Not from fear alone. If a horse collapses there’s something more than “I’m a little tired” or “I don’t know this human” involved. But the only source I hear for the horse collapsing (so far) is the prosecutor. I’d trust it more if it came from a caretaker. As for overheating - on the video I saw there was a horse that had been run, breathing heavily, that was being held in place rather than walked to cool down, which is what should be done with a horse after exertion. That is less on Hollingsworth and more on those having custody of the horse after he was arrested, who may have failed to act out of ignorance.
Really? Because the job of a prosecutor is to prosecute, not say what a nice guy the accused is.
Oh, I agree - riding down the Dan Ryan with his horse like that was wrong. I do not, however, want to see the horse killed because the owner did something wrong. If the horse as determined by an impartial vet needs to be put down that’s dreadful but one of those things we just need to deal with. If a prosecutor wants an injured horse that can recover killed to punish the owner that terrible.
Yes, the article was already posted and I read it. On what basis is the prosecutor - who is presumably not a veterinarian - saying that? I don’t doubt the horse was injured, what I question is whether or not it was injured to the point of needing to be killed.
It’s not like I have the full court transcript, but I would have to assume the prosecutor got his information from someone who actually examined the horse.
You realize that the prosecutor presented the shelter’s report to the judge who set bail, right? The judicial system requires evidence.
“The horse doesn’t know it was part of a protest,” the judge said. “The horse only knows how it was treated. And … it appears that treatment was criminal.”
The report didn’t come from the prosecutor. It came from the police, who got it from the shelter. While I hope we’re able to see the shelter report, I’m doubtful the shelter lied.
Gee, I really thought their job was to compliment the accused. Of course the prosecutor isn’t going to say what a nice guy Hollingsworth is. (And I think Hollingsworth probably is a nice guy.) The job of a prosecutor is to determine whether there’s enough evidence to arrest someone and bring him to trial. That’s his job. If he does that by making up shit or exaggerating merely to make the guy look guilty (and potentially poisoning the jury pool, which would defeat his purpose), it’ll come out at trial. Hollingsworth’s attorney will see to that.
Oh, for pity’s sake. Look, I know the role corruption and politics can play into these incidents, but there’s no sense in putting down a horse merely to punish the owner, and the prosecutor doesn’t make that determination. The shelter’s veterinarian will. If you want to assume that a veterinarian will recommend killing an animal to punish its owner, you’ve lost me.
Information regarding animals slated for euthanasia, along with the basis for the euthanasia request, must be entered into the animal’s record in Chameleon [the agency’s software program]…Information regarding animals slated for euthanasia must be entered into Chameleon by the Shelter Manager or a Staff Veterinarian, who must print out and sign the euthanasia report.
Note that Hollingsworth’s attorneysdid not dispute the horse’s condition and only claimed that a) the motorcycles protected the horse b) saddle sores are common and c) not all experts believe horseshoes are needed on pavement. (Though from my research, it appears experts universally believe that horses galloped on pavement definitely need horseshoes.) Nothing about the other injuries or the horse’s state of exhaustion. And if the attorney could have claimed the injuries weren’t serious, he would have.
I’m assuming, too, that if Hollingsworth’s attorney doubts the shelter is acting in good faith, he’d raise that, too.
The shame about all this is that Hollingsworth’s abuse of his horse put the focus on that and not the underfunded, underrepresented children he was advocating for. And yes, that’s on him.
I tend not to trust prosecutors. It’s their job to get convictions, after all, and in Chicago they’ve been known to fudge.
No, I don’t “realize” that because the article linked did not say what the source of information about the horse was obtained. I was not in the court room. Hence, I wanted to know - not assume or suppose, but know - where the prosecutor got his information.
Oh, now you want me to trust the prosecutor AND the Chicago Police? I lived in Chicago for 20 years and the police were NOT the first people I was inclined to call in an emergency. Far too many of my husband’s cop buddy’s would brag about how they broke the law and got away with it, set people up, and so forth.
If the police where you live are better behaved then bravo.
Depends on Hollingsworth’s attorney - if he’s landing in the Public Defender pool it sucks to be him. I’d like to think that a man who has the means to own a horse also has the means to hire a good lawyer. Or maybe someone will start a Go Fund Me for him. For damn sure, though, the prosecutor is well paid and an expert at what he does.
