Ban use of horse whips?

[FinnishLapphund]

For those for a ban of horse whips, an example from Nordic reality :

In Swedish Harness racing whips are allowed, as I recall f.ex. you're allowed to use it five times but you're not allowed to let go of the rein while you use it (= you can't use it as you would a carpet beater). If you break the rules you get a fine, you can also be taken to court and risk being sentenced for animal abuse etc.

In Norwegian Harness racing the whips have been banned for a few years and the result is that the drivers are using the reins instead. Or they can f.ex. bend forward and push with their hands on the horses behind. And it is much more difficult to regulate, because the driver will only say that they needed to move the reins for this or that, that they only wanted to pat the horse in encouragement...



So I predict that if UK f.ex. ban the use of whips at racing, the jockeys will use their reins or hands instead and I doubt you can ban riders for having reins or hands...

 

[macarthur]

"one persons punishment is another persons negative reinforcement" is absolutley not correct they are two totally different applications based on the pressure principle and understanding of equine learning please go to www.aebc.au for clarification on this point as you are confusing arguement with fact and scientific scrutiny. You can google negative reinforcement, posititive reinforcement, punishement, etc for absolute understanding of the 'true' meaning of what you are discussing and refering to here.

I am sorry but I dont know what you mean about the Lunge? I havent mentioned Lunge? Of course a whip can be used in lunging provided it doesnt cause fear in the horse and is not used to violently strike him, surely Lunge work is for classical conditioning to voice commands? - not an opportunity to chase the horse by beating him to run in circles?! however lunging is not a competition is it - and therefore has no place in this discussion. which is about competition!

whips must not be used to punish horses for non-performance in competition - I dont know how else I can say this?

Of course we are not saying take all whips and spurs away - you have said this not me!

we are saying do not use them to PUNISH horses. EVER IN COMPETITION.

You say blame the rider not the tools - that is excatly the case we have made!! - the tools are there, but cannot be used inappropriately by the rider - then the rider can use them to reinforce the stimuli but not to punish non-performance in competition.

surely you can see that this would raise the level of riding expertise and training in the UK? why argue 'for' beating horses ?

please go to EPONA.TV and check out footage and examples of scientific scrutiny relating to welfare in the trained horse.

best wishes Johanna

 

[the watcher]

I do struggle a bit with an animal handler who relies on 'scientific studies' and named behaviours that would be more appropriate on a psychiatry couch. All very well if your subject understands the debate - but horses do not.

If they do wrong in nature they are rebuked, they understand it, they expect it and they learn from it. I'm not advocating beating here, but to take away all scope for correction is just wrong.

 

[Starbucks]

Hi Jo,

I have a question. I think I agree with you, but I was just wondering what you would do in this situation.. My horse can be quite aggressive towards other horses when he’s hunting. He doesn’t kick out with his back legs but he bites a lot and has lashed out with his front let before and hit a pony in the face!! (Pony was fine). So – in this situation is it acceptable to “punish” him, or not? If not what am I supposed to do??

 

[dieseldog]

Jo,

I don't see how you can police what you want. It will be too subjective.

Also the article says whips are banned in Scotland.

 

[TarrSteps]

So basically, you're not allowed to beat your horse because you're p11ssed off, correct?

Fair enough, if you ask me.

The problem is defining the terms and codifying something which is so situational. Do we start to factor in rider strength? Does a small child on a pony have the same effect as a 200lb adult rider?

To be honest, I'm not for or against it. I don't think JA has stated that they want all whips and spurs banned, has she? And the idea is only with regard to competition, not to training. No one is talking about banning artificial aids outright. (Which is another thorny issue . . . if whips and spurs are okay why not draw reins etc?) That's been brought in by other posters taking a "worst case scenario" approach to the idea. After all, all sorts of things that used to be common practice are now no longer acceptable (Black Beauty and overchecks, anyone?

).

The fact is, if you just took whips away, people would adapt. And one way, I hate to say, they might do so is to not take horses into competition until they're pretty sure the horse is going to go without use of force. In some ways it's harder to say "okay here, not okay there) and to guess intent strictly from behaviour.

