Equine ethics

Axel Kahn is one of the personalities involved in promoting more ethical relations with horses.

According to the definition provided by the Swiss National Stud Farm, ethics towards horses means questioning human behavior towards animals, in order to "decide in good conscience what is right and what is wrong, and to act accordingly".[1] It aims to treat horses with respect for their dignity and well-being, while ensuring the usefulness and use expected of them by human beings. This responsibility rests first and foremost with those who are in direct contact with horses (jockeys, owners, breeders, grooms, therapists, etc.). It also includes reflection on the orientation of breeding practices, for example, in the case of the selection of hypertypes.[2]

In order to be ethical, a practice or constraint must respect the dignity of the horse.[1] This is only the case "if any restraint is justified by overriding interests", meaning that the restraint imposed on the horse and the interests are weighed against each other.[1] If the hardship inflicted on the animal outweighs the interests of the parties involved, it can be defined as abusive.[1] Ethics towards the horse involves "acquiring knowledge about the animal, developing sensitivity to the dangers horses face, refusing to let ambition and economic interests take over, and respecting the animal's natural aptitudes".[3] According to Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer, the horse is one of those animals for which the scientific world recognizes the possibility of suffering.[4] It is often taken as an example of animal suffering.[4] According to geneticist and ethicist Axel Kahn, "a horse's stress is similar to ours. They feel well, they feel unwell."[5] Horses have always enjoyed a special status among domestic animals, as their use is generally other than for food.[6] However, the living conditions imposed on them by humans - usually in a stall and alone - are very different from those they enjoy in their natural state.[6]

Weighing up the various interests involved in ethical reflection makes it possible to analyze the many ways in which horses are treated. For example, branding, which used to be used to identify horses, has been justified only by advertising and marketing since the widespread use of microchips. This is why it has been banned in Germany.[7] The shaving of a horse's vibrissae is also considered unethical, since it is justified solely by aesthetic considerations, and causes the horse suffering due to the loss of sensory organs.[1]

The former (farmers) see the end of the life of plants and animals as the normal culmination of a production cycle, yet many of them keep a work horse for a long time, even if it is no longer useful and profitable. As for urban people - with a few differences between Anglo-Saxons and Latins - they refuse to eat horse meat, but feel no remorse at eating chicken, poisoning a rat or feeding their dog with, perhaps unknowingly, canned horse imported from South America.

— Haras National Suisse

Defining what is and isn't acceptable for the horse runs up against cultural biases: depending on each people's relationship with horses and their personal history, some practices will be considered unacceptable by some, while others will find them acceptable.[8] The rural exodus and the globalization of equestrian and equine sports pose the problem of finding a consensus.[8] A large number of equestrian practices are deemed unethical, including the use of a harsh bit, the riding crop, training methods such as rollkur and poling, the use of electric shocks and the domination of the horse by force.[8]

Pony with a prosthetic leg.

Before the notion of animal ethics was born, certain uses of horses were condemned by religious morality. In the 2nd century, Tertullian denounced the "demonic" use of the animal during circus games, deeming it a sin for Christians.[9] Christianity, then Western philosophers, placed the horse at the service of mankind: according to Éric Baratay, "18th-century clerics were convinced that the horse was designed to carry man, the dog to give him affection, the foliage of trees to protect him from the sun in summer, and so on". The horse has a positive connotation, but Catholic religious morality condemns the act of giving it a burial, an act considered pagan.[10] In India, dharma acts as a kind of code of ethics, promoting non-violent behavior towards animals. Siddhartha Gautama forbade his followers to see an animal slaughtered, and to consume the two "royal animals", the elephant and the horse.[11] Moralistic notions of the right way to treat animals do not take into account the pain they may feel. Whether religious or social, this conception persisted until the 1970s.[8]

Montaigne was skeptical of man's alleged "rational" superiority over animals.[12] Against his position, Descartes developed the notion of the animal machine, devoid of reason and speech.[13] Kant considers that "animals are not conscious of themselves, and are therefore only means to an end [man]".[14] Spinoza, on the other hand, recognizes that animals possess "a mind" and express certain feelings:

"Horse and man, it's true, are both driven by the desire to procreate; but one is a horse's desire, and the other a man's desire. Likewise desires and appetites of insects, fish and birds must each be different each time."

