Can we cope with ban on spurs/whips etc.?

[ycbm]

Your logic would suggest that prey animals in zoos, who are provided food and have no predators, would be sufficiently stimulated - which, looking at the rates of stereotyped behaviours in captivity, is quite clearly not the case.

Absolutely not. That's part of my point. Prey animals are completely different from those preyed upon.

Yes, look at the stereotypical behaviours in prey animals and the, for the most part, absence of them in horses not receiving the kind of enrichment that you are suggesting is essential.

You are over complicating what it takes for most horses to be contented with life.
.

 

[sbloom]

I think acceptance can look like contentment.

 

[ycbm]

I think acceptance can look like contentment.

Is acceptance without any sign of stress not good enough? It would be for my own life.
.

 

[sbloom]

Is acceptance without any sign of stress not good enough? It would be for my own life.
.

But what led to the acceptance? The way we condition horses, and that is under question.

 

[sakura]

I completely fail to understand how a light flick with a dressage whip is worse than a hefty kick. Or yanking on the mouth on an unruly horse in a snaffle is better than a harsher bit used lightly.

Correct, they're both bad. One being worse than the other doesn't stop the other from also being bad. In one instance, you're hitting an animal with a whip, in the other you're kicking it. "Light flick" is still hitting. At the same time, all bits are inherently problematic. They all work on the same fundamental premise - the pressure of hard metal against soft tissue to get the response you want. All of that is true, it's up to individuals to decide their own ethics.

 

[Chianti]

I think you are massively overcomplicating this. A horse's primary programming is what it is going to eat and what is going to eat it.

Surely absence of stress, fear and pain are all any animal, humans included, but particularly an animal expecting to be eaten for another animal's lunch, need from life?

I think the problem is that the lives many of our horses are leading now are stressful for them. They often don't show it and they shut down to cope and their owners think they are fine. We seem to have an epidemic of ulcers in our horses and ponies. Why is that? It's either pain, diet or some issue with their management. Horses and ponies didn't evolve to spend large parts of their day alone in boxes or in small paddocks which contain one type of grass.

 

[palo1]

Well horses in the wild certainly don’t live free of stress fear and pain…

No they really don't! But horses in the wild are well adapted to those stresses and fears - as are all wild animals. I mean, what do people think happens to old birds, rabbits, deer or any animal when they don't have people to 'rescue' them from starvation, injury or disease? Nothing on this planet can avoid natural stress or natural processes that are not positive.

Domestic animals can be managed however and ethically we should try to avoid stress, fear or pain outwith what those animals are well adapted to and what we cannot control (ie stress of the presence of a fox, snake etc in the field, coping with horrible weather for short periods of time or minor illness such as a hoof abcess, virus etc) . That can be done through training, knowledge and veterinary intervention or euthanasia where necessary. Yet any sentient animal's needs are far more complex than 'absence of'. Horses and all social mammals make long lasting friendships and have very strong social relationships for example - those are probably vital to those animals wellbeing and are far from an 'absence from' yet the way we manage horses often fails to take that into significant consideration and I would say would NEVER be considered when we want to sell, move or otherwise disrupt our horses for our convenience. That is just one aspect of the ethical issues around keeping horses but there are many.

Personally this one aspect was brought home to me a long time ago when I had a horse that never really fitted into his livery herd. He was either being picked on or bullying someone and it was a right PITA to deal with. Stress at bringing in time, minor injuries received and inflicted, tense horses etc. A new horse arrived and became great mates with my chap. The two of them just got on brilliantly. The change in my horse was really remarkable and I was delighted that he was happier. The owner of my horse's friend sold him a couple of years down the line and my horse called for him for 3 days. If I had known that the horse was for sale I would have bought him as I could see how different his life was with that friendship, stability and compatibility. It changed a lot for me.

Having had the opportunity to observe and get to know the individuals in a feral herd was pretty transformative for me too in informing my understanding of what I think horses need in life but I understand that isn't a common experience. I find it really relevant to keeping horses domestically though, as it is possible to see other elements of life that allow horses to thrive. I know many people will not see the relevance or want to discount that because it seems a long way from domestic management.