All that said, I almost always ride with a whip and hardly ever use it.

This stance has come from experience - I used to use the whip more often and I've learned that in many of those instances I was simply wrong. I either didn't understand the situation or didn't know enough to fix it in other ways. That said, as tools to extend our reach and influence, they can be invaluable TRAINING aids - which, by definition, become less necessary as progress is made.

I'm not sure people NEED them as much as they think they do. I suspect if whips and spurs were banned (which no one is suggesting) then people would either find another way (as discussed above) or, perhaps more likely, discover they needed them less in the first place.

 

[SuzyQ]

In so far as I can read the Scottish directive, they have not banned whips. Just classified the use of the whip for punishment as an abuse. So if you use the whip for negative reinforcement, that would still be okay. Is that right?


As for the hunter which bites and strikes out after other horses, the secret would be to find out what causes the behaviour and then remedy the cause. Unless we believe that the horse is simply "bad", punishing it with the whip seems a pretty short term solution. What if the horse's aggression is rooted in fear? Then what happens when he's whipped? What if his aggression is rooted in confusion? Then what is achieved by beating on him? Long term, I mean.


Can we make animals feel safer or less confounded by our own behaviour by beating them? I wonder.


There is lots of evidence which shows that fear and confusion in animals can make them aggressive towards people and abnormally aggressive towards other animals.

On the other hand, there is NO evidence to show that a horse's brain has evolved to be able to understand human agendas and ambitions, and so it is unlikely that horses know when they are being naughty.


So, knowing these things, how could we support punishment of horses during competition? I don't see how. Nobody is saying you can't smack a colt at home for digging his teeth into your arm, although I personally wouldn't. They are just saying that in a sport which is about training animals, the animal's failure to understand its training should not be taken out on the animal. Nobody is saying that if someone's badly trained stallion comes after you on two legs and teeth bared, you can't defend yourself with any means at your disposal. They are just saying that if you can't train your horse properly, it's your own problem.


What horses do to each other in the field is the lamest ever excuse for abuse. As social interaction between humans and horses is completely and utterly unnatural, no level of aggression may be considered "normal". Aggression (both ways) must always be seen as dysfunction, as it is not part of the objective of the interaction.


Hephey

Suzy

 

[martlin]

[ QUOTE ]



whips must not be used to punish horses for non-performance in competition - I dont know how else I can say this?

Of course we are not saying take all whips and spurs away - you have said this not me!

we are saying do not use them to PUNISH horses. EVER IN COMPETITION.



[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know how on earth are you proposing to a)judge it? and b)police it?

 

[Starbucks]

You could judge it by noticing if someone hits their horse when it's refused and police it by banning them/giving a warning if they do so. Simples.

 

[martlin]

[ QUOTE ]
You could judge it by noticing if someone hits their horse when it's refused and police it by banning them/giving a warning if they do so. Simples.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ha, but how are you going to judge if it was 'negative reinforcement' or 'punishment'?

 

[Starbucks]

Depending on if it is applied before or after the incident?

 

[martlin]

[ QUOTE ]
Depending on if it is applied before or after the incident?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, lets say after the incident... is it punishing it for stopping or 'negatively reinforcing' to move on?

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the hunter which bites and strikes out after other horses, the secret would be to find out what causes the behaviour and then remedy the cause. Unless we believe that the horse is simply "bad", punishing it with the whip seems a pretty short term solution. What if the horse's aggression is rooted in fear? Then what happens when he's whipped? What if his aggression is rooted in confusion? Then what is achieved by beating on him? Long term, I mean.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he is bad but i think he might be doing it to be dominant over other horses? he's especially bad when he's stood near his best friend Caffrey. I have no idea why it would route from fear.. he's never had any bad experiences that i know of. If it was routed from fear - how would you deal with it?

 

[SuzyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could judge it by noticing if someone hits their horse when it's refused and police it by banning them/giving a warning if they do so. Simples.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ha, but how are you going to judge if it was 'negative reinforcement' or 'punishment'?

