All this talk of fluffies...

Wagtail

Wagtail

Horse servant
Joined
2 December 2010
Messages
14,815
Location
Lincs
Visit site
It's a term we hear every day on here. Those people who treat their horses like they are pets are referred to as 'fluffies'. Some fluffies don't even ride their horses :eek:

Could it be however, that it is not the fluffies who are in the wrong, but just that they are in the enviable position of having a great relationship with their horse? Every bit as rewarding and close as many people have with a dog?Could it be that all the non fluffies just are unable to fully 'click' with a horse? That they are just incapable of having that wonderful relationship with a horse that changes their perspective on how they view thier mounts? Or have they just been unlucky and not met the right horse yet? Are they actually missing out on true horsemanship?

Or are fluffies just silly people who are completly impractical and don't understand that horses are just working animals/livestock. They need to toughen up?

Discuss.
 
Actually, I think that majority of horse owners consider their horses as pets, and are not considered 'fluffies' at all (whether they ride or not). They are considerate and caring owners, who do everything they can to give their animals a full and contented life.

It's the person who attributes animals with the same feelings as themselves, who I would consider a 'fluffy', and refuse to acknowledge some of the responsibilities that come with owning an animal - such as destruction.

As an aside, I suspect this post is a result of yesterdays discussion about welfare societies. And if it's any consolation to you, Wagtail, whilst we may not always agree on things - I don't consider you a 'fluffy'. But a person full of compassion and love for their horse. There is a big difference between that and the type of person many think of as 'fluffies'.
 
Well....my horses aren't working animals...they do absolutely nothing useful whatsoever apart from give me and family pleasure....

I'm not sure if I am a fluffy or not....I treat them well...and by well I mean I treat them as horses- turnout, appropriate feed (or not), appropriate rugs (or not).....I don't hit them or shout at them...I treat them firm but fair and consistently.....I give them treats and have stupid nicknames for them....

My horses are happy and settled and I like to think I have good relationships with them....certainly one of them was a rehab/'problem' horse and he's gone from being fairly unlikeable to a lovely friendly horse....

Possibly I am half-fluff:p
 
Why do they need to toughen up? If they want to treat horses, cows, goats, sheep as pets then why not??? Human is happy. Animal is happy. Win win!

Being a non-fluffy does not mean you do not have a great relationship with a horse. It means you like to have fun with animals in a different sort of way. I.e. work them.

Pragmatism needed by the bucketload. There. Discussed! :D
 
amymay said:
Actually, I think that majority of horse owners consider their horses as pets, and are not considered 'fluffies' at all (whether they ride or not). They are considerate and caring owners, who do everything they can to give their animals a full and contented life.

It's the person who attributes animals with the same feelings as themselves, who I would consider a 'fluffy'.

As an aside, I suspect this post is a result of yesterdays discussion about welfare societies. And if it's any consolation to you, Wagtail, whilst we may not always agree on things - I don't consider you a 'fluffy'. But a person full of compassion and love for their horse. There is a big difference between that and the type of person many think of as 'fluffies'.
Click to expand...

Thank you Amy. But I do often think that people who show compassion for their horses are branded as fluffies when people start to run out of arguments.

I do think there are some people that even I would think of as fluffies. These are the people who are so soft on their horses that they allow them to become dangerous, so much so that when they finally realise the horse is too much for them they think they are doing the kind thing by passing the horse on to an uncertain future. But I think very few people on here fall into that category.
 
tallyho! said:
Why do they need to toughen up? If they want to treat horses, cows, goats, sheep as pets then why not??? Human is happy. Animal is happy. Win win!

Being a non-fluffy does not mean you do not have a great relationship with a horse. It means you like to have fun with animals in a different sort of way. I.e. work them.

Pragmatism needed by the bucketload. There. Discussed! :D
Click to expand...

That is all well and good if the owner faces up to facts and does the decent thing for their 'pets' when or before it needs to happen without putting them through often painful and needless treatment because they can't bear to lose them. That is totally unfair, irresponsible and extremely fluffy. Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of them about on here.

Non-fluffies are those that face up to their responsibilities and always put their animals far before their own feelings even though it might be their saddest moment but they are fair to their animals, that's what counts.
Give me a non-fluffy every time.
 
Hippona said:
Well....my horses aren't working animals...they do absolutely nothing useful whatsoever apart from give me and family pleasure....