 

[sbloom]

Same as with humans, stress came from real danger and animals and humans would normally react physically, without that physical release we don't process the cortisol which is really harmful in our bodies. And horses are more stoic than us, so they cover this stuff up better than we do (though I know most of us know that, sometimes we don't extrapolate it far enough).

 

[stangs]

Absolutely not. That's part of my point. Prey animals are completely different from those preyed upon.

Yes, look at the stereotypical behaviours in prey animals and the, for the most part, absence of them in horses not receiving the kind of enrichment that you are suggesting is essential.

You are over complicating what it takes for most horses to be contented with life.

If food and no predation was all it took for a horse to be content, then, when you moved your boy to a livery stable, he should have been "content" from the minute he was fed. And yet it took him time to settle, did it not?

You are yet to define contentment beyond blatant stress signs. All you have done is anthropomorphise by saying you wouldn’t mind a life of "acceptance", even though the fundamental difference between you and any domestic horse is that your entire life is not controlled by another being, and you have a large say in how you live.
.

 

[Leandy]

Oh how I hate these discussions. So much ignorance and so many extremist views. So I'll just make a few points:

Anyone who wants to ban whips, spurs and double bridles outright has absolutely no idea about their correct use. It is outright abuse of animals by misuse of equipment which should be (and largely already is) banned, not correct, sympathetic use of certain pieces of equipment as aids to refine the way of going.

Many jumping on this bandwagon will not be happy until all human interaction with animals is outlawed. They appear to fail to understand that if humans cannot interact with and "use" animals for our pleasure, for food etc etc. then there will rapidly be few animals in the world at all. Or they believe this is a preferable outcome for some reason I have never heard anyone address. Personally, I think the human experience is enriched through our relationships with animals and I would hope that their lives are similarly enhanced. The world would be a sad and diminished place with no domesticated animals in it. The other alternative of treating them as nothing but pampered, spoilt, over fed and under stimulated pets is in no way preferable to keeping working animals for a purpose and treating them with respect and consideration in return for their cooperation and willingness to have a relationship with us.

 

[sakura]

With respect, you can have an enriched life and relationship with a horse without poking spurs in its side or hitting it with a whip. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

My semi retired horse is in no way spoilt, over fed or under stimulated, despite her barely doing a days work in a year anymore.

 

[sbloom]

Oh how I hate these discussions. So much ignorance and so many extremist views. So I'll just make a few points:

Anyone who wants to ban whips, spurs and double bridles outright has absolutely no idea about their correct use. It is outright abuse of animals by misuse of equipment which should be (and largely already is) banned, not correct, sympathetic use of certain pieces of equipment as aids to refine the way of going.

Many jumping on this bandwagon will not be happy until all human interaction with animals is outlawed. They appear to fail to understand that if humans cannot interact with and "use" animals for our pleasure, for food etc etc. then there will rapidly be few animals in the world at all. Or they believe this is a preferable outcome for some reason I have never heard anyone address. Personally, I think the human experience is enriched through our relationships with animals and I would hope that their lives are similarly enhanced. The world would be a sad and diminished place with no domesticated animals in it. The other alternative of treating them as nothing but pampered, spoilt, over fed and under stimulated pets is in no way preferable to keeping working animals for a purpose and treating them with respect and consideration in return for their cooperation and willingness to have a relationship with us.

As Indiangel says, it's not all or nothing. If we don't change, then it may be. We all want to live around animals but we want to do it WAY better than is currently done, on average. It would be better if biodiversity was increased but it would be no great shame if domesticated animals decreased even by as much as half, it would help the planet, but then we have a ton of ways we could save the planet and we're barely doing any of them.

