relationship.

Riding horses involves using non-human animals
for entertainment, emotional fulfillment—even love.

But using someone for love is still using someone.

Now that we've touched on some of the principal
defenses for riding horses, let's explore

the main arguments against horse riding.

I'll be honest: the most common arguments
against horseback riding—which I myself

focused upon in my original video and article
on this topic—all center upon the physical

harm riding inflicts upon horses.

Yes, it's important to address the physical
consequences horses endure.

But focusing exclusively on their physical
suffering as the reason to stop riding horses

misses the greater ethical issues entirely.

Instead of questioning our use of horses in
the first place, we end up nitpicking the

appropriate terms of their exploitation: arguing
about the best and worst methods of riding,

the proper and improper use of equipment, et cetera.

It is the very same trap of all animal welfarism,
like humane, free-range, and cage-free labels.

Our right to use these beings is seen as a
foregone conclusion—the only thing we question

is the "acceptable" ways in which we can use them.

With that caveat stated, let's look at the
physical impact of horseback riding on horses

before further exploring the vegan animal rights perspective.

The short answer is yes, horse riding does hurt horses.

Now, The exact nature and degree of the harm,
the precise causality, and proposed methods

by which such harm may be mitigated is a
long-standing contentious debate

that shows no signs of resolution.

A major problem with the scientific and medical
literature is that it is conducted through

the lens of minimizing the harm of horse use
in order to prolong that use.

It is also framed within the unquestioned
constraints we've placed upon horses.

Before we get into more detail, I want to
again urge you to take a step back and think

about another question entirely: if so much
has to be done "correctly" to minimize the

harm of riding horses, and no one can actually
agree on what that "correct" formula is, and

riding horses is entirely
unnecessary in the first place—

why are we still so insistent
on doing this to them?

For the horse racing industry, the answer is clear: money.

But for the individual rider—for the horse lover—

stop to question why you feel you need to ride.

The majority of blog posts and informal articles
I came across discussing whether riding hurts

horses were written by riders.

People who obviously have concern that their actions
are adversely impacting the beings they love.

Yet those posts went on to catalog—sometimes
in extensive detail—how, exactly, to make

the riding experience as enjoyable as possible for your horse.

How to minimize injury and distress.

Some echo the journey of Ren Hurst, progressively
using less and less horse tack and adopting

more gentle methods, all in an effort to find
a justifiable way to still use horses.

So, let's follow this path and start with
the harm of horse tack.

If you’re not familiar, horse tack refers to the equipment and
accessories used on domesticated horses.

This includes things like saddles, bits, bridles, and whips.

It's worth noting that most horse tack is
made from the skin of other non-human animals,

further compounding the exploitation.

I cover the leather industry in depth in another video.

In addition to general wear and chafing, saddles
run the risk of causing vascular occlusion—meaning

the restriction of blood flow—which can,
if prolonged, lead to "necrosis of the under-lying

tissues" —meaning the horse's skin and muscles die.

Riding bareback (without a saddle) isn't the
answer, as it may actually increase the risk

of injury by putting more concentrated pressure
on a horse's back than with a saddle.

So, To avoid severe consequences such as necrosis,
much industry and scientific research goes

into designing and educating riders about
"proper" saddle fit and use.

The option of just not riding horses at all
never even enters the discussion.

Because we just have to get up on them.

I have a video covering bits,
so I’ll keep this brief.

Bits cause pain and damage to a horse’s
complex cranial nerves as well as their teeth,

tongue, and palate.

Facial nerves are very close to the skin and
thus extremely sensitive.

Bits provide a perfect example of the incremental
negotiation of acceptable exploitation that

occurs when viewing a horses' pain as the only problem.

Rather than question the domination and control
of another being, more and more riders adopt

and advocate for bitless bridles.

Then, when research hints that perhaps even
bitless bridles cause pain, there's another

school or device or approach ready to take its place.

Riding advocates emphasize that whips and
crops should not be used as punishment

—only as encouragement.

As with all horse tack, there is unending
debate over their "proper" use, with much

focus given to the potential physical and
emotional harm of misuse.

Let's pause for a moment to consider that
we're now debating the proper way to whip

a being we love.

Let's proceed.

The most widespread controversy about whips
is their use in the horse racing industry,

which I've covered in a dedicated video and article.

While the way whips are used within horse
racing differs from how they're used in non-competitive

riding, recent research into horse pain perception
from whips is applicable to the larger issues

we've been exploring.

There's a long-standing misconception that
horses have "thicker skin" than humans, and

thus, whips don't hurt them.

Not that we should need this to know better,
but research has found that this is not the case,

with a 2020 study finding "no significant
difference between humans and horses in either

the concentration of nerve endings in the
outer pain-detecting layer of skin or in the

thickness of this layer...although horse skin
is thicker overall than human skin, the part

of the skin that is thicker does not insulate
them from pain...humans and horses have the

equivalent basic anatomic structures to detect pain in the skin."

Six years before this study, one of the authors,
Paul McGreevy decided to whip himself while

taking thermographic imaging, saying: "My
view is that – because there is no evidence

to the contrary – we must assume that, just
as I felt pain and distress from the impact

of the padded whip, similar whipping in a
horse would also cause pain and distress."