— Spinoza, Éthique

Similarly, in opposition to Cartesian thought, Jean Meslier writes:

"Tell some peasants that their cattle have no life or feelings, that their cows and horses, their sheep and lambs, are only blind machines insensitive to evil, and that they only walk by spring like machines, and like puppets without seeing or perceiving where they are going. They will certainly laugh at you."

— Jean Meslier, Testament

Michel Onfray analyzes it as one of the first known anti-speciesist texts. Similarly, for Meslier, an open atheist, man and horse are made of the same stuff: "what the horse is, man is too; what he has been and what he will be after his death too".[15]

The utilitarian doctrine of the 19th century called into question the ethical status of the horse, leading to a profound renewal of Western thought. Jeremy Bentham recognizes that horses have reasoning abilities superior to those of human babies, and above all, the ability to suffer:

"An adult horse or dog is an incomparably more rational animal, and also more talkative, than a child of a day or a week, or even a month. However, supposing otherwise, what use would it be to us? The question is not: can they reason? Nor: can they speak? The question is: Can they suffer?"

— Jeremy Bentham

According to Alberto Bondolfi, the importance of this text is crucial for ethical relations with animals, as it makes pain the ethical criterion of judgment for the first time.[16] At the time, consideration for the service rendered "by an old dog or an old horse" was considered a "human duty".[17] As Éric Baratay reminds us, from the second half of the 19th century onwards, farmers were keeping their old work horses "retired" until their natural death, rather than slaughtering them.[18] They rejected hippophagy, not for religious reasons, but because they "couldn't imagine eating their fellow workers".[19]

Animal ethics, as a branch of philosophy, developed mainly in English-speaking countries during the 1970s, notably with the publication of Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.[20] Since the end of the 20th century, it has accompanied major changes in the place occupied by the horse in Western society:[21]

"Once an agricultural livestock and a virile military symbol [...], the horse has conquered female and urban circles, gaining the status of a pet with which to converse and to which to bestow feelings."

— Haras National Suisse

A growing number of riders claim to love their horses, but anthropomorphism is common.[22] According to Baratay, the horse has become the animal "that's not in the house", a symbol of nature and an ambassador for the younger generation.[18] Jean-Pierre Digard underlines the intensification of the debate, gradually shifting from the notion of "animal protection" (conceived as a human duty) to that of "animal rights", then "animal liberation".[23] Émilie De Cooker notes "a recent evolution in morals towards greater concern for the welfare of horses", which leads to these reflections on equestrian ethics. She believes we need to "formalize these new sensitivities".[24] New questions are emerging, calling into question the use of reins and the relationship with the death of horses.[21]

The ethical debate arrived in Germany with the revelation that the famous trainer Paul Schockemöhle subjected his show jumping horses to poling, prompting the German Equestrian Federation to issue its first ethical principles in the 1990s.[25] Animal ethics came late to the French debate. The humanist heritage has led to a strong anthropocentrism, with the conviction that animals and the environment are at the service of human beings. French-speaking veterinarians and academics have taken an increasing interest in this debate since the beginning of the 21st century.[20] In 2011, the Swiss National Stud considers that equestrian ethics has taken "an important place".[21]

The belief that ethical considerations lead to advances in respect for horse welfare is largely false.[8] In fact, these advances are almost exclusively achieved through the demands of activists and the general public.[8] In 1991, the Association Éthique du Cheval was founded in Lille by a dozen riders, aiming to combat hippophagy.[26] In 2009, the French Equestrian Federation published the "Charte d'éthique des équipes de France d'équitation", stipulating that "riders must respect and care for their horses".[27] Axel Kahn, former president of Paris-Descartes University, is involved in this debate, notably through the creation of a university diploma incorporating these notions, effective since January 2016.[28] It was also in 2015 that Vincent Boureau, a behaviorist veterinarian, created the "Equi-Ethic" think tank.[29]

The Swiss Federation of Equestrian Sports (FSSE) examined the issue of ethics in equestrian sports in 2008. A multidisciplinary debate was launched in 2009, involving breeders, equine owners and leisure riders. The conclusion was a need for information, communication and knowledge transfer.[2] In 2008, Swiss law introduced the notion of "animal dignity", defined as "the inherent value of the animal that man must respect in his relations with it". It calls into question actions that "cause pain, suffering or damage, place the horse in a state of anxiety, degrade it, subject it to interventions that profoundly modify its phenotype or capacities, or instrumentalize it in an excessive manner".[30] The notion of "degradation of the animal" is defined as "the fact of mechanizing, ridiculing or representing the animal as a lifeless thing, as an object".[31] This led to the banning of vibrissae shaving, hyperflexion (or rollkur), martingales in show jumping competitions, and poling in Switzerland, in 2014 and 2015.[2]