 

[Leandy]

With respect, you can have an enriched life and relationship with a horse without poking spurs in its side or hitting it with a whip. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Abusive use is to be discouraged clearly. That doesn't mean all use is wrong. Have you never been in a situation where a quick, deliberate smack with a whip is preferable than the alternative eg to discourage your horse from reversing itself into a deep, filthy ditch with god knows what hazards lurking at the bottom, or to get a distracted, spooking horse out of the way of oncoming traffic??

 

[sbloom]

Abusive use is to be discouraged clearly. That doesn't mean all use is wrong. Have you never been in a situation where a quick, deliberate smack with a whip is preferable than the alternative eg to discourage your horse from reversing itself into a deep, filthy ditch with god knows what hazards lurking at the bottom, or to get a distracted, spooking horse out of the way of oncoming traffic??

I'm slightly being devils advocate but, if our horses were conditioned in a different way, had more agency, and our communication with them was different, would we even get into that situation where those were the only two choices? Too many arguments looking at the situations we currently create for ourselves with our horses, instead of looking at the bigger picture of what we expect of them and how we treat them from the go get.

 

[sakura]

Abusive use is to be discouraged clearly. That doesn't mean all use is wrong. Have you never been in a situation where a quick, deliberate smack with a whip is preferable than the alternative eg to discourage your horse from reversing itself into a deep, filthy ditch with god knows what hazards lurking at the bottom, or to get a distracted, spooking horse out of the way of oncoming traffic??

There will always be extreme examples, as you have just illustrated. It doesn't mean the use of that equipment should therefore be the daily norm - which it currently is.

 

[milliepops]

if someone uses a schooling whip with sensitivity, to indicate to the horse eg. move this leg this way, as opposed to whacking to go faster, i don't see that it's any different to any other aid such as the reins (which most of us accept for daily use). it's just an instruction. No one has to hit a horse with a whip, you can effectively gesticulate with one if the horse has been trained accordingly.

 

[Leandy]

if someone uses a schooling whip with sensitivity, to indicate to the horse eg. move this leg this way, as opposed to whacking to go faster, i don't see that it's any different to any other aid such as the reins (which most of us accept for daily use). it's just an instruction. No one has to hit a horse with a whip, you can effectively gesticulate with one if the horse has been trained accordingly.

Thank you, precisely. So this shouldn't be about "banning" items of equipment or not. It is certain behaviour which is unacceptable, not certain items of equipment. Ample doses of common sense should not be banned and people (as well as animals) need to be given the leaway to regulate their own behaviour and encouraged to use their brains. So specific principles of conduct are the way to go, not the black and white banning of certain items which many find useful and which are unobjectionable in the right hands just because a very few abuse them. You can target the latter via enforcement of principled behaviour without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and spoiling things for the many.

 

[palo1]

if someone uses a schooling whip with sensitivity, to indicate to the horse eg. move this leg this way, as opposed to whacking to go faster, i don't see that it's any different to any other aid such as the reins (which most of us accept for daily use). it's just an instruction. No one has to hit a horse with a whip, you can effectively gesticulate with one if the horse has been trained accordingly.

Yes, this. Also, as has been said upthread, any discussion around use of whips/spurs etc is just tinkering around the edges of ethical horsekeeping. The discussion needs to be a bit deeper than around what we do with horses when they are being ridden; particularly because for most horses at least in the UK spend the vast majority of their time not being ridden and it is the conditions of their keeping and handling that have possibly the greatest impact on them. If we were able to change our mindset about what horses need more widely, attitudes about riding would change too. This has been seen in a small way in Dressage where, thanks to particular role models, it has now become seen as 'normal' for even frighteningly 'valuable' horses to have regular turnout with other horses and to hack out etc. Those attitudinal changes result in a mind-shift about horses that translates then to the ridden stuff.

