Adelinde Cornelissen - A Rant!!

[Booboos]

booboos, i have not claimed to be anything, even a great rider!

i am disturbed by your continual references to van grunsen, now gal and assorted others, because i think anky is one of the worst riders i have ever seen, therefore i cannot be intimidated by you using them to make a point, i can only laugh, and i sincerely hope one day you will see them for what they are, when you can, maybe you will not come last in your competitions, i hope you can see through it all, and wish for you, one day it will result in you having success with your horses.

You said I am not qualified to judge because I am not a good rider, I said that if that is the kind of argument that will convince you here are loads of good riders who ride rollkur and you ended up being disturbed.

I have to admit I am stumped with that line of argument, but please don't be disturbed and I am pleased you are having a laugh. Thank you for your good wishes for my competition success (not sure how thinking Anky is not a good rider will make me a better one, but I might give it a go and see what happens).

 

[Booboos]

Look it up for yourself.

You really don't have a great deal of experience of riding horses, do you?

So we'll repeal the law against raping a woman who is completely unconscious and never remembers a thing about it or has any physical manifestation of it having happened, shall we? Like the one prohibiting a surgeon from sexually assaulting a woman under anaesthetic? No harm done there, is there?

The first comment is not fair, since we are having the discussion and we have both done each other the courtesy of engaging with each other's ideas you could do me the favour of providing the reference. Anyone who is more jaded by human nature than I, might assume that this evidence doesn't actually exist, but I am an eternal optimist.

The second is not very nice. Interestingly it's the ad hominem fallacy, i.e. attacking the person and not the argument and is often the end result of spurious arguments.

The third is attributing to me the exact opposite of the position I actually hold s(and have gone to great lengths to explain in detail).

 

[TarrSteps]

I go out to ride some horses and look what happens!

Just to belabour the point, but I haven't yet seen anyone DEFEND rolkur, I've seen a few people argue that banning things because you don't like the look of them - in the context of a sport that is questionable already to many people - is not fair. And yes, many things in life are not fair but surely we should be striving to get better about stuff like that. And, btw, rolkur is not banned, it's continued and sustained use in a warm up situation is controlled. Also, the people who use it, generally speaking, do not do it to be cruel, the do it because they believe it works. They may be wrong and other people may disagree, but there seems to be a feeling that these people are intentionally setting out to be cruel and that is simply not the case. Again, it doesn't really matter but surely part of being a just minded individual (which is at the base of being a good horseman) is accepting that people who feel differently about the world are not necessarily evil.

Again, I go to Mark Twain - "I do not defend what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[TarrSteps]

Unrelated, but I'm curious to know the origin of the information that Gal turned down Totilas as being too explosive to train. He certainly has said he didn't like riding him when he tried him (or for sometime after) but the horse had already been out competing quite successfully so must have been fairly ridable. Which should actually be a big anti-rolkur selling point, as otherwise it would have meant the horse only became ridable AFTER he went to a rider who practices in that school of thought.

 

[TarrSteps]

I think there are very good reasons why Rollkur has been “singled out” … it is quite obvious that a lot of force is being used .. at least in the photos and videos I have seen.. Would be very interested Rollkur done well video / book as have never seen anything that didn’t demonstrate a lot of force applied by the human.

The most obvious book is the Bartles'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ride-Horses-Awareness-Feel-Olympians/dp/0851319637

Video, I cannot found the original link I specified - perhaps it's been removed, more likely I can't remember the right tags, but I'm fairly sure it was a Bemelmans clinic. Anyway, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5vkFc9piX0 is interesting. I will warn you off the top, it is Anky doing a demo and specifically discussing her training methods.

Are there any other methods in modern dressage that should be scrutinised?

Standing horses in the box/putting them on the walker/longeing in SUPER short side reins. So common as to be almost endemic. But happens at home. mostly, so not much anyone can do about it! Um, the requirement for leverage bits and spurs? I know why this is but I do think it's odd no one seems to go, "Is that REALLY necessary?" At a more basic level, the use of super tight flash/crank/drop noseands. Again, I see WHY but who decided, in the service that the ideal is to have the horse KEEP (not be forced to, to do so willingly) its mouth closed, that it's okay if we do that for them?