The Fédération Équestre du Québec has adopted a "Code of Ethics" that includes recommendations for dealing with horses, who should be treated with "the kindness, respect and compassion they deserve".[32] However, the Galahad Association believes that Quebec regulations lag far behind those in Switzerland.[33] Similarly, Cheval Savoir magazine has pointed out that France lags behind Switzerland in terms of equine protection.[34]

In 2010, Australian researchers Bidda Jones and Paul D. McGreevy published an article committed to "ethical horsemanship", pointing out that "laws are unlikely to adequately protect horse welfare if they regard traditional practices, including the use of riding crops to speed up horses, as 'reasonable' and 'acceptable' without considering their effect".[35]

Since the notion of equestrian ethics is purely Western, clashes can be traced back to a different vision of the animal. In the 2010s, Switzerland, Belgium and France (among others) denounced the actions of the Arab countries of the Gulf in the equestrian discipline of endurance, due to the numerous deaths of mounts during or after competitions.[36] According to Yves Riou, these cases highlight the changing status of the horse in the Middle East, which at the beginning of the 21st century has become a replaceable "commodity".[37]

In 2015, a young Swedish rider had her mare euthanized due to an incurable knee disease, and recovered the animal's meat to eat for seven months, sharing it with her friends. She justifies her choice publicly on social media, saying that it would be illogical to give up 154 kg of meat and buy it at the store. Victim of a lynch mob on social media, she once again justifies her position by saying that it would be "fair" to eat an animal that has had a good life. Internet users accuse her of barbarity and cruelty, likening eating her mare to eating your dog or a member of your family.[38]

Some behaviors towards horses are legally condemnable, others are not, depending on the practices and cultures concerned. Training courses that take into account the notion of ethics vis-à-vis the horse within the framework of the law are beginning to appear in response to societal demand. At the end of 2015, Paris-Descartes University, in partnership with the Haras de la Cense stud farm, created a university diploma (DU) entitled "Ethics, Welfare and the Law of the Horse".[39] In 2020, a series of horse and donkey mutilations hit France.[40]

The relationship between humans and horses raises many philosophical questions. Radical currents of "animal liberation" believe that an animal should never be anyone's property, and that owning it is tantamount to denying it any intrinsic value. However, horse owners who use their animals for work, sport or leisure generally recognize their intrinsic value.[71] Equestrian sports are subject to strong ethical depreciation.[72] The debate often focuses on the problems associated with top-level competitions. However, the "ordinary, banal, less visible practices" of "Sunday riders" are, according to ethicist Émilie De Cooker, "just as problematic",[73] as are those in riding schools, where horses become "jaded" by being ridden by beginners and repeating the same exercises every day.[74] Competitions for novice riders often see "tense, badly muscled horses" and "riders who think they've solved their problems - sometimes violently - on the day of the competition" when they haven't mastered the fundamentals of horsemanship.[75] Leisure horses are more often in pain than top-level competition horses, but this suffering is less visible and less publicized.[76]

Objectification

Main article: Objectification

Certain legal practices degrade the horse to the status of a "product" or marketing medium, and are referred to as "objectification" or "commodification". For Émilie De Cooker, the sport horse is considered an object.[77] These practices have been compared to the slavery of black people by the animal liberation movement, particularly with regard to branding.[78] With the widespread use of microchips, branding continues only as a matter of tradition, and to ensure the publicity and promotion of a given breeding or breed.[79] The horse is the first animal to have legally become the living medium of sponsorship.[80] Swedish rider Malin Baryard-Johnsson renamed one of her mounts H&M Tornesch.[80] The practice has become quite common, with many sport horses bearing brand or company names as affixes or suffixes, such as La Biosthetique Sam and Jappeloup de Luze. Traditionally, sport horses bear the name of their original stud, but they are sometimes renamed after a sale: the mare Silvana de Hus became Silvana*HDC after her purchase by the Haras des Coudrettes in 2012.[81] The stallion Vleut has been renamed Guccio by his rider Edwina Tops-Alexander, to reinforce her partnership with the luxury brand Gucci.[82] This practice can lead to legal conflicts in terms of trademark law, as was the case in 2013 concerning the horse Jappeloup, due to the registration of its name as a trademark and the use of this name by several people and companies.[83][84][85][86][43][87]

Branding reflects the objectification of the horse as a marketing medium (here, the Zangersheide stud brand).