I don't know many people who regularly ride in spurs other than those competing at a higher level. I don't think the use of spurs is a huge issue for the vast majority of horses. Use of the whip is more common and many, many people don't use a whip as an aid but as a punishment. It would be pretty low hanging fruit to simply ban the use of the whip though it would be impossible to enforce and would potentially result in some unfortunate incidents where emergency use can help to prevent a horrible accident/incident. I can't remember the last time I saw a horse being whipped either tbh. Perhaps I am lucky in the company I keep and I don't routinely go out to shows etc so I am possibly missing some pretty grim behaviour but that behaviour speaks of attitude issues which go deeper than how many smacks, with what and when imo.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

if someone uses a schooling whip with sensitivity, to indicate to the horse eg. move this leg this way, as opposed to whacking to go faster, i don't see that it's any different to any other aid such as the reins (which most of us accept for daily use). it's just an instruction. No one has to hit a horse with a whip, you can effectively gesticulate with one if the horse has been trained accordingly.

Yeah, I agree. I spoke about my whip usage earlier and I don't use it as a tool to go faster. Horse is great at going faster, but not bigger, but that's a whole 'nother thread ? #thestruggleisrealtho

I can lightly tap him or just point at a limb to "activate it" it's more about activation as opposed to speed. No whacking needed either.

With some of his ground "tricks" it's actually more like a pointer. I use it to point or as a guide. I'm crap at explaining this ? but a whip doesn't have to be cruel or threatening. People could arguably do worse things with a bit and reins.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

Yes, this. Also, as has been said upthread, any discussion around use of whips/spurs etc is just tinkering around the edges of ethical horsekeeping. The discussion needs to be a bit deeper than around what we do with horses when they are being ridden; particularly because for most horses at least in the UK spend the vast majority of their time not being ridden and it is the conditions of their keeping and handling that have possibly the greatest impact on them. If we were able to change our mindset about what horses need more widely, attitudes about riding would change too. This has been seen in a small way in Dressage where, thanks to particular role models, it has now become seen as 'normal' for even frighteningly 'valuable' horses to have regular turnout with other horses and to hack out etc. Those attitudinal changes result in a mind-shift about horses that translates then to the ridden stuff.

I don't know many people who regularly ride in spurs other than those competing at a higher level. I don't think the use of spurs is a huge issue for the vast majority of horses. Use of the whip is more common and many, many people don't use a whip as an aid but as a punishment. It would be pretty low hanging fruit to simply ban the use of the whip though it would be impossible to enforce and would potentially result in some unfortunate incidents where emergency use can help to prevent a horrible accident/incident. I can't remember the last time I saw a horse being whipped either tbh. Perhaps I am lucky in the company I keep and I don't routinely go out to shows etc so I am possibly missing some pretty grim behaviour but that behaviour speaks of attitude issues which go deeper than how many smacks, with what and when imo.

The spur issue is a huge one here. So many riders from all levels are using spurs, and not the tiny ones.

It's baffling to me because they'll all reach for spurs before a whip (I'm the opposite). One rider said she's afraid that the horse will run if she has a whip, but she endlessly jabs spurs into his sides while he drags along at a snails pace. So ?‍ I rather tap the horse once and get a bit of an overreaction, establish forward (if that's what works), and call it a day vs constantly kicking and jabbing with spurs.

Or, y'know you could teach the horse to respect, understand, and respond to subtle leg aids, but that's crazy talk. Someone once said that I need to be able to put more leg on my horse and should be working harder. Um, no thanks! He accepts the leg and responds to subtle aids, I'm cool with that. We work about the same. Neither one of us is exhausted after a ride, and get along just fine with training without so much force and brute strength. I sweat some people here view the horse has a workout machine and if they're not beat afterward, it wasn't a "ride"

 

[palo1]

Yeah, I agree. I spoke about my whip usage earlier and I don't use it as a tool to go faster. Horse is great at going faster, but not bigger, but that's a whole 'nother thread ? #thestruggleisrealtho

I can lightly tap him or just point at a limb to "activate it" it's more about activation as opposed to speed. No whacking needed either.

With some of his ground "tricks" it's actually more like a pointer. I use it to point or as a guide. I'm crap at explaining this ? but a whip doesn't have to be cruel or threatening. People could arguably do worse things with a bit and reins.