I'm not sure if I am a fluffy or not....I treat them well...and by well I mean I treat them as horses- turnout, appropriate feed (or not), appropriate rugs (or not).....I don't hit them or shout at them...I treat them firm but fair and consistently.....I give them treats and have stupid nicknames for them....

My horses are happy and settled and I like to think I have good relationships with them....certainly one of them was a rehab/'problem' horse and he's gone from being fairly unlikeable to a lovely friendly horse....

Possibly I am half-fluff:p
Click to expand...

Yes. Just a person who has a very good relationship with their horses, and who takes care of them rather than throwing them on the scrapheap or sending them to Potters when they want a new model.
 
Wagtail said:
Thank you Amy. But I do often think that people who show compassion for their horses are branded as fluffies when people start to run out of arguments.
Click to expand...

That may be true. But remember, the person who levels those sort of comments are rather unintelligent and narrow minded.

I do think there are some people that even I would think of as fluffies. These are the people who are so soft on their horses that they allow them to become dangerous, so much so that when they finally realise the horse is too much for them they think they are doing the kind thing by passing the horse on to an uncertain future. But I think very few people on here fall into that category.
Click to expand...

I would agree 100% with you.
 
tallyho! said:
Why do they need to toughen up? If they want to treat horses, cows, goats, sheep as pets then why not??? Human is happy. Animal is happy. Win win!

Being a non-fluffy does not mean you do not have a great relationship with a horse. It means you like to have fun with animals in a different sort of way. I.e. work them.

Pragmatism needed by the bucketload. There. Discussed! :D
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that those who view horses as just working animals could not possibly know the depth of relationship it is possible to have with a horse. If they did, then they would not view them the way they do.
 
Wagtail said:
I do think there are some people that even I would think of as fluffies. These are the people who are so soft on their horses that they allow them to become dangerous, so much so that when they finally realise the horse is too much for them they think they are doing the kind thing by passing the horse on to an uncertain future. But I think very few people on here fall into that category.
Click to expand...

True. Its easier to ruin a horse than sort it out......
 
I think they are to some extent pets but need to be treated as the flight animal they are, with respect, a dog will be happy with human company only, a horse will rarely be happy without other equine company.

Problems arise when less experienced people try and treat them as a pet but do not have boundaries that are established fully, they then do not see the horse becoming a rather opinionated character until it oversteps the mark and pushes too far it can them become too difficult for this person to deal with and gets labelled as a problem horse.

The balance needs to be correct between it being your friend/pet and still allowing it to be a horse, especially youngsters, an older horse may not take as many liberties.

Wagtail I would not say you were a fluffie, I think that you treat yours in a similar way to me, they get everything they need in a thoughtful and caring way, common sense in other words.:D
 
Maesfen said:
That is all well and good if the owner faces up to facts and does the decent thing for their 'pets' when or before it needs to happen without putting them through often painful and needless treatment because they can't bear to lose them. That is totally unfair, irresponsible and extremely fluffy. Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of them about on here.

Non-fluffies are those that face up to their responsibilities and always put their animals far before their own feelings even though it might be their saddest moment but they are fair to their animals, that's what counts.
Give me a non-fluffy every time.
Click to expand...

I have put my boy through KS surgery. The difference in him is unbelievable. It is like he has a new life and loves every minute of it. Even his character has changed. There is so much more to his 'personality' now. I did put another of my horses through colic surgery a few years ago. If I had my time again I would have had him PTS at home rather than transport him two hours in a trailer to be prodded and poked and then paralysed by the surgery. But if he'd survived and gone on to live a few more years of quality life then obviously, I'd feel differently. I do sometimes wonder what I would do if my lovely mare got colic and needed the op. It would be the hardest decision of my life but I am 95% sure I would have her PTS at home.
 
Wagtail said:
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that those who view horses as just working animals could not possibly know the depth of relationship it is possible to have with a horse. If they did, then they would not view them the way they do.
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought it could be their defence mechanism coupled with a healthy dose of realism?
It doesn't mean they don't feel very close to their animals or feel losses any the less, they just don't wring their hands with angst in public.
That about sums me up but I defy you to say I don't feel a close affinity with any of my animals similar to any of the fluffies. :)
 
amymay said:
It's the person who attributes animals with the same feelings as themselves, who I would consider a 'fluffy', and refuse to acknowledge some of the responsibilities that come with owning an animal - such as destruction.
Click to expand...