I think there's a good argument that all modern competitive dressage is about extremes and there's a potential ethical discussion to be had about whether or not we have the right to push horses to extremes. But that is a HUGE can of worms. And, actually, one of the defences people use of rolkur, LDR (sorry, I don't really see the difference . . . I know I'm supposed to say "there is no use of force in LDR but the minute you put a curb on a horse you're using a lot of force, even with a very light aid), is that extreme requests CAN require extreme training. I'm not sure that IS a defence but they do kind of have a point, we're so far away from what horses choose to do, it's got to be a question people ask!

Rollkur seems to be the one method in particular that the FEI / IOC seem to wish to cover up the most.. there must be good reason why they don’t want Rollkur discussed in the public domain .. We are well aware that those that wish to cover something up / squash debate tend to have things they know are destructive and or rooted in self interested at the expense of another/others.

Where have they said people can't discuss it? They've had open forums on the subject?

My personal standpoint is that the general non horsey public probably see the force and the expressions on the horses (whether it is anthropomorphic or not) and see that the horse is being forced against it’s will .. It demonstrates force as a means to control the horse and force submission … it doesn’t demonstrate the horse and human in harmony.


The great danger is that the non horsey public will assume that all dressage or even all equestrianism requires this level of force. Equestrianism will then become further exiled from public acceptance / culture and the standpoints will become further polarised, so that the anti will become anti all equestrianism not simply anti Rollkur.

I can see your point but I think a lot of people pretty much assume we force horses into doing things! Do the general public even take notice of rolkur unless factions within the horse world draw their attention to it? Again, that doesn't make it right, but I just don't see the general public a) paying much attention or b) caring. Let's face it, if horse welfare was a massive agenda there wouldn't still be a Grand National! (And before I get jumped on, I'm not attacking horse racing. I'm merely saying an event in which horses die gets a lot of press coverage and still does not generally incite outrage.)

Of course you could always argue that the general public are ignorant and that Rollkur is for “experts” and only “experts” can validly comment on it but the issue the underpins the Rollkur debate is the level of force clearly exerted. It doesn’t take expertise to see the bracing of the muscles and the force exerted by the rider. Force is not subtle and doesn’t require any special skill. I think that force takes over when skill and expertise run out. Force is where communication ceases.

All agreed. Except that the people who support it say that done well, it does not need force. Done badly . . .well, we've covered that.

Re dressage horses sometimes looking very, very strong, that's hardly the provenance of rolkur. A point was made above about how strong and sharp and explosive modern dressage horses can be - because the job increasingly demands and rewards horses like that - so they occasionally overwhelm their riders.

Whilst this debate hinges on reasons why Rollkur is bad I have yet to see or read anything that explains why it is good / useful. I would like too see a positive justification of the use of force (Rollkur or any other method) that explains why it is better than other methods that achieve the relaxation of the jaw / co-operation of the horse, or whatever other objective, that do not use force.

If you can bear it, have a look at the link above. Or any LDR video for that matter. All "unnatural" if we define that by being something horses do not do on their own.

 

[TarrSteps]

My perspective is that governing bodies in equestrian sport need to be exponents of and promote the co-operation and team elements between horse and human and closely examine and be open about practises that do not illustrate this clearly. This will engage the public more and generate positive (rather than negative) interest in equestrianism and therefore greater knowledge and understanding. A virtuous cycle.

True enough. And governing bodies do often end up being defensive in the public eye, which is unfortunate. I would say the only problem is how do you explain things like hitting a jumper that stops or using spurs (I know they are a refining aid but the general public will not) in that context? Those are "accepted practice" but you can see how some people might not agree. It's quite hard to defend as a whole without resorting to "We make horses do this stuff because we want to." Technically, that's not a partnership. When Carl says he gives his horses a swift kick if they don't move when he tells them to, that's him being their boss. I am not equating giving a horse a kick with causing it long term pain, but you can see the problem with transparency!