[/ QUOTE ]



I suppose judges and officials would need a basic knowledge of learning theory to tell the difference, which is probably a good idea for them to have anyway

Suzy

 

[martlin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could judge it by noticing if someone hits their horse when it's refused and police it by banning them/giving a warning if they do so. Simples.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ha, but how are you going to judge if it was 'negative reinforcement' or 'punishment'?

[/ QUOTE ]



I suppose judges and officials would need a basic knowledge of learning theory to tell the difference, which is probably a good idea for them to have anyway

Suzy

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say that, but on the other hand, like with all other scientific theories... why do you think this particular take on things is the right one?

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Depending on if it is applied before or after the incident?


Well, lets say after the incident... is it punishing it for stopping or 'negatively reinforcing' to move on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, i think I could tell the difference and hopefully so would the judges! Also - you'd hope that people would try and abide by the rules.. I don't mind getting into trouble for some things but I certainly wouldn't want to get into trouble for abusing my horse!

 

[martlin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Depending on if it is applied before or after the incident?


Well, lets say after the incident... is it punishing it for stopping or 'negatively reinforcing' to move on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, i think I could tell the difference and hopefully so would the judges! Also - you'd hope that people would try and abide by the rules.. I don't mind getting into trouble for some things but I certainly wouldn't want to get into trouble for abusing my horse!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting not abiding the rules, I'm talking about practical applying of aids. If, lets say a horse stops at a jump, regardless of reason, I'm not to punish it... but it refuses to move - plants itself in short, I might need to use the whip with my aids to get it moving again - in any direction... would that be a punishment or negative reinforcement and how would YOU or stewards/judges be able to tell? Would you ask me for explanation or just ban me?

 

[Onyxia]

(QR)
I still fail to see how a tap with the whip is abuse.
If a horse is out of line in the field the dominant horse will kick or bite it intending to hurt.
We (I would hope) use a tap to shock as you would a smack to a small child so the unwanted behaviour stops before it becomes a problem.
Ou of curiousity once,some friends and I did use a whip on arms to get an idea of the force used.While whacking it as hard as you can hurt,a tap as it woud be used did not,and a horse will feel the impact much less then a human arm.

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting not abiding the rules, I'm talking about practical applying of aids. If, lets say a horse stops at a jump, regardless of reason, I'm not to punish it... but it refuses to move - plants itself in short, I might need to use the whip with my aids to get it moving again - in any direction... would that be a punishment or negative reinforcement and how would YOU or stewards/judges be able to tell? Would you ask me for explanation or just ban me?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well that would be negative reinforcement if you were trying to get it to move - so you wouldn't get banned. It would obviously take a lot of discretion from the judges (as do the rules as they stand now) but I think it would be a good idea really.

 

[martlin]

[ QUOTE ]

Well that would be negative reinforcement if you were trying to get it to move - so you wouldn't get banned. It would obviously take a lot of discretion from the judges (as do the rules as they stand now) but I think it would be a good idea really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think the BSJA rules on use of whip are pretty clear and do not leave that much for discretion.
I'm not in favour of anything that would mean subjective judging - the more is left for 'discretion' the easier the rules are to bend and the more susceptible to abuse...

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
I still fail to see how a tap with the whip is abuse.
If a horse is out of line in the field the dominant horse will kick or bite it intending to hurt.
We (I would hope) use a tap to shock as you would a smack to a small child so the unwanted behaviour stops before it becomes a problem.
Ou of curiousity once,some friends and I did use a whip on arms to get an idea of the force used.While whacking it as hard as you can hurt,a tap as it woud be used did not,and a horse will feel the impact much less then a human arm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that most of the time they aren't even being naughty/out of line.

 

[Onyxia]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that most of the time they aren't even being naughty/out of line.

[/ QUOTE ]
Outside the Pony Club I really have not seen anyone whacking a horse out of frustration,not saying it doesnt go on (and the coursebuilder ex had some shocking stories about what went on behind closed doors!) but I dont see it happening,guess thats a point in itself,if you are going to abuse the whip you would do it in training where there was noone to see not in the middle of a showground.

