eahotson
Well-Known Member
In what way is it just click bait?
Lottie and Everdale latest test wins, God help us rewarding this disgrace.
- Thread starter angel7
- Start date
eahotson
Well-Known Member
I agree.My old boy is at a retirement livery.They have 24 hour access to a field and an open sided barn with a good bed.They do go out in the field during the day for a few hours but are in the barn (own choice) at night.No everything about domestication is bad.
alexomahony
Well-Known Member
You’re right - it’s not natural, but it’s the closest our environment can offer to it. Just noting that anything beyond them grazing is a big ask of them. We normalize it all because it’s what we’re used too, but out of context what we expect of them is totally bonkers 
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Horses have walked by man and been ridden a long time we have shaped them they shaped us .
The notion that they are not changed is a silly as thinking we are same as we where when we lived in caves .
Bad management is just what it bad management.
Fields are no more natural than stables .
The notion that they are not changed is a silly as thinking we are same as we where when we lived in caves .
Bad management is just what it bad management.
Fields are no more natural than stables .
Fellewell
Well-Known Member
He is an exponent of sensationalist journalism designed to generate hysteria with very little evidence. He's the author of such in-depth pieces as: If you wear fake fur you are dressing up as an animal killer.
I think we deserve evidence based information.
equinerebel
Well-Known Member
That ^^^
Orangehorse
Well-Known Member
It was probably written in the 1970s
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Keeping a horse in an area it can't even walk about in freely ranks way above being in a small field or even a big shared barn on the " unnatural" scale.
We normalize it all because it’s what we’re used too, but out of context what we expect of them is totally bonkers
If man had never sat on a horse and somebody now suggested doing that, I think it would be considered a bad idea.
.
Cortez
Tough but Fair
History is carried on the back of the horse. We have used (and often abused) horses for more than 5,000 years. It's only in the past 80 or so that we, in the west at any rate, haven't "had" to do so.
stormox
Well-Known Member
Sorry no. I have one of his books called "the art of taming horses" dated 1858.
stangs
Well-Known Member
I didn’t write my post because I think my opinion of that article matters or because I planned to change people’s opinions of dressage. The topic of changing public perception is awfully complex - they had a speaker in at the WHW conference a couple years back, who’d consulted for the government on changing public perception, and as several audience members rightfully pointed out, the tactics he was proposing had already been tried for racing without success. So if someone who’s worked in public perception can’t provide much useful input, I’m certainly not expecting to (though it’s a topic certainly worth researching for anyone interested). I only made my post because the rhetorics used are perhaps more familiar to me than to others, and because I enjoy critical thinking and watching it die its little lonely death on the Internet makes me sad.
With respect, you say you care about the future of equestrian sports and yet, earlier in this thread, you said you had no intention of buying another horse because of your ethical stance. Do you think the abstinence of people who care about equine welfare will help equestrianism as a whole? Isn’t it somewhat hypocritical for people like myself and many of the folks on this thread to be so openly critical about a sport whilst remaining a bystander who’s not doing anything beyond the occasional petition sign to encourage the sport to change? (Open question to anyone with no right answers; the question of how to become an active bystander is something I ponder a lot.)
I disagree with your first paragraph. If the bubble is equestrian sport, then not to toot my own horn but I’m inside the bubble and I don’t think Olympics = world’s best horseman either. If the bubble is animal welfare, then he - as an animal rights activist (look at his previous articles) - is very much in the bubble with strong predefined views. He’s not made an opinion about dressage based on what he’s seen; he’s making it based on his views of farming, racing, and everything else involving animals.
I’d personally argue that the change regarding spurs is a big change, because it’s the first concession to the 'opposition', and hopefully the first of many. Wild animals in circuses were banned not just because of the welfare issues, but because circuses didn’t have anyone with power/money to support their side. Dog racing too is on the ropes because it’s seen as a working class sport, and so doesn’t have much money/power beyond the betting industry, and yet it has still somehow remained afloat despite calls for large charities to ban it.
Equestrian sports and racing, however, have a huge amount of money and power. Thus, as much as we should be thinking about social license to operate and working on improving the sport, I don’t think these sports are going to be banned anytime soon. Besides, we're not trying to change the sport just to stop it being banned, are we? That would be superficial. I thought we wanted change because, above all else, we want to improve the lives of sport horses.