Re the naturalness of the horses movement.. I think in it’s pure sense dressage is a means of show casing the horse.. in a human framework… Horses are great at demonstrating their prowess to each other and predators.. have seen a range of moves that even the Spanish School would be gasping at Dressage is a means to build a horse up so that it can demonstrate this prowess and grace with a rider . Circus yes but the imagination for the circus has clearly been inspired by the horses’ physical gymnastic ability in its natural state. Grand prix even haute école I see nothing that a horse wouldn’t do in the field it is all movement that they use in the social context and also as prey. Playing is very much a rehearsal for reality .. and dressage is exactly that in its pure form.

Again, I actually agree. But then why is Spanish Walk no longer accepted? I know quite a few horses that do that naturally, not even Spanish ones! Admittedly we've taken out some of the crazier stuff - cantering backwards etc - but I do think it's entertaining that the living masters (Nuno Olivera comes to mind) so highly praised by the humane idea of classical dressage are the only ones left who even know how to do that stuff.

Technically, the Spanish Riding school movements are martial. I know, still from what horses do naturally, but only explained that way after the fact.

Re examining principles and general chewing of fat.. ( ) Really I think the debate needs determine how we assess the human effect on the horse and how we categorise something as positive..

Starting with starting of course … I have witnessed horses being started and prepared correctly they really exhibit an acceptance of their role as mounts and seem to relish it. A horse brought on well grows in strength and as a physical being so its self confidence builds and it grows more secure in its role both with other horses but also with humans. So training a horse can be said to be beneficial

This ability to understand and work with humans is obviously something we have selectively bred for otherwise we would all be struggling with Zebra / Taki type psychology! Physically too we have changed horses considerably.. However we have 2 very clear examples that how we have changed them does not mean they cannot flourish in what were their natural habitats.. Namib desert horses and of course the mustangs so our selective breeding cannot be said in all cases to be detrimental to the horse.

Again, very valid points. Although technically nowhere mustangs live is or was their natural habitat. And they now only exist with very stringent human management, including culling and feeding. I have to say though, I don't think Totillas would last five minutes in Nevada!

I may perhaps have a jaundiced view of your point about training being inherently beneficial as a great deal of my working life is spent with horses - and their people - for whom training has not really been of long term benefit. Obviously the argument is it hasn't been GOOD training (or management) but that state of affairs is so incredibly common.

Phew. I hope I got all my quotes to work!

 

[TarrSteps]

I'd just like to toss this piece by Epona TV into the ring. It covers the history of the term rollkur and the FEI's approach to it, and is very very interesting.


http://epona.tv/uk/news/show/artikel/editorial/?type=98&cHash=a2014d678367e97acc061a3a68ee545d

Interesting, and reasonably unbiased for Epona. (And I can agree with them but still think they are biased and inclined to go on a mission. Doesn't make them right or wrong, nor does my agreeing or disagreeing. Again, you can feel differently about the message and the messenger.)

Btw, Sjef is always suing someone or being sued. I do think he detracts from the conversation somewhat!

The bit from Richard is particularly interesting and fair minded.

 

[Booboos]

Unrelated, but I'm curious to know the origin of the information that Gal turned down Totilas as being too explosive to train. He certainly has said he didn't like riding him when he tried him (or for sometime after) but the horse had already been out competing quite successfully so must have been fairly ridable. Which should actually be a big anti-rolkur selling point, as otherwise it would have meant the horse only became ridable AFTER he went to a rider who practices in that school of thought.

I would hazard a guess that it is an incorrect reporting of an interview of Gal where he says that when he went to view Totilas the movement looked so huge he thought he would fall off so he popped his breaking rider on him for the viewing.

 

[tristar]

booboos, i did NOT say you were not qualified, you did, i merely asked a question!

 

[tristar]

re short side reins: someone enquired about a horse i had, highly qualified etc, during the conversation they said,'of course i would have to lunge it in side reins for one year', i'd never heard of that approach before, and felt uncertain what they were hoping to achieve, muscular development, head carriage, submission? i am lost, specially as let my young horses carry their heads where they feel most comfortable during the first ridden stage.