While it's validating to now have the scientific
verification, I wanted to highlight McGreevy's point:

Why not assume that other sentient
beings feel pain as we do, rather than continue

to harm them unless we've proven to ourselves that it is harm?

Now that we've addressed horse tack, what about the act of riding itself?

When researching the physical harm of riding
horses, I found an astounding lack of consensus

and ongoing controversy regarding horse skeletal
maturation and growth plate closure rates,

diagnosis and treatment of injuries, and the relationship of
riding and training practices to injury rates.

Even a veterinary manual explaining "the most
common cause of back soreness in the horse"

is soft-tissue damage to the muscles and supraspinous
ligament in a horse's back, which "are strained

while the horse is being ridden" is sure to
point out that "there is considerable controversy

over the diagnosis and treatment of back problems in horses."

It’s acknowledged that "Across all equestrian
disciplines, the single largest reason for

wastage"—also euphemistically referred to
as "loss of horses"— "is musculoskeletal injury,"

Yet horse skeletal maturation rates and damage from riding
remain particularly contentious.

Many studies and sources declare horses "skeletally
mature" at 2–3 years of age based either

on the growth plates closing in their legs,
or their having reached their full height and weight.

None of these factors speak to the maturity
of their axial skeleton, which includes their

vertebral column—y'know, the part you sit
on—or even parts of the pubis that don't

fuse until 4.5–5 years of age, long after
they're already being ridden.

I spent days delving into horse skeletal development—I
even chased down findings about horse pubic

epiphyseal fusion not occurring until up to
5 years of age that were made in 1897.

Yet well over 100 years later, we're still
asking when horses are skeletally mature and

basing it off the earliest fusing plates in their limbs.

I've included more detail on my research process
and findings on the article for this video

if you want to dive deeper.

But honestly, those hundred or so hours I
spent digging only highlighted the utter insanity

of how much time, energy, and effort we humans
put into justifying our use of other animals.

In the end, the industry, scientific, medical,
and even lay-rider literature doesn't really

refute the harm of riding—it just strives
to determine the best way to reduce that harm

and prolong the use of horses.

The warring approaches to riding, endless
studies on training practices, and progressive

bargaining of using less and less tack are
all manifestations of the same incremental

negotiation of exploitation we perform with all non-human animals.

Battery cages are too cruel for layer hens,
so we give them slightly larger cages.

Still problematic?

How about a crowded shed?

Still too grim?

Let's raise backyard chickens.

We barter and bargain and give ourselves happy-sounding
labels, doing anything we can to keep using animals

—but feel good about it.

Within the horse world, a poignant example
of this mentality is the United States horse

racing industry patting itself on the back for a 23.5%
decrease in fatalities over a

decade of voluntary data collection by The Jockey Club.

Now there are going to be fatalities.

But, as The Jockey Club's senior counsel said,
the fact that slightly fewer horses died of

fatal injuries while racing "indicates that
the Thoroughbred industry's commitment to

equine safety is paying dividends."

Not only do we fail to question what we're
doing to these beings, but we actually congratulate

ourselves for being the heroes in the disasters of our own creation.

We swoop in to make their abbreviated lives
slightly less miserable—lives that we've

made abbreviated and miserable in the first place.

By this point, you can probably guess the
answer to whether horse riding is vegan.

The question "is horse riding vegan" is quite
different from the question "is horse riding cruel"

Veganism and animal rights oppose any
exploitation of sentient beings

It's evident that horses do not need to be ridden.

When a horse's basic needs are met without
being ridden, horseback riding solely benefits the rider

Whether that benefit is financial gain, entertainment,
emotional fulfillment, or even a presumed

expression of love—it is exploitation.

There is no way to take advantage of someone's
captive dependency without exploiting them.

Underlying all of the debates over the "proper"
way to train and ride horses is not only the

tacit acknowledgment that some degree of harm
is acceptable but also the deeply entrenched

and unquestioned presumption that horses are ours to use.

Confronting the exploitation of horse use is—I'm sure—profoundly painful.

It's likely as traumatic as confronting what
we do to animals in the food industry—and

elicits just as strong defenses and justifications,
even from vegans who continue to ride.

Again, I will encourage those of you who ride
horses to ask yourself: why?

Why do you insist on doing this to them?

As much as I'm sure you love them, is this
how you express love for any other being in your life?

This isn’t about shame—it’s about learning
to love horses truly unconditionally, and

allowing them to be their full selves outside
of the constraints of who we need them to be.

I'll be honest—revisiting the ethics of
horse riding has been an exhausting, challenging,

and somewhat maddening experience.

My hope is that this video will reach
those of you who are still riding—and

that you'll find a way to work through your defenses and take an
honest look at your relationship with horses.

I highly recommend watching my interview with
Ren Hurst—hearing from someone who has been

where you are is no doubt more
powerful than anything I can say.

Please share this video with others who ride.

And, as much as I joked about "passionate feedback,"
I do want to hear from you in the comments.

What are your thoughts on the ethics of horse riding?

To stay in the loop about new Bite Size Vegan
content and updates, subscribe to the newsletter

or follow the Telegram channel for the most
reliable notifications.

Just click Subscribe at BiteSizeVegan.org.

Now go live vegan, and I'll see you soon.