It's also hard to judge what is naughty and whats not,I find with R that a sharp vocal correction before he does something wrong(and knowing my child means I know when he is about to act up just as you would with a horse) would look nasty because he hadnt done anything yet,but is being repremanded to prevent a bad behaviour.
So a correctoin before an incident has it's place.even if it might look unjust from the ground.

I dont think for a second anyone here is in favour of letting people who do abuse the whip get away with it,but dont want to see a legitamate correction taken away because a very few are muppets.

 

[Starbucks]

Well that would be negative reinforcement if you were trying to get it to move - so you wouldn't get banned. It would obviously take a lot of discretion from the judges (as do the rules as they stand now) but I think it would be a good idea really.



Actually, I think the BSJA rules on use of whip are pretty clear and do not leave that much for discretion.
I'm not in favour of anything that would mean subjective judging - the more is left for 'discretion' the easier the rules are to bend and the more susceptible to abuse...



[/ QUOTE ]

What actually are the BSJA rules?? People seem to get away with plenty of whacking!!

 

[martlin]

[ QUOTE ]

Well that would be negative reinforcement if you were trying to get it to move - so you wouldn't get banned. It would obviously take a lot of discretion from the judges (as do the rules as they stand now) but I think it would be a good idea really.



Actually, I think the BSJA rules on use of whip are pretty clear and do not leave that much for discretion.
I'm not in favour of anything that would mean subjective judging - the more is left for 'discretion' the easier the rules are to bend and the more susceptible to abuse...



[/ QUOTE ]

What actually are the BSJA rules?? People seem to get away with plenty of whacking!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You are allowed to hit the horse no more than 3 times during the round, you can't raise your hand above your shoulder level, the horse is to be smacked on the rump.
Use of whip according to these rules is when you take your whip hand of the rein - so tapping on the shoulder is not consider use of whip.
Hope I described it clearly, if not - you can have a look in the rulebook, it's available on-line on the BSJA website.

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
Outside the Pony Club I really have not seen anyone whacking a horse out of frustration,not saying it doesnt go on (and the coursebuilder ex had some shocking stories about what went on behind closed doors!) but I dont see it happening,guess thats a point in itself,if you are going to abuse the whip you would do it in training where there was noone to see not in the middle of a showground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you really not???? I see planty of it!

You would hope that you wouldn't need these rules wouldn't you. I think most riders are fair, it's just the odd one.

I'm don't totally believe that horses can't be "naughty", obviously some horses don't particularly like some things and would refuse because they don't want to do it/have got fed up. But if they don't want to do it have we really got the right to whip them because we do?

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
You are allowed to hit the horse no more than 3 times during the round, you can't raise your hand above your shoulder level, the horse is to be smacked on the rump.
Use of whip according to these rules is when you take your whip hand of the rein - so tapping on the shoulder is not consider use of whip.
Hope I described it clearly, if not - you can have a look in the rulebook, it's available on-line on the BSJA website.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I could look at my rule book.. but i'll take your word for it. I'm glad my horse is a good boy!

 

[Shilasdair]

QR
A few points;
1. Claims of 'scientific evidence/studies'
Great, I like science as much as the next person, probably more

, so if you are going to claim that your training is proven scientifically, let's have the full references, and an explanation of why the study findings support your concept.
Thanks for the advice to google various words - that's not really the normal way to investigate scientific studies, though.

It might be worth noting that 'Learning THEORY' in itself suggests that there is a lack of proof, and therefore other theories may be just as, if not more, valid.

I'd find it really helpful if you could give your qualifications, Johanna, as you seem to suggest that you have the more educated views in comparison with us, the horse owning/riding public, thanks.

2. I reiterate - one person's 'negative reinforcement' might be viewed by another as 'punishment' - there is no clear objective definition, and to suggest, JM, that this is due to some deficit of understanding in horse riders/trainers is too simplistic (and redolent of the deficit models in public communication of science which we are hopefully trying to move beyond).

3. If you want to ban the abuse of horses in shows (which is already covered by most organisations/bodies involved) with specific detail, then you must first decide what constitutes abuse, then who will judge it, and how, and what the consequences will be for the parties concerned? Such rules have to be black and white, in order to be practical, and personally I think there are many grey areas.