SEL
Well-Known Member
I was pondering the tension good vs bad as well.
My young cob was certainly tense in new environments last year. He was noticeably better the more we did. For me that tension was about learning new stuff so I decided it was acceptable - others may disagree.
If he'd spent the whole summer trotting round Intro tests tail swishing, mouth chewing and not relaxing into the contact then I would have been worried. If this had been Everdale's first big event then perhaps it could have been seen as part of the education process but it wasn't.
The tension I was taking about up thread wasn't the contractions that take place in muscles it was the 'on edge' tension that I thought we all understood.
When I did my bit fitting certificate the notes talked about how we controlled horses in the early days. Rings though noses and some very nasty pieces of metal - but even those notes took us through the progress and to me continuing progress is what is important. I'd hate dressage to be banned at the Olympics but I'd like to be cheering on tests that don't look like this one. I remember Valegro coming into the arena at 2012 and he looked like he was enjoying himself. More of that.
Chianti
Well-Known Member
I think there is evidence based information but it doesn't get the coverage it needs and, often when it's seen, it's dismissed. The EPONA TV Facebook page is great and often highlights issues in competition horses. They had a link to a group - can't remember the name - which had basically gone through a winning Grand prix dressage test frame by frame and showed how the horse wasn't showing the correct movements but was still scoring 8+. Photographs showing stressed, unhappy horses are dismissed as ' a moment in time'. The FEI pays lip service to horse welfare - if they really cared they would scrap the current scoring system and introduce one which rewarded riders who can sit on a horse without looking like they're pushing an elephant up a mountain.
stangs
Well-Known Member
Everdale's test is a very clear example of conflict behaviours, so I don't think it should be considered as part of the tension argument.
The way I understand the tension argument is that it's difficult for anyone to look happy and relaxed when doing something challenging; if you look at any picture of someone in the act of competing, they're probably not making a nice relaxed smile. If you watch two colts playing happily and voluntarily in a field, they'll often pin their ears at one another because play is quite close to aggression, because they're experiencing stress even if it's eustress. That's not to say that we should be fine with horses showing negative behaviours when ridden, but that we need to better understand the distinction between tension as part of learning or the temporary physical stress of the body (eustress), and conflict behaviour that reflects poor welfare (distress).
E.g., people often compare photos of a racehorse's face at the finish line to equine facial ethograms to claim that the animal is obviously in pain. But a low score on an ethogram denotes a lack of pain when resting, not a lack of pain generally - it would be incredibly odd for a racehorse to finish a race with floppy ears and a peaceful expression, in the same way that I playfully challenged you to a race, it would be very odd if we had a light-hearted grin on our faces as we sprinted to the end. So how do we distinguish between eustress behaviours and distress behaviours at a single moment in time?
Anyhow, if I see a horse showing some negative behaviours when being asked to piaffe, I might question "is that rider abusing that horse, or is the horse showing tension and poor execution because it's still learning and this is a task that's very difficult for the modern dressage horse, but soon the rider will give it a long rein and a pat, the horse will walk on happily, and the release of tension means that the stress experienced there may well be eustress?"
The issue is when the judging doesn't reflect the movement, which has already been discussed.
onemoretime
Well-Known Member
I have wondered when Polo would come up! The amount of unnecessary tack on the poor horse and the way they are pulled and yanked about is pitiful to see yet nothing as far as I know has ever been said!
equinerebel
Well-Known Member
I'm not buying another horse after this one for a multitude of reasons. The ethics comment was in response to a question of how I could be certain I was in no way hurting a horse in the future - that is simple, because I won't have one. I'm not not buying another because I don't see how I can keep one ethically, if that makes sense? I'm probably not keeping my current horse as ethically as I could be. She's ridden, stabled, clipped and shod. And she enjoys all of that, so maybe it is ethical for her. Is it natural? No.
I'm against a lot of things that I don't actively participate in. I think you can do both. I don't think it only counts if you're on the frontline so to speak.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Ever? Or do you mean on this thread? I've been a very vocal critic of polo on this forum. There is stuff happening every minute or two of a polo match that would see you disqualified from a dressage competition.
.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
A vet I know can’t bring themselves to deal with polo ponies as they find the management of the ponies so inadequate. At a game they see lines of shut down broken lame polo ponies who get hyped enough with adrenaline up to zoom around playing chukkas, often with very overweight riders, despite being crippled.