Nope, I don’t think the shelter will recommend putting down an animal unless it’s necessary but no, I don’t trust the people running Chicago not to jerk people around, up to and including destroying a possession that also happens to be a living creature. Maybe things have gotten better since I moved out, although I haven’t seen much of that.
From the Sun-Times article which does have more information:
Authorities found the horse collapsed on the pavement near 95th Street Monday,
Really? “Collapsed ON the pavement”? I saw people holding the horse on the grass beside the pavement, taking its saddle off, all those people and not one image posted on line of this animal “collapsed”?
This is a fairly close up picture of the horse in question. I can see the sweaty part of its back where the saddle rested, but I’m not seeing an abundance of sores. The horse is also holding it’s head in a normal position, not hanging down as I would expect from a completely exhausted animal.
Here is another view of the horse. I looks like someone washed down his legs/feet. We do know the animal did have some sort of injury that bled and that’s not good, but I’m not seeing much of that here. Again, I’m not seeing the lowered head I’d expect from a completely exhausted horse, and in this view you can see that there is a saddlepad which is fairly standard for preventing saddlesores.
I suppose the animal could have passed out a second after those pictures were taken and started gushing blood, it certainly could have had a serious foot or leg injury not immediately apparent, but these pictures seem, to me, to be at odds with a description of a horse that was “collapsed” on the pavement.
The horse, coerced to run seven miles without horseshoes, also had sores beneath its saddle, which wasn’t properly padded, the prosecutor said.
If the horse is not in condition then yes, cantering 7 miles non-stop might be too much, and certainly doing so on pavement while caring a rider, while barefoot, is probably a very, very bad idea. It could also possibly contribute to saddle-sores if the animal is not used to running with that saddle and the rider isn’t used to taking that level of friction into account.
On the other hand Hollingsworth has ridden horses on the streets of Chicago before, so it sort of baffles me how this one wound up in such horrible shape. I could speculate, but do you really want to hear it?
Again, yesterday I could only find the one article on line and it had very little information in it. I find it disturbing how many people react with hostility when someone inquires about the source of information. I absolutely am an animal and horse lover, but that doesn’t mean I stop asking questions.
The motorcycles probably did provide a buffer between the horse and other motorized traffic. I very much doubt it was enough but that claim is not automatically false. Saddle sores, as I’ve already said, aren’t that unusual. You’ve got the horse moving and the saddle moving. A responsible owner does everything he or she can to minimize all that, but yes, they do happen even with the most responsible of riders, the best-fitted tack, and so on. I’m not there and I don’t have a vet report, but a lot depends on how extensive they are. They can range from “minor blister” to, horribly, “bedsore down the bone” extremes (unfortunately, I have seen the scars from the latter). Where on that spectrum this horse falls I don’t know.
And very much yes, horses cantering (it was NOT a gallop - that would have been about twice as fast and a different gait) on pavement absolutely should have shoes. Any horse even walking alot on pavement. Any horse pulling a load on pavement. That’s why horse shoes were invented: to protect the hooves of working horses.
There is a movement out there about foregoing horseshoes for a more “natural” horse… which works if your horse is only walking on soft ground, is never asked to carry much of a load, isn’t a pulling anything… as I said, horse shoes date back to the Bronze age, and there’s a reason they’ve been used for thousands of years. It’s not to be mean to the horses or to lighten the purse of the owners.
If the horse was fine but had still been cantered on pavement I would say there is still an argument there for neglect and needlessly risking the health of the horse, I do feel that strongly about horse hooves and pavement. Split hooves, cut frogs (the soft part of the food), bruised tissues… a lot of bad can happen to a horse’s feet and legs on hard ground/stone/pavement.
I still wonder just how bad off the animal actually is, though. Not that we’re ever likely to have definitive information about it. I do know, though, that a lot of people really don’t know much about horses, people like reporters, so yes, I do tend to question what I read a lot.
I lived in Chicago for 20 years as well–actually the suburbs, but still Cook County. My father was a lawyer who served on the bench for several years, and Chicago politics were a frequent topic of dinner table discussions. As I’ve said a couple of times now, I’m very aware of the corruption. I’m not asking you to automatically trust the police nor the prosecutors. I don’t: I was raised to look objectively at both sides of every case. That means neither blindly accepting nor condemning the prosecution. I saw the bleeding hoof. I’ve seen photos that the horse was not wearing horseshoes. I’ve read what happens to horses ridden at a gallop on pavement. And I know from previous research that driving too slowly on an expressway is very dangerous.