4. Natural equine behaviour - those who think herds of semi-feral horses live together in perpetual peace and harmony are viewing the world through rosy glasses. In nature, horses fight, sometimes fatally, they most certainly injure each other by kicking/biting, etc. Horses certainly understand group hierarchy - and the rider/trainer must be above their subject in the hierarchy to be effective. If ever you needed an illustration - the recent programme 'My life as a horse' should have demonstrated the need to be at the top of the hierarchy, the basis of physical strength, and a human's inability to do it without using tools (the human 'horse' was encouraged to try to gain dominance in a herd of horses at feed time, without a whip to extend her reach, and was kicked by the lowest ranking horse as some of us could clearly have predicted).

S

 

[Onyxia]

[ QUOTE ]

Have you really not???? I see planty of it!

[/ QUOTE ]
TBH I saw it a lot more in the south,here there are quite a few borderline,but not quite pushing it enough to be wrong.
Does that make any sense? Gah,it's too hot to think!

[ QUOTE ]
You would hope that you wouldn't need these rules wouldn't you. I think most riders are fair, it's just the odd one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think thats why I have issue with banning them TBH,anything that prevents the majority doing something perfectly legal that doesnt hurt anyone because a few are too stupid to behave gets my back up.
Perosnaly,I normaly ride with whip which then spends most of its time tucked into a boot.I dont see any point in it;s use if legs will do but like to know it was to hand if it was needed,ie,horse did something dangerous and needed to stop the behaviour.
As wiht R,vocal correction is far better,cant forget your voice for one thing

[ QUOTE ]
I'm don't totally believe that horses can't be "naughty", obviously some horses don't particularly like some things and would refuse because they don't want to do it/have got fed up. But if they don't want to do it have we really got the right to whip them because we do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well,naughty is subjecttive,but I get what your saying and I'm with you.
Trouble is,what is normal horse behaviour to some things can be a danger.
We put them in such unnatural situatoins and need them to behave for everyones saftey,and most do.Firm but kind handling and training from the start will normaly produce a horse that will put it's trust in a rider to know more about whats going on then they do.
But a fair responce form a horse that can be a danger to itself,rider or others around needs to be corrected-if you choose "OI you b*gger STOP" or a tap with a whip is up to the rider and what they feel is needed in the situation.
Because I would always prefere to praise then punish,I really do belive in nipping things in the bud though,so will always defend the right to give a correction even if it looks like one was no needed at that point from the ground.
Better a small correction before a bad behaviour is done,then to try to reason with an animal we cont talk to about why it shouldnt have done what it did.

Off topic,are you roasting too?
Where has the Yorkshire rain gone?

 

[rara007]

The whip is essential in driving, to get them going well. How else would you teach them to bend correctly in shafts round bends, or move over back to the outside track if the only contact you have is the reins. I never use the shaft of the whip to hit the horse though, only to hold it agaist their side, or flick them with the lash.

There are so many good uses of the whip, and its only the few that spoil it for the rest. TBH people who beat their horses arn't going to stop because its the law not to use whips are they

A pony club style kick with spurs, or long reins for slapping could be just as painful for the horse, which I'm sure would happen more if whips were banned.

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]
The whip is essential in driving, to get them going well. How else would you teach them to bend correctly in shafts round bends, or move over back to the outside track if the only contact you have is the reins. I never use the shaft of the whip to hit the horse though, only to hold it agaist their side, or flick them with the lash.

There are so many good uses of the whip, and its only the few that spoil it for the rest. TBH people who beat their horses arn't going to stop because its the law not to use whips are they

A pony club style kick with spurs, or long reins for slapping could be just as painful for the horse, which I'm sure would happen more if whips were banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree entirely, Rara.
Whips are used as an aid, with no abuse, in lunging, long reining, in hand work, and side saddle.
I think the simplest way to safeguard equine welfare is to utilise the existing laws, and report any incidences of abuse to show organisers, and the governing body for that particular sport.
I know people do report concerns to show directors/organisers/stewards, and it is rare for no action to be taken, often a gentle warning is enough to prevent further abuse.
Of course when they go home....but then, no whip ban is going to help that either...
S