Absolutely. Teachers can use all manner of tools for good and bad. Pencils can be used for drawing helpful diagrams, for pointing at relevant information or for poking people with the sharp end...it is not the pencil that has agency and impact; it is it's deployment.

 

[sakura]

I think we can all agree though that the majority of people learning to ride a horse or pony are given a whip long before they're learning the subtilty of asking for precision.

 

[Leandy]

There will always be extreme examples, as you have just illustrated. It doesn't mean the use of that equipment should therefore be the daily norm - which it currently is.

Well personally I'd like to take a whip whenever I go hacking for this type of circumstance. Pretty sure you will find that eventers want to carry a whip in case it is needed. In neither case does anyone want to flog the horse from beginning to end. Any such implication is ridiculous. So yes, taking away the ability to carry and use a whip is materially detrimental to normal and non abusive people and that should not be prevented. Would it help you to relaunch it as safety equipment?

 

[Miss_Millie]

Well personally I'd like to take a whip whenever I go hacking for this type of circumstance. Pretty sure you will find that eventers want to carry a whip in case it is needed. In neither case does anyone want to flog the horse from beginning to end. Any such implication is ridiculous. So yes, taking away the ability to carry and use a whip is materially detrimental to normal and non abusive people and should not be prevented. Would it help you to relaunch it as safety equipment?

Most people I know/observe use whips for punishment, e.g. to give a smack if a horse spooks, not to give refined training signals.

 

[milliepops]

Most people I know/observe use whips for punishment, e.g. to give a smack if a horse spooks, not to give refined training signals.

and for me, this comes back to a poor understanding of what tools can and should be used for. As well as a lack of appetite for learning, imagination or self development, or good training from the rider/handler. Basically it's lazy handling. I expect most responding on this thread are constantly trying to be better for our horses. unfortunately for the horse, the nature of the thing is that you have to learn on the job a fair bit. and you're also never done learning

 

[Leandy]

Most people I know/observe use whips for punishment, e.g. to give a smack if a horse spooks, not to give refined training signals.

Are you sure that is what they are doing? Perhaps they are reinforcing their leg aid to send the horse on again? Have you actually asked them why they use the whip? Perhaps you misinterpret what you see? It makes little sense to hit a horse for punishment simply because it is frightened of something. How will that help it not be frightened next time?

 

[sakura]

Well personally I'd like to take a whip whenever I go hacking for this type of circumstance. Pretty sure you will find that eventers want to carry a whip in case it is needed. In neither case does anyone want to flog the horse from beginning to end. Any such implication is ridiculous. So yes, taking away the ability to carry and use a whip is materially detrimental to normal and non abusive people and that should not be prevented. Would it help you to relaunch it as safety equipment?

If only that were the case, it isn't. I have definitely seen top eventers use the whip as punishment - and be correctly penalised for doing so.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Are you sure that is what they are doing? Perhaps they are reinforcing their leg aid to send the horse on again? Have you actually asked them why they use the whip? Perhaps you misinterpret what you see? It makes little sense to hit a horse for punishment simply because it is frightened of something. How will that help it not be frightened next time?

Yes I'm 100% sure. It is common-place that people do this when their horse behaves in a way that they perceive to be 'naughty'. I see it everywhere.

 

[Leandy]

If only that were the case, it isn't. I have definitely seen top eventers use the whip as punishment - and be correctly penalised for doing so.

So that type of use is already banned........

 

[sbloom]

Are you sure that is what they are doing? Perhaps they are reinforcing their leg aid to send the horse on again? Have you actually asked them why they use the whip? Perhaps you misinterpret what you see? It makes little sense to hit a horse for punishment simply because it is frightened of something. How will that help it not be frightened next time?

It doesn't matter what we see and how we feel about it, all that matters is what the horse feels and understands. Why would you hit a horse that's frightened? So often all we're doing is overwhelming the horse's natural instincts, that the "pain" (I use the word loosely) of carrying on with their preferred behaviour becomes greater than the pain that's being inflicted to get them to override those instincts.