According to Amélie Tsaag Valren, breeders' vocabulary and cloning practices reflect a strong "desacralization" of the horse.[88] On most farms, the expression "product of the year" refers to a foal born in the current year.[88] The Zangersheide stud farm, which uses horse cloning, orders several clones of the same animal from a laboratory to be used as breeding stock.[88] They give them the name of the original, followed by a letter of the Greek alphabet to differentiate them. The mare Ratina Z thus has three clones named Ratina Z alpha, Ratina Z beta and Ratina Z gamma respectively.[88]

The notion of degradation of the animal, used in Swiss law, applies irrespective of whether the horse is aware of its degradation (from being named after a sponsor or having a ridiculous shearing, for example) or not.[89] It is based on the view that the human being responsible for the degradation has of his horse, in particular whether he perceives and treats it as an object.[89]

Instrumentalization

Scott Brash and Hello Sanctos at the CHI de Genève, 2013

The instrumentalization of the horse is a standard feature of the equestrian world, since human beings use it as such and decide on its destination at all times.[90] It is just as prevalent, if not more so, in pleasure riding than in top-level sport.[90] Horses are often used as sidekicks by inexperienced riders, who become brutal when they feel that the mount is not obeying them, even though these are usually mistakes on their part.[90] This "instrumentalization for pleasure or ego" is of "selfish, hedonistic or egocentric" origin.[90] This attitude reflects the "absolute domination of humans over nature and the living beings that surround them". The word "submission" recurs frequently in equestrian vocabulary,[91] for example in the scoring criteria for dressage competitions.[92] According to psychoanalyst Ghilaine Jeannot-Pages, "the entire sporting vocabulary serves this lure", whereas the psychology of a herbivorous herd animal would lead it to flee constraints and useless efforts.[93]

Further questions about instrumentalization arise in the context of horse castration and the keeping of stallions and non-stallions. Castration is an attack on the horse's physical integrity, which can lead to veterinary complications, and is justified by the need to reduce the constraints on the use and keeping of animals. Muslim countries are ethically opposed to animal castration. In Western countries, the operation is sometimes questioned, but the keeping and use of stallions and non-stallions leads to problems of competence and legal difficulties. Moreover, an uncastrated male who has no opportunity to reproduce suffers from sexual frustration. Weighing up the pros and cons is necessary to make the right ethical choice about castrating a horse.[94] Males kept in herds tend to fight and injure each other at first, but the situation improves once a hierarchy has been established in the group.[95]

Some horses are subject to "excessive care" such as shaving dewlaps, clipping ears, neck and mane, and frequent shampooing.[96]

Several researchers, philosophers, veterinarians, associations and interest groups have taken a stand in this debate. According to ethicist Axel Kahn, "we must respect nature and consider the well-being of the horse".[28] Ethicist Émilie De Cooker believes that the trend towards greater consideration for equine well-being needs to be accompanied "in order to amplify it".[24] She supports a change in the regulations and laws governing equestrian sport, and therefore the means to achieve it, as was the case in eventing, where the dangerous nature of the obstacles caused the death of many horses: "It would be pointless to try to ban equestrian competitions or, for extremists, horse riding".[71] Taking into account the contributions of natural horsemanship would make it possible to "avoid certain forms of constraint and promote easier collaboration between horse and human".[99] She advises taking inspiration from Nuno Oliveira's equestrian philosophy, which rejects arrogance and domination, and encouraging the education of riders towards "a form of wisdom and humility".[100] For Dr. Bernard Denis, veterinarian and president of the Society of Ethnozoology, "Removing horses from the real or potential suffering associated with their sometimes abusive or disrespectful use, and improving equine welfare from now on, remains a priority".[101] He envisages the creation of a breeding and possession permit to achieve this goal.[102]

Jean-Pierre Digard advocates the "intensive use" of horses, and the "right of humans to raise and use animals".