 

[cptrayes]

The first comment is not fair, since we are having the discussion and we have both done each other the courtesy of engaging with each other's ideas you could do me the favour of providing the reference. Anyone who is more jaded by human nature than I, might assume that this evidence doesn't actually exist, but I am an eternal optimist.

There is no "fairness" in it Booboos. Explanations of how horses sight works are around in abundance. If you can't be bothered to read them and work out for yourself that a horse in rollkur must have severely restricted vision then that is a lack of willingness and intellect on your part not on mine.

The second is not very nice. Interestingly it's the ad hominem fallacy, i.e. attacking the person and not the argument and is often the end result of spurious arguments.

The comment was intended to mean "you cannot have ridden enough if you cannot tell whether a horse that you ride has breathing difficulties which are causing it to breath differently in hyperflexion, or whether it is the hyperflexion that is causing the change in breathing noises."

The third is attributing to me the exact opposite of the position I actually hold s(and have gone to great lengths to explain in detail).

No it is not. You are not actually responding to the point I am making you are continuing to make a different one.

You want rollkur not to be banned because there is no proof that it causes any harm. You say we cannot ban it just because we feel it is wrong.

Yet you want the fondling of the boobs of a completely unconscious woman while under a general anaesthetic for a surgical procedure to be unlawful, even though there is no way that can have caused her any possible harm unless someone else tells her what was done. It's banned because we feel it is wrong.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[cptrayes]

I would hazard a guess that it is an incorrect reporting of an interview of Gal where he says that when he went to view Totilas the movement looked so huge he thought he would fall off so he popped his breaking rider on him for the viewing.

No, it was an interview that I read that the first time he was offered Totilas he turned him down and only accepted him when he went back to view him again a lot later. I will try and find it. I suspect the first offer was before the horse had really begun its career.

To the person who suggests that it proves rollkur works on these horses -

of course it does, that's why they do it.

It enables horses who are temperamentally unsuited to be ridden in an advanced fashion, and it enables much younger horses to reach Grand Prix levels than conventional training of the same horse.

That does not make it right.

 

[cptrayes]

Here you go, he was offered the horse and would not take it because he was so explosive. The breeders persuaded him to continue to ride him for a month and then he was bought for him to ride. Only a month, not "a lot later". In the interview report I read, he said that he originally did not want to buy the horse at all, so the extended trial period managed to change his mind.

http://www.dressage-news.com/?p=2484

 

[cptrayes]

re short side reins: someone enquired about a horse i had, highly qualified etc, during the conversation they said,'of course i would have to lunge it in side reins for one year', i'd never heard of that approach before, and felt uncertain what they were hoping to achieve, muscular development, head carriage, submission? i am lost, specially as let my young horses carry their heads where they feel most comfortable during the first ridden stage.

I'll PM you with the name if you like but a friend of mine pays £90 a lesson to train with a person who trains at least 2 Grand Prix riders.

I went to watch once. They have her start every lesson with her green young mare on the lunge in very short side reins, to make her give to the bit before she has even got on. At one point, they told her that the mare was losing top line since she had bought it, and that she could shorten the reins further to stop that. I already thought that they were too short!

So - "submission" and topline development were their objectives.

 

[TarrSteps]

Thanks, cptrayes, very interesting. I've read a more detailed account of him going to see the horse but not that he'd actually turned the horse down, only that they'd asked for a trial to see if he would get on with the horse. I think he was 5 or 6 at that point and had already successfully contested YH classes with the woman who rode him for his breeders.

 

[tristar]

cptrayes, why pm, put the name of the trainer on here so people can chose for themselves, or is that not allowed? or pm please.

linda tellington do da, notes that the postioning of certain horses eyes, too far to the side of the head, can affect their visional abilty to see where they are going to start with, so add that into the equation when using rollkur.

 

[Booboos]

There is no "fairness" in it Booboos. Explanations of how horses sight works are around in abundance. If you can't be bothered to read them and work out for yourself that a horse in rollkur must have severely restricted vision then that is a lack of willingness and intellect on your part not on mine. .

