Article in The Times yesterday - re. whip use

M

MizElz

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 July 2007
Messages
6,295
Visit site
An article in The Times - which I do not normally read - caught my eye yesterday. Lydia Hislop, in an article titled, 'Whip misuse risking backlash' wrote:

" If you mark a horse, you have abused it. I do not accept that some horses mark even when excessive force is not used."

The bluntness of this statement makes me wonder whether the writer has ever had true 'hands-on' experience with horses, or whether her supposed knowledge comes merely from a career spent writing about them. I personally would completely agree that to intentionally whip a horse to the point of visibly marking it is, indeed, abuse. However I have owned, ridden and known many horses in my time who mark at the slightest of contact with the whip; I have also, at shows, witnessed certain individuals laying into their horses with brutal force, yet not marking them at all. Some horses have unbelievably fine skin; others have the hide of a rhino, and I believe Lydia Hislop has either failed to acknowledge this fact, or else is in complete ignorance of it.

What do you think?
 
Only once have I marked a horse, when I was a child and whipped my pony in anger. Never have I hit in anger again and never have I marked any other horse; and I have had a LOT of horses. She doesn't sound too off the mark to me I'm afraid.

*sits back and waits for the debate to spiral*
cool.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Some horses have unbelievably fine skin; others have the hide of a rhino, and I believe Lydia Hislop has either failed to acknowledge this fact, or else is in complete ignorance of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, some horses do have very fine skin, one I used to ride at a riding school was like that and as such responded to a very light touch with a whip that wouldn't have even ticked his rhino-skinned companions. I think if you mark a horse then you are using unecessary force for that animal though it may, of course, vary between animals.
 
I would agree with her statement for most horses - normally a tap is more than sufficient.,

That said, I could beat Cairo with a schooling whip with a lot of force and you would not see a mark on him - not that I ever have or would need to - he had a very thick coat and tough skin - hence why he likes a metal curry comb to be scratched with.

Miss Delia - I could run my fingernail along her side or give her a good scratch on her back and there would be a raised mark - very fine skinned TB.

So I am sitting firmly on the fence on this.
 
Daughters hafflinger was smacked well hard a number of times with a crop by the person sellng it too us, never made a mark, plus it never flinched, thick skinned definately, however you wouldn't be able to do that with other horses she has ridden, some are thicker skinned than others.

I had to give my beast a sharp smack with the crop to get him to "MOVE NOW" to cross at a busy dual carriagway crossing yesterday, if they dont listen to the leg when it's extremely important to move NOW, then I think a smack is in order, but a continual thrashing of a horse is cruel and shouldn't be necessary and I definately wouldn't condone it.
 
[ QUOTE ]


" If you mark a horse, you have abused it. I do not accept that some horses mark even when excessive force is not used."



[/ QUOTE ]

Depends of course what she means by 'mark'. If she means a bit of ruffled hair that smooths over and leaves no trace - then she's wrong.

If she means 'raises a wheal - or cuts - then she's right!

I've seen hundreds of racehorses ridden out in a hard finish with more whip use than would be allowed now and a mark was VERY rare indeed. I have seen one horse with raised wheals after being abused with a schooling whip - the ba****d was given 10 minutes to get his ar*e off the yard!
 
this has got to totally depend on how 'marking' is meant. I mean, a sweaty, hairy, dusty horse smacked is likely to have a mark where the whip was put- in the fur only. This isn't going to have marked the horse like a beating would leave raised weals, but would still appear 'marked'. The first I imagine happens up and down the country daily and noone thinks anything of it, the latter on the other hand is a completely different matter.
 
I do agree with people that say if a mark is left then unecessary force has been used but my mare marks so easily if you tap her with the stick. Her skin also swells when she is being clipped. I never hit her hard and I dont scrape the clippers over her either. Maybe she is just odd
tongue.gif
 
Whether or not you can see a mark, a horse can feel a fly land on it's body. So if a horse doesn't react to being hit quite hard with a whip then maybe they have been de-sensitised over a period of time, and they feel it, but can ignore it. If you've taken a horse from baby and brought it on yourself then I don't see why anyone should need to do more than tickle by laying the whip on the horse, to reinforce an aid.
I cringe when I see anyone take their hand off the rein to lift their arm away from their body and "smack" a horse. But it's regular practise as a trip to any jumping comp will demonstrate.
 
I think we need more clarification as to what she means by mark.
Bit of a grey area this subject. Any equipment can be labeled abusive if its is used incorectly. Whips dont hurt, the hand holding them does.
 
Ive yet to see a horse marked by sensible use of a whip (im talking raised wheal or cuts). Ive smacked my lad very very hard once and not left a mark at all (in my defense he was standing on his back legs in the middle of the road on a blind corner, he got 2 hard smacks on the botty from a schooling whip to get him to the side of the road and out of th way of oncoming cars) so if you are leaving a raised mark then your hitting that horse too hard!
 
Hmm. I'd judge it more on was it repeated, in temper etc and have to look at it on a case by case basis. I'm sure there are definately cases of abuse that didn't leave marks- don't know about the other end of the scale, I had a very fine and sensitive skinned horse but never saw a whip mark left on him (and i did use a whip) so couldn't comment if any horses mark with fair use of a whip
confused.gif


The man who came and BEAT
crazy.gif
the horses at our old yard left marks on the 2 horses he caught in the stable and whipped with a driving whip, and photographs of this were used to help the prosecution. There was no question that these marks could have been caused by anything else but abuse.
frown.gif
 
I've got an unbelieveably fine skinned TB. She only has to look at something and it cuts/grazes her. I use a whip and have never left a mark - I take the fact that her skin is thin into account and I never use a whip really hard, anyway - if I was in a position where I thought I needed to I would reschool my horse.

I once bought a horse and when he was delivered he was covered in wheal marks - suprisingly he was terrified of loading, terrified of people - poor chap
frown.gif
He did get over it eventually, but I comletely agree that a whip used correctly should not leave a mark.
 
I agree with the person in the times...It does clearly vary from horse to horse.



















Ajay, our shettie is the laziest beast you could meet. To get him to do transitions you have to hit him with the whip, I i mean hit. We have tried reschooling him, but he has always been like it, from a 3YO. H ei sthick skinned, and has a huge coat, and no he can't feel a fly landing on him, neither does he feel electic fencing .If I tapped any of the other boys like that they would be marked, prossable cut and boting.

In driving the whip is used in stead of the leg aid, and the shaft should never be hit against the horse, just flicked with the lash, or have the shaft pressage against them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top