Ethnologist Jean-Pierre Digard defends an openly speciesist position: believing that it is far worse to treat horses "like babies" than to organize a bullfight,[103] he opposes "mothering" and the keeping of an unused animal, which he describes as a "garden horse".[104] He believes that the horse's non-use will eventually lead to its extinction, or at least that the positions he describes as "animalitarian" will result in the extinction of several horse breeds.[105] In his view, the desire to protect the horse is part of an "always more" logic, leading to an "extremist and anti-humanist drift".[23] Commenting on the theory that the horse will disappear due to lack of use, Amélie Tsaag Valren and Laetitia Bataille support a "third way between the end of all use and intensive use, that of a better-understood equitation", taking into account the principles of lightness and biomechanics.[106]

The Swiss National Stud Farm considers that the principles of horse domestication and use are ethically acceptable, as despite the existence of constraints for the animal (restriction of movement, obedience to humans), they also derive benefits from their domestication and use (care, feeding and watering, protection against predators).[107]

On slaughtering and hippophagy

Main articles: Horse slaughter and Horse meat

Heavy Basque mountain horse, hypertyped for meat production.

Most animal protection associations and shelters for retired or mistreated horses speak out against slaughter and hippophagy. The Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA by its acronym in French) has called on French supermarkets and hypermarkets to remove horse meat from their shelves because of "the brutality of transport and the state in which horses arrive at the slaughterhouse".[115] The Fondation Brigitte-Bardot, the 30 Millions d'amis Foundation,[116] and the association éthique du cheval in Lille[26] actively campaign against hippophagy. The Swiss association Le Refuge de Darwyn denounces mistreatment in slaughterhouses.[117] The Quebec association Galahad "believes that horses should not be slaughtered for their meat, but that at the end of their lives, they should be euthanized under the supervision of a veterinarian". She adds that, at the very least, measures should be taken to ensure that slaughter takes place without suffering.[33] Roly Owens, President of World Horse Welfare, does not speak out against slaughter or hippophagy, but points out that many slaughterhouses have practices that run counter to horse welfare, and that this legitimizes the fight of animal protection associations.[118]

The Swiss National Stud Farm's study concludes that slaughter with a captive bolt pistol is a "good death", as long as it is carried out correctly. Damage to horse welfare is caused by "loading, transport, unloading, smells, noise, sometimes waiting at the slaughterhouse, a narrow corridor and a stunning box unsuited to equids", as well as by "misses on the fatal blow",[119] as Temple Grandin pointed out.[120]

From an antispeciesist point of view, the fight against hippophagy alone is an aberration: it should be extended to the fight against all meat consumption. Commenting on the Brigitte Bardot Foundation's shock campaigns, David Olivier points out that "it may save a few horses, but how many more chickens will be killed?".[121]

Through the voice of its president, the French equine veterinary association came out in favor of the slaughter of horses at the end of their lives, in 2014.[122] The Welfare and Behavior Commission disassociated itself from this position in 2015.[123] Axel Kahn declared himself "allergic to hippophagy" and "horrified at the idea of one of his mares ending up with a knife".[5] Several personalities from the equestrian world have come out in favor of hippophagy, often on the grounds of safeguarding heavy breeds. Bartabas made a shock declaration: "If you love horses, eat them!".[105] Jean-Pierre Digard also believes that certain breeds will disappear without hippophagy.[19] Lawyers Claire Bobin and Charles Dudognon point out that it is important to consider the survival of these breeds thanks to the meat industry.[124] Amélie Tsaag Valren points out that the adaptation of these heavy breeds to the meat market has led to a drift in selection criteria, resulting in horses suffering from health problems due to obesity and repeated pregnancies.[125]

In analyzing this debate, Éric Baratay believes that the rejection of slaughter and hippophagy will win out hands down, as the vision of the horse as a livestock animal tends to disappear and concern only the older generations, while "natural horsemanship" and the desire to forge a strong bond with the animal have great success among young people.[18]

Competition horse wearing a muzzle and sticking out its tongue

For Émilie De Cooker, "the objectification of the competition horse and the prior denial of its status as a moral subject stem from a reductionist conception of animal existence":[77] this leads to a lack of consideration for its well-being, the use of painful methods to increase performance, and the primacy of financial interest over ethics, for example in the early breaking-in of thoroughbreds at 18 months.[132] She wishes to "encourage the creation of a type of riding, and equestrian sports, in which domination has no place. To think and practice a form of horsemanship that does not rely on the horse's inability to rebel, but instead allows it to express itself as an intelligent and sensitive being":[91]

"When you dominate a horse the way you dominate an object, or the way you think you dominate the world, the relationship thus established does not allow for the expression of an ethical concern for your horse's well-being."