What was not fair was your refusal to give me the reference, not the argument itself, i.e. that horses cannot see. The argument itself is suspect because of the way a horse's vision works. Horses have almost a 350 degree visual field which suggests that they should be able to see fine in rollkur. If one assumes that horses have the human range of vision, then they would not be able to see in rollkur indeed.

The comment was intended to mean "you cannot have ridden enough if you cannot tell whether a horse that you ride has breathing difficulties which are causing it to breath differently in hyperflexion, or whether it is the hyperflexion that is causing the change in breathing noises."

.

There is no response to this point as anything I say will be because I have not ridden enough. Since you do not accept the evidence of people who have ridden quite a lot (all the top riders who practice rollkur) it kind of suggests that the only people who have ridden enough are people who already agree with you.

No it is not. You are not actually responding to the point I am making you are continuing to make a different one.

You want rollkur not to be banned because there is no proof that it causes any harm. You say we cannot ban it just because we feel it is wrong.

Yet you want the fondling of the boobs of a completely unconscious woman while under a general anaesthetic for a surgical procedure to be unlawful, even though there is no way that can have caused her any possible harm unless someone else tells her what was done. It's banned because we feel it is wrong.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

OK here is my response again:
- harm can occur without the person knowing about it
- rape is not wrong because we feel it is wrong, otherwise it would just be right anytime any rapist felt it was right. It is objectively wrong because it is the violation of another person's bodily integrity (there is quite a lot to be said here to support the principle of bodily integrity that has to do with how our selves are our bodies, violations of our bodies are violations of ourselves, etc.), a person who has either refused to consent or is unable to consent (children, sleeping adults, those under GA).

 

[Booboos]

cptrayes, why pm, put the name of the trainer on here so people can chose for themselves, or is that not allowed? or pm please.

linda tellington do da, notes that the postioning of certain horses eyes, too far to the side of the head, can affect their visional abilty to see where they are going to start with, so add that into the equation when using rollkur.

I just have to say this, I can't hold back: If your argument just has to rely on expert knowledge you are right to go the whole hog and appeal to someone whose 'Doctorate' is an honorary degree from a non-state approved University (the aptly named Wisdom University).

I couldn't really make these things up if I tried!

 

[tristar]

people can say no, a horse has to endure what is done to it, it can only object by rebelling or failing to comply, when it may be punished, this is my personal view: that the horse should be given the benefit of the doubt, in the case of rollkur there is doubt.

 

[BeesKnees]

The idea that laws to prevent activities only do so where harm can be proven is just not true.

Only today on Radio 4 there was discussion about the extension to the Criminal Justice Act which gives the police the power to stop 'raves' on thr grounds that the music "by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality" .

'Likely to cause distress'......no harm has to be proven, and indeed how could you prove it? Only by taking people's word for it that they felt distress.

I do agree with Tristar. Where animals are concerned, who cannot voice distress, humans who choose to use those animals for their own enjoyment have a moral duty to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of welfare. Those parameters are likely to be constantly shifting as knowledge and ideas about what constitutes good husbandry change, and rightly so.

 

[cptrayes]

What was not fair was your refusal to give me the reference, not the argument itself, i.e. that horses cannot see.

Oh, diddums Booboo. There are so many articles about how horses sight works I'd have needed 100 pages.

The argument itself is suspect because of the way a horse's vision works. Horses have almost a 350 degree visual field which suggests that they should be able to see fine in rollkur. If one assumes that horses have the human range of vision, then they would not be able to see in rollkur indeed.

Unfortunately in rollkur the blind spot "in front" of them is right where they are going to move next. Have you not seen how a horse which feels in danger puts its head UP to see more? Clearly the sight is reduced with a low head position.

I can only restate an argument that you hate. If you put a horse severely overbent, you can easily find out, by mistake as I have, that they cannot see the ground that they are going to walk over, or for a considerable height above that, because you have to stop them walking into things of knee height in their path. You haven't ridden enough to have the experience, obviously.

There is no response to this point as anything I say will be because I have not ridden enough. Since you do not accept the evidence of people who have ridden quite a lot (all the top riders who practice rollkur) it kind of suggests that the only people who have ridden enough are people who already agree with you.

