"But our horses don't live in the wild": Equine facial hair trimming as a case study in how equestrians frame nature

Appeals to what is natural for horses are commonly used in horse welfare discussion, information and education. However, little attention has been paid to how equestrians engage with ideas of nature to make ethical sense of horse-keeping practices. Open-text responses from an online survey of Australian horse owners conducted immediately prior to a ban on equine sensory facial hair trimming provided an opportunity to examine how some equestrians made sense of what is natural for horses and how that applied to the horses in their care. Inductive qualitative analysis of two open-ended survey questions identified three themes subsequently expressed as sensemaking frames: “nature should guide how we keep our horses”; “domestic horses don’t live in the wild”; and “we can substitute for nature”. Using Weick’s sensemaking perspective, these frames remained grounded in participants’ accounts while enabling critical examination of their underlying logic and implications. The frames reflected different ways of interpreting the relevance of nature and natural conditions to domesticated horses, suggesting that appeals to what is ‘natural’ may be interpreted in different and potentially unpredictable ways. As an alternative, we consider how contemporary animal welfare concepts centred on positive affective experiences, choice and control might be translated into more effective horse welfare information and education. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate welfare messages and behaviour-change interventions that address specific horse-keeping practices and resonate with everyday equestrians.