There's increasing evidence to suggest that many animals experience emotions and moods. Believing in this isn't necessarily 'fluffy'. I would attribute many emotions to my animals, but that doesn't stop me having one PTS if necessary, no matter how much anguish there is for me, so I don't think you can lump one with the other, any more than you could anti-anthropomorphists with beating.

ETA: Do you mean attributing feelings inappropriately? If so, agree that this is damaging and can work both ways, such as attributing misbehaviour to 'taking the pee' or thinking a horse is happy and excited when they are actually terrified and on the brink of exploding.

Hippona said:
Possibly I am half-fluff:p
Click to expand...
A Mudblood!! Sorry, too much Harry Potter, lately...:D
 
Last edited:
be positive said:
I think they are to some extent pets but need to be treated as the flight animal they are, with respect, a dog will be happy with human company only, a horse will rarely be happy without other equine company.

Problems arise when less experienced people try and treat them as a pet but do not have boundaries that are established fully, they then do not see the horse becoming a rather opinionated character until it oversteps the mark and pushes too far it can them become too difficult for this person to deal with and gets labelled as a problem horse.

The balance needs to be correct between it being your friend/pet and still allowing it to be a horse, especially youngsters, an older horse may not take as many liberties.

Wagtail I would not say you were a fluffie, I think that you treat yours in a similar way to me, they get everything they need in a thoughtful and caring way, common sense in other words.:D
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with this.
 
Fransurrey said:
There's increasing evidence to suggest that many animals experience emotions and moods. Believing in this isn't necessarily 'fluffy'.
Click to expand...

This is true. Evidence would also suggest that animals are far mor capable of reasoning that we often give them credit for. The recent BBC1 programme 'Super Smart Animals' was a real eye opener. I think this growing evidence should force us to think a little more about how we treat some animals as commodities.
 
amymay said:
I'm really interested in getting a couple of pigs as pets. What are they like to keep??
Click to expand...

Were picking them up tomorrow, but These dont dig either - So the woman says - she said she put them in her veg patch hoping they wont turn it over for her but they didnt bother. went and seen them on friday, theyre so funny, one of them sits and then he puts his front feet up at you like a dog!! These are our first pet piggies - the rest have been for meat. Put ill post some pics when they arrive :D (sorry to hijack OP) :D
 
Wagtail said:
I have put my boy through KS surgery. The difference in him is unbelievable. It is like he has a new life and loves every minute of it. Even his character has changed. There is so much more to his 'personality' now. I did put another of my horses through colic surgery a few years ago. If I had my time again I would have had him PTS at home rather than transport him two hours in a trailer to be prodded and poked and then paralysed by the surgery. But if he'd survived and gone on to live a few more years of quality life then obviously, I'd feel differently. I do sometimes wonder what I would do if my lovely mare got colic and needed the op. It would be the hardest decision of my life but I am 95% sure I would have her PTS at home.
Click to expand...

In my view this is not, and I quote, 'needless and painful operations' - this is weighing up the probabilities of short term pain versus long term gain for the good of the animal, something which I hope we would all do if the decision needs to be made.
Things don't always go to plan and sometimes it's a wrong call - if the situation then has to be rectified by a horrible and necessary decision so be it. Making that decision is being humane and considerate.
 
Wagtail said:
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that those who view horses as just working animals could not possibly know the depth of relationship it is possible to have with a horse. If they did, then they would not view them the way they do.
Click to expand...

Well then everyone here is a fluffy because what is someone doing sitting on a horse forum if they didn't give two hoots about whether the horse had three legs or four.
 
I may be considered a fluffy but while some work and some don't, my main importance is that they get to be horses as well and get to live the most normal life I can give them of being a horse. Such as socialising and turnout. They get what they need and are treated fairly.

What I can't stand is being told that I can't possibly have a relationship with my horse because he/she does not have 45 blankets, they get muddy, they do not have weekly appt's with vet, dentist, herbalist, Chiro, barefoot trimmer, animal communicator, Monty Roberts, ect ect. That is just ridiculous. I watch one horse here stand in a box 24/7 and most days no work. It's too muddy, too rainy, too cold ect for him to go out. She has no interest in him socialising him with other horses and makes up stupid stories to go along with the myth that is her horse. And then tells me I'm not a good owner. The horse world is full of those whack jobs for some reason.
 