Ta da! Only read this after I wrote the above, so have left it for the amusement of you proving your insight.

OK here is my response again:
- harm can occur without the person knowing about it

so what. Not relevant to the argument. Physical harm I agree. Mental harm I disagree, though the effect may be subconscious. My example was one of no physical or mental harm, which you have conveniently ignored.

- rape is not wrong because we feel it is wrong,

Of course it is. In the annals of time rape was normal, as it is among many in the animal kingdom. Ducks, for example, which will sometimes rape a female until it drowns. At some point in time we decided that is was wrong and outlawed it, but before that it was considered normal. What changed was not the act, but feelings about the act. Don't forget that it was only relatively recently that it became illegal for a man to rape his wife. Until that time, it was considered a wife's duty and not defined as rape.

It is objectively wrong because it is the violation of another person's bodily integrity

It is "objectively" wrong. Not scientifically proven to be wrong. Believed by a concensus of opinion to be wrong. As with all our laws, resulting from a concensus of opinion (feelings) that it is wrong, not, as you so vainly hope, from any actual evidence.

Answer me on the planning laws Booboos. Do you think planning decisions are based on anything but one group of people's feelings about what should be built where compared with anothers?

Would you have the planning laws removed?

It strikes me that you are having real problems in your life with accepting that our society is run by a concensus of opinion and when that concensus is held by a big enough group, laws are made which have no evidence backing them up at all because there is a strong enough feeling that it is the right thing to do. AND that those laws are often good laws.

We have reached an understanding that we have a canyon wide difference of opinion over how good laws can be made. I find your arguments so far to be a considerable distance from the society that I live in, and totally unconvincing that there is no basis to ban hyperflexion.

 

[cptrayes]

people can say no, a horse has to endure what is done to it, it can only object by rebelling or failing to comply, when it may be punished, this is my personal view: that the horse should be given the benefit of the doubt, in the case of rollkur there is doubt.

One of those arguments that made me wish I'd come up with it. Spot on TS, too much doubt.

 

[cptrayes]

The argument itself is suspect because of the way a horse's vision works. Horses have almost a 350 degree visual field which suggests that they should be able to see fine in rollkur. If one assumes that horses have the human range of vision, then they would not be able to see in rollkur indeed.

I've done some research, which puts a rather different slant on your assertion that horses see in a 350 degree field so hyperflexion cannot badly affect their sight.

According to this site

http://www.horses-and-horse-information.com/articles/horse-eyes.shtml


a horse cannot focus on anything but the horizon with its head low. That's why horses put their head up when spooked, to look through a different part of the eyeball to focus at close distance. In rollkur, they can, therefore, see nothing in focus at all.


Gotta give you credit BB, you are certainly fighting like a lion to support your point of view that there is no basis to ban hyperflexion in training International Dressage horses. You've run out of steam for me though, none of your arguments stack up in my book no matter how many times you repeat them. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[SusannaF]

They can see nearly 360 degrees in a loop around their head. But not so well above or below that loop. Which is why they sometimes jump at something they passed without problem earlier - their head is at a different height.

 

[TarrSteps]

What a horrendous turn this has taken.

Can I just point out that we are taking about a RULE not a LAW. There is no law against riding a horse in rolkur, nor is there likely to be one. Can. Worms.

Perhaps a better analogy might be gymnastics. We do not let underage children work but we have no problem letting them practice for hours in a sport that is proven to cause lasting physical damage ri elite participants. We do at least ask that they be a bit older now but, tbf, the FEI got there first.

Out of curiosity, has anyone watched the link I posted? It doesn't make the practice any more attractive to me, personally, but it does not show a horse stressed to breaking.

I do absolutely see the reasoning of giving horses the benefit of the doubt. It's how I make my living, but unfortunately I think that argument should be applied to all sorts of practices associated with competition riding and human ego.

 

[pootleperkin]

I watched it Tarrsteps - I don't know what to think of the whole thing to be honest.

I understand her stretching argument - training the muscle above the level necessary in order for the norm to be easy and light, it's an accepted way to do things in all types of sport......but, it just doesn't look right, does it? It's like the chinese gymnastic coaches forcing little 8 and 9 year old kids to do handstands for hours on end, just to improve their muscle and balance......not great practice.