I couldn’t find Hollingsworth’s attorney’s name, but she most likely is not a public defender. Happily, he has over $86,000 in his GoFundMe account, with money pouring in every hour. It’s not hard to check for a GoFundMe account. I’m surprised you didn’t bother.
You seem absolutely determined to prove that the horse suffered no debilitating injuries. You can’t find a photo of the horse collapsing on the pavement, so you present one photo and say it doesn’t show anything much. Did you see any photos of the bleeding hoof? I did. It was not a mere trickle of blood.
But I’m done. I’m getting messages from Discourse telling me I’ve replied to you three times and should get others involved in the conversation. Until there’s more evidence, there’s no sense in continuing to argue.
It wouldn’t be out of line, or asking too much to have the horse looked over by a third party. And IMO, if Mr. Hollingsworth actually drove this horse to its death, then he should pay, and he should be banned from ever even looking at horses until his dying day.
I’ve read the Sun Times report linked above, and it seems to not be in dispute that the horse was not shoed. I’m not a horse expert, so I don’t even know if my previous sentence was phrased properly. But no horseshoes? Again, not a horse guy, but that puts the highway treck in a new, wildly inappropriate light.
Horse people: No shoes? That’s a thing?
I saw the video of blood - technically it was on the coronary band or pastern, which are above the hoof. Could it have been serious? Yes. Also not-so-serous. As I have said, I worked at a stable for several years, horses do get cuts. No way to know how bad it is from the pictures available.
Well, he didn’t gallop it on the pavement. That was very much a canter, when he wasn’t trotting or even just walking. A gallop would have been even more damaging than a canter, it’s twice the speed, and a lot more stress and impact on the feet.
Yes, I do get annoyed when people continually use the wrong terms when discussing something. Especially when I have taken some effort to explain the difference.
I’m glad to hear that Mr. Hollingsworth has decent legal representation and will be able to pay legal funds. No, I didn’t bother - how Mr. Hollingsworth pays for his legal bills is more or less not my business.
No. I’ve been pretty clear that I’m concerned about foot and leg injuries from cantering on pavement. Those could doom a horse. I am also concerned that false impression be countered.
I presented one photo because I couldn’t get the others I saw to post correctly, or they were videos (with a similar problem). If the horse had collapsed, though, I’d expect to see a photo of same if it occurred “on the pavement”. If it happened later at the shelter, no, I wouldn’t expect to see it but so far no one has claimed that, the statement I heard was “on the pavement”.
Yes, I saw the photo and video of blood on the horse’s foot. Yes, it was more than a nick. On the other hand, from some accounts I’ve heard you’d expect a geyser of gore or something. I want truth, not exaggeration.
IF the injury was to the actual hoof and it split badly enough to bleed that high on the foot - then the horse will most likely be put down. I doubt the horse in this case is a valuable enough animal to attempt to repair that, it would be a very serious injury.
So… hoping it’s just a bad cut.
^ I agree entirely with this post.
As I said up thread - since the Bronze Age working horses, especially on hard ground, stone, or pavement, have been shoed whenever possible. It protects the hooves from injury. (You can also get horse shoes with cleats for extra traction - when I used to work at a stable we would get those for horses used on winter trail rides to give them more traction on slick ground and ice. Much safer for all involved.)
As I also said - IF your horse is only on soft ground, IF it’s not being asked to do heavy work, IF you don’t ride your horse fast/hard/long… yes, barefoot can be OK. You have to watch carefully for injuries. If a hoof starts to split or something of the sort you may wind up shoeing your horse while it heals. If you have horses that are more pets than riding animals and they are on soft ground/turf, yes, barefoot is OK.
Notice all the “ifs”.
Even on soft ground it’s best if a working horse has shoes because horses didn’t evolve to do that sort of thing, they evolved to carry only themselves, not another creature or to pull a cart or logs or a plow or whatever.
An article in the Chicago Tribune sheds a little (but not a lot) more light on who’s been caring for the horse (and, I would imagine, making the assessments on its condition). Since it’s probably paywalled, here’s the relevant section:
In the second picture, look at his hind legs. He has a lot of filling in the right hind, the one he’s resting. The pastern (ankle area) is parallel to the ground. That’s extremely abnormal and indicates major issues. His whole hind end looks problematic and he looks like he’s tying up to me.