’Polo sound’ = crippled lame.
Horrible ‘sport’. Lot of money in it, though
.
’Polo sound’ = crippled lame.
Horrible ‘sport’. Lot of money in it, though
.CanteringCarrot
Well-Known Member
Polo totally slipped my mind, and it shouldn't. I used the example of barrel racing, but that doesn't mean it is the only example, unfortunately.
onemoretime
Well-Known Member
Ah sorry I have not seen your comments on Polo, in fact I have never seen any criticism of Polo. Note to self, must pay more attention.
eahotson
Well-Known Member
onemoretime
Well-Known Member
Until the judges start marking the horses that are BTV, tense and tight in neck and back nothing will change. I dont mean coming down from an 8 to a 6 I mean slamming them for a 4 and if the horse does it again then a 3 but I dont think any of them have the courage to do that! They are to afraid that they wont be asked back to judge again.
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
There’s alot to think about with the judging, judging has changed over the years at one point you saw horses barely going forward but still getting good scores and beating more supple horses performing with more freedom but having blips along the way .
I think the judging at the lower levels is really good now my correct forward calm ID who has a tendency to get on his front consistently did well against flashy moving tenser types who would have swiped the floor with my horse if they could perform a clear round .My horse had a very very clever rider who never gives a mark away but he was calm and confident and see that in the arena.
I never thought my horse got unfairly marked I never got a comment I did not agree with.
But well ridden swanky moving horses could beat him if they stayed calm and I think that is how it should be .
The judging at the Top that’s something I don’t know enough about .
Last edited:
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I think the diffrence between use and other animals is we have modified our behavoir, out of experience and choice, but we still have the same basic reactions to fear and stress, if you have a young baby some of its reactions are instinct,https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/baby-development/reflexes-5-instincts-your-baby-is-born-with/
We habituate animals, but really the most basic instincts are always there, there may be certain breed variations, but stress an animal and it will resort to instinct. I have yet to hear of a breed of feral horses that live in a cave, and even when they lie down in the open they usually have a watcher on point.
We may think we have changed as humans, but we are very close to early homo sapians, and I think perhaps the only difference our abilty to pass information on. You learn a new tecnology, and there is no more incentive to spread it, where as once it fear of invasion and the acquiring of technology could give your invader the advantage.
I love a The History of the World in a 100 Objects, the episode about the banknote, explains the problems we still have today.
BBC Radio 4 - A History of the World in 100 Objects, The Threshold of the Modern World (1375-1550 AD), Ming banknote
Neil MacGregor with a 14th century bank note - from Ming Dynasty China.
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Also I think there’s a lot of things a young horse can do that’s a lot worse than dropping behind the vertical now and again.
CanteringCarrot
Well-Known Member
I agree, and I had a horse that was inclined to go behind the vertical for a variety of reasons, and fixing the issue wasn't easy, but there's a difference between dropping BTV and being held there.
splashgirl45
Lurcher lover
Agree, I understand we can all get our horses BTV sometimes and I accept that’s the same for the high up riders, but BTV for the whole test apart from the walk is not acceptable especially when combined with mouth opening and tension and the judges need to dock them a couple of marks
Palindrome
Well-Known Member
Debatable, "cave men" of our species weren't necessarily different to us, they probably were as smart as we are. They would have been very smart to be able to survive and travel in the wild (knowing which plants to eat, where there is water, how to make tools, etc...), they would have been able to create art and have ceremonies/special ways to take care of the dead.
They also would have been able to interact and interbreed with other humans, that aren't ours species but lived at the same time.
But natural selection is different to selective breeding/domestication. I think it is still unclear how exactly was the ancestor of domesticated horse.
abb123
Well-Known Member
Interestingly just seen a video from yesterday of Lottie with her up and coming horse, Kjento. It makes a much happier picture. I'm not saying it's perfect but the overall picture is of a much happier and more confident horse and Lottie's riding looks much more harmonious. Kjento is by Negro who is the same sire of Valegro. Quite different breeding to the xdales.
eahotson
Well-Known Member
Well click bait can be useful.I don't know this man.I thought the article I read was reasonably balanced but click bait gets people reading where they might not otherwise.They can make up their own minds whether they think the journalist is correct or not.It may be that they agree with some aspects but not others.