— Émilie De Cooker

Jean-Jacques Gouguet, a PhD in economics, believes that the liberal-productivist model, which favors practices such as cloning and doping, bears witness to the fact that the equestrian sporting spectacle has reached a "total impasse": "eventually, we'll have to put in place an alternative model based on a shift away from economics".[133] On the newspaper Le Monde, Henri Seckel opposed the renaming of living beings for sponsorship "in the name of money", and testifies to the pressure exerted by companies on journalists to use the sponsor's name when writing sports articles.[80]

Horse cloning involves bioethical issues, since it leads to a high mortality rate of embryos, fetuses and newborn or young foals, as well as contributing to commodification. For these reasons, the Swiss National Stud concluded that "in the current state of knowledge, the use of horse cloning is ethically unjustifiable ".[134] In the UK, the researcher William (Twink) Allen was refused permission to continue his cloning trials in 2004, as the animals could present malformations, anomalies and diseases, according to the British authorities.[135] Dr Natasha Lane, of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), said it was not acceptable to clone horses "just to get a gold medal ".[136] Allen spoke out against this decision, believing that the British government had "caved in to the animal protection lobby ".[137] According to various surveys, including one carried out by Cheval Savoir in 2009, horse cloning is generally poorly accepted by riders and professionals. For French scientist Éric Palmer, the technique is "demonized" due to misunderstandings.[138] The American Quarter Horse Association has stated that "[...] clones have no parents, cloning is not breeding. It's just photocopies of the same horse", pointing to its low success rate and the risk of developing yet unknown genetic disorders.[139] The Jockey Club also strongly opposed.[140] Dr Thomas Reed, who owns the private stud farm Morningside Stud in Ireland (where Hickstead was born), publicly opposed cloning after the accidental death of his stallion in competition at the end of 2011.[141]

Émilie De Cooker notes that, according to the cloning company Cryozootech, "the absence of animal suffering and the naturalness of gestation seem to be enough to end the debate on the legitimacy of this practice". It sees "the adoption of cloning as a breeding method in its own right as a sign of the trivialization of the relationship of commodification that man has established with the horse".[132]

• Horse welfare
• Society for the Protection of Animals
• French Equestrian Federation
• Municipal horse

• Jones, Bidda; McGreevy, Paul D. (2010). "Ethical equitation: Applying a cost-benefit approach". Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 5 (4): 196–202. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.001.
• Bobin, Claire; Dudognon, Charles (2012). "Le cheval de compétition: entre contrats et lois" (PDF). Revue Semestrielle de Droit Animalier – RSDA (in French).
• Bondolfi, Alberto (1995). L'homme et l'animal (in French). Saint-Paul. ISBN 2-8271-0697-3.
• Bornemark, Jonna; Andersson, Petra; Essen, Ulla Ekström von (2019). Equine Cultures in Transition: Ethical Questions. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-00245-5.
• De Cooker, Émilie (2012). "Les compétitions équestres: Pour une éthique conséquentialiste des moyens" (PDF). Revue Semestrielle de Droit Animalier – RSDA.
• Denis, Bernard (2015). Éthique des relations homme/animal (in French). Éditions France Agricole. pp. 94–100. ISBN 978-2-85557-409-7.
• Digard, Jean-Pierre (1999). Les Français et leurs animaux! (in French). Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard. ISBN 2-213-60307-3.
• Gouguet, Jean-Jacques (2012). "Dopage des chevaux: Les enjeux économiques de la performance sportive" (PDF). Revue Semestrielle de Droit Animalier – RSDA (in French).
• Jeangène Vilmer, Jean-Baptiste (2008). Éthique animale (in French). Presses Universitaires de France. ISBN 978-2-13-063995-4.
• Jeangène Vilmer, Jean-Baptiste (2015). L'éthique animale (in French) (2nd ed.). Presses Universitaires de France. ISBN 978-2-13-073106-1.
• McIlwraith, C. Wayne; Rollin, Bernard E. (2011). Equine Welfare. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-9781-9.
• Onfray, Michel (2015). Haute école (in French). Paris: Groupe Flammarion. ISBN 978-2-08-137036-4.
• Poncet, Pierre-André; Bachmann, Iris; Burger, Dominik; Ceppi, Anne (2011). Réflexions éthiques face au cheval: Approche éthique des décisions à prendre pour bien faire ou éviter de faire mal (in French). Avenches: Rapport de l’Observatoire de la filière suisse du cheval.
• "Réflexions sur l'éthique et le cheval". Haras national suisse.

• Francione, Gary Lawrence (2015). Introduction au droit des animaux (in French). Lausanne/Paris: Editions l'Age d'Homme. ISBN 978-2-8251-4470-1.