Then you should be using “lope” not “canter” since the horse was in western tack. “Canter” is for horses in english tack. It’s not just semantics, there’s a difference in how the horse should travel.
Wildly off-topic hijack, but what the hell … this fascinated me! Is the horse responding naturally to some difference in how the tack allows them to move, or do they have to be trained specifically to lope vs. canter?
Can they do both? Is it like being bilingual, sorta?
I don’t consider myself a horse expert, but I did have one try to kill me once. My grandmother had 2 horses when I was growing up. One adult, one pony. I went to ride the pony once (as we had all done before), and after about 20-30 seconds, it stopped, laid down, and proceeded to start rolling over and over. I had jumped off when it laid down, otherwise I think I would have had some severe internal injuries.
The canter actually exists on a spectrum - the equivalent in humans of a jog to a slow run. The lope is on the slow end of the canter, what’s usually meant by an unqualified “canter” is faster. (For more technical stuff, there is also a “collected canter” which is as slow as the lope but has some small differences. It’s used in jumping events where you don’t want a lot of speed or long strides between jumps, but you do want the horse moving and ready to jump. This is different from the lope, which is intended more as a way to cover ground at an efficient speed with the horse more relaxed and with a longer stride than a collected canter)
Yes, all horses are capable of these gaits and speeds, on their own just running around a field then may use all of them, and can be trained to produce them on command. The particular type of tack used in English vs. Western riding does not impair them from using any of these gaits, although both training and habit has an effect. Western style riding does use the lope, but Western horses certainly can and do canter at a higher speed, sometimes called a “working canter” by English riders.
A lope/collected canter is closer to the equivalent of a jog. A canter is more of a moderate run. A gallop ranges from a sprint to an OMG-something-is-going-eat-me-RUN-RUN-FOR-YOUR-LIFE!!! In general, the faster a horse is going the more likely it is to suffer injury. That’s why, outside of racing, a canter is generally preferred to a full gallop.
The big problem here is that a trained horse will do what the rider asks even if that is fatal for the horse. A horse without a rider on hard ground or pavement will, unless startled, keep to a walk, maybe a few steps at a trot, because that kind of terrain isn’t comfortable. He goes “ow, that hurts” and stops doing the hurty thing. With a rider, though, the horse will do what he’s told, even if it hurts. He’ll keep running even if his own preference is to stop. We’ve bred them to be obedient and they are. Even if it kills them.
Mules and donkeys are a different story - they’re far more likely to say “Nope, not gonna do it, screw you.” Hence their reputation for being “stubborn”.
Shod, not shoed. Shoes are not required. Depends on the hooves, what discipline you’re riding, the footing/terrain. My OTTB is barefoot with no problems.
Part of my training was on an OTTB. He was getting up there in years - was in his 20’s when I was riding - but a magnificent animal. Unusually calm for a Thoroughbred, or perhaps he was old enough to have seen and done everything at the farm/stable. We could start beginner riders on him, although he had so thoroughly learned all the lessons and tests that we had to be careful the horse wasn’t doing all the work (we also had to stop allowing tests on him - he had them all memorized. This was proven when he was taken out to a ring without a rider, the instructor called out “Beginner Test” or “Intermediate Test” or whatever and he’d go through the entire routine without a rider, without making a mistake).
Yes, we covered that before - shoes may or may not be necessary depending on various factors but as a general rule any horse going fast than a walk, and certainly faster than a trot, on pavement is better off with shoes than without, especially if carrying a person or pulling a load. There may be exceptions, but they’re exceptions.
A horse with healthy, hard hooves on turf or trails can go barefoot with no problem, usually. YMMV.
Update: Mayor Lightfoot stated at a press conference today that the horse was put on an IV at the shelter the night it was confiscated and that the horse’s health is now improving. So… not sure exactly. Sounds like yes, the horse might have been severely dehydrated (although you can’t let an overheated horse drink immediately without problems). Sounds like maybe the horse doesn’t need to be put down? You’d think if that was necessary it would have been done already.
Of course the prosecutor isn’t going to say what a nice guy Hollingsworth is. (And I think Hollingsworth probably is a nice guy.) The job of a prosecutor is to determine whether there’s enough evidence to arrest someone and bring him to trial. That’s his job. If he does that by making up shit or exaggerating merely to make the guy look guilty (and potentially poisoning the jury pool, which would defeat his purpose), it’ll come out at trial. Hollingsworth’s attorney will see to that.