Pushed wrong button. End game is I love my horses. They are so important in my life. They will get everything they need but it is also my responsibility as an owner to remember they are horses and have needs to that go beyond what I as a human might want. They need certain things that make them happy horses. Things that may not make them my "pets". Hard to explain.

Terri
 
Yeah.... what Terri (Equilibrium Ireland) said :)

I don't rug my horses not even the 8mo. She would probably run off if I showed her a rug. I like them to lead a fulfilled life yet still have a working relationship with me. I'm obsessed with nutrition, hooves and correct working.

How could I possibly love my horses because they don't have rugs on!!!!!
 
Wagtail said:
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that those who view horses as just working animals could not possibly know the depth of relationship it is possible to have with a horse. If they did, then they would not view them the way they do.
Click to expand...

:mad::mad::mad:Absolute crap, I wonder if you have ever met a true horseman?? My other half many years ago swore an oath to a horse and has a relationship with any horse that most of us can only ever dream of. He is amazing to watch on the ground with them. Only one horse has been unbackable, due to broken withers and he was the last port of call before the blood bank and he had some bad ones. He is by no means a fluffy a horse to him is a horse and he wouldnt think twice about putting one in a hole.
 
Wagtail said:
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that those who view horses as just working animals could not possibly know the depth of relationship it is possible to have with a horse. If they did, then they would not view them the way they do.
Click to expand...

Now this I really do disagree with. There are many 'professional' riders and trainers out there who absolutely adore the animal(s) they have 'working' for them. And have been left devastated when they have lost them.

You can have the most wonderful relationship with an animal - be it pet or worker - it just depends on you and your outlook.
 
Wagtail said:
I do think there are some people that even I would think of as fluffies. These are the people who are so soft on their horses that they allow them to become dangerous, so much so that when they finally realise the horse is too much for them they think they are doing the kind thing by passing the horse on to an uncertain future. But I think very few people on here fall into that category.
Click to expand...

Agree with this so much.

I am fluffy in so much as I utterly adore my girl and quite frankly think alot more of her than I do many children!! I do ride her, but that has nothing to do with the high regard I hold her in! That said, she is expected to act in a safe and mannered way and is corrected (sternly if required) if she steps out of line. Heart breaking as it will most certainly be, I would consider myself lucky to be able to choose my mares time of passing, and expect to be able to offer her a home for life regardless of length of ridden career.

I think a true 'fluffy' is so blinded by adoration for their equine that they allow them to act in a rude and dangerous way but because the equine must love them they can never bring it into line. In those cases the owners misguided 'love' for their equine actually causes them to be a worse owner in the horses eyes as I truly believe that a horse needs clear and fair boundries that are calmly and consistenly kept too.
 
kirstykate said:
:mad::mad::mad:Absolute crap, I wonder if you have ever met a true horseman?? My other half many years ago swore an oath to a horse and has a relationship with any horse that most of us can only ever dream of. He is amazing to watch on the ground with them. Only one horse has been unbackable, due to broken withers and he was the last port of call before the blood bank and he had some bad ones. He is by no means a fluffy a horse to him is a horse and he wouldnt think twice about putting one in a hole.
Click to expand...

I think this post actually proves what Wagtail is saying tbh; your oh may have a fantastic 'working' relationship with his horses, but wouldn't think twice about putting them in a hole????

I am certainly not fluffy when it comes to putting a horse to sleep when necessary and believe that there are many fates worse than death, but I do have compassion and empathy where my horses are concerned and don't make the decision lightly. To have the mentality of 'not thinking twice about putting them in a hole' doesn't sound like a good relationship to me.

I also come from generations of horsemen who've had true working relationships with their horses,and still do. Not one of them has made the decision to destroy a horse lightly and been unaffected by it, and one of them was a slaughterman.
 
Last edited:
I am disagreeing with

"Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that those who view horses as just working animals could not possibly know the depth of relationship it is possible to have with a horse. If they did, then they would not view them the way they do."

:p:p:p

Like your family he wouldn't take the decision lightly but if its got to be done. I sometimes wonder when reading these posts if they have actually been involved with horses on a professional level??!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top