I don't believe Anky is cruel, nor most of the other top riders - I'm sure they believe in their method wholeheartedly, but if Gold medals can be won by other less extreme methods, with horses going sweetly and not crossing their jaw or grinding teeth, then I'm going to go with that camp. I was at the Olympic Kur, and my overiding memory was of Carl Hester's hands - they just looked so light and giving - wonderful.

I think as time goes on, the effect of Rollkur will be resolved one way or another, but it would be preferable not to have professional riders being demonised along the way, particularly if in their minds, they are not doing anything wrong - this is where it gets awkward for everyone. Change is always hard, particularly when said practice used to win you gold medals.

Blue tongue is another thing all together.....not acceptable, and one would hope that it would not be acceptable to the rider concerned behind closed doors either.

 

[tristar]

i'e seen that link before, and remembered especially how she does'nt know how long they have been down there, 2, 5, 15, minutes and she does'nt clockwatch, so could they be there for 20 or 30 minutes? how lovely and considerate not to notice how long.

 

[Booboos]

The idea that laws to prevent activities only do so where harm can be proven is just not true.

Luckily for me this is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that we SHOULD not make laws/regulations/restrictions based on mere feeling, not that these laws don't exist.

Only today on Radio 4 there was discussion about the extension to the Criminal Justice Act which gives the police the power to stop 'raves' on thr grounds that the music "by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality" .

'Likely to cause distress'......no harm has to be proven, and indeed how could you prove it? Only by taking people's word for it that they felt distress..

This seems to me to be a very poor example as noise keeping you awake is a very real harm, loud decibels will cause pain and possibly long term hearing damage, loud sounds are used as a form of torture, etc.

I do agree with Tristar. Where animals are concerned, who cannot voice distress, humans who choose to use those animals for their own enjoyment have a moral duty to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of welfare. Those parameters are likely to be constantly shifting as knowledge and ideas about what constitutes good husbandry change, and rightly so.

If you wish to give up riding to err on the side of caution I respect your decision.

 

[Booboos]

cptrayes I appreciate you feel the discussion has come to an end, but just to make two points directly on what you say above:
- socially determined moral truths are not objective, they are subjective no matter how many people agree on them.
- the website you cite says nothing about horses not being able to see if their heads are lowered. Horse vision is spherical, the biggest obstacle to it is the nose, so a horse in rollkur should be able to see right in front of it better than a horse with its head in the air. Horses were at one time thought to have no accommodation at all, but they have now been observed having variations of up to 2 diopters between readings however at different parts of the eye. It is the varying nature of this ability that explains why horses are startled by objects that were always there, i.e. the objects come suddenly into focus for them (Sivak and Allen 1975 Vision Research, Pick et al 1994 Applied Animal Behaviour Science and Roberts 1992 Veterinary Clinics of North America - should anyone want the complete references PM me. Also, the reference I was asking was for studies that show that rollkur horses cannot see well because of rollkur.

 

[BeesKnees]

In democratic, liberal societies the general principle is that the state does not get involved in the private life of individuals unless what they are doing causes harm to others (for which one needs evidence)

I didn't say there are no laws that did not conform to the No Harm Principle, but since the French renaissance and the influence of J.S. Mill's liberal ideas, culminating with the Hart/Devlin debate on the Wolfenden report, English law has very much followed the liberal line.

On the contrary BooBoos that is exactly what you have argued above, and the act I quote is a very good example of why you are wrong. The noise levels disucssed are those affecting people who live in the vicinity. Inside their houses with their wondows shut. The decibel levels would not be illegal or harmful, and indeed it is notable that that the wording states ' causing distress' not physical harm. It concerns a single night of disturbance, hardly torture! Who of us hasn't sometimes been kept awake by a neighbours party?

But there is no imperative in this Act to somehow prove that distress has been caused. It is based on feelings and opinions that such activities are annoying to most people trying to sleep and therefore we should take heed of that and protect their wish to kip. It is law by general consensus.