RANT. Pink and fluffy would be Parelli- ites should not be allowed to ...

team barney said:
Unfortunately even the strongest bit wont hold a horse who is genuinely bolting. When a horse bolts putting barbed wire in it's mouth couldn't stop it (not that I've tried).

Have to say though a knotted rope halter does give quiet a lot of control, I rode a strong pony in one once after a recommendation, it didn't suit us (pony hated it) but I had better brakes in the rope halter than in in an english hackamore (r-eschooling fixed all issues and pony now goes happily in an english hackamore, lozenge snaffle or headcollar).
Click to expand...

The question has come round to this fact now....IF you were riding on the road in headcollar or rope halter, how would it stand in court if your horse bolted? Not a question of the degree of control....the judge is going to want to know why you WERE NOT in control, then you are going to have to go down the route of what is considered safe, and what isn't, and drag into court, all manner of 'experts' in, to try to fight their case.

If anyone was just riding in a headcollar 'because my horse is XXXX-trained to an inch, blah blah blah....' and the worst happens, be prepared for hell of a fight in court, because thats what you would get.
 
DragonSlayer said:
The question has come round to this fact now....IF you were riding on the road in headcollar or rope halter, how would it stand in court if your horse bolted? Not a question of the degree of control....the judge is going to want to know why you WERE NOT in control, then you are going to have to go down the route of what is considered safe, and what isn't, and drag into court, all manner of 'experts' in, to try to fight their case.

If anyone was just riding in a headcollar 'because my horse is XXXX-trained to an inch, blah blah blah....' and the worst happens, be prepared for hell of a fight in court, because thats what you would get.
Click to expand...
@Andy are ya scared yet? ARE ya?? :rolleyes:
 
So, is it really a question of insurance, rather than control, that people are talking about? Rather than trying to say that you would have more control in a bit, bitless, instead of a halter/headcollar.

Just wondering, insurance issue aside, why do people think that you have more control in a bitless bridle rather than a halter or headcollar? All dont have bits, and all work on nose pressure. Whats the big difference? Name? One is called a BRIDLE, the other a halter?

I think its daft to say that i bitted horse or one ridden in a BITLESS BRIDLE would surely have more control. Ive seen enough horse's running off with the riders in both, and on the roads. Like what andy has said, its about TRAINING. It doesnt matter a damn bit what you use, as long as your horse is familiar with the equipment, and is safe. Weather that is a bit, bitless or headcollar.

In regards to insurance for halters, ive really know idea how i stand. Maybe im covered, because my horses are well trained in them, but at the end of the day, if i had an accident, how would i prove i was in control of my horse. But at the same time, how does a bitted horse rider prove they are in control of their horse? If you horse bolt or something on the road, and you were NOT in full control, you could very easily been in as deep **** as me.
 
From the Road Traffic Act:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the M1Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M2Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

The Highway Code states that a saddle & bridle should be worn. In not complying, one is leaving ones self open to being found liable - whether insured or not.

I'm sure there are horses who are under control without a bit but, on my opinion (and the eyes of the law), whilst it is not totally foolproof, you stand a much better chance of keeping control in a bridle than in a headcollar.
 
Jennyharvey said:
So, is it really a question of insurance, rather than control, that people are talking about? Rather than trying to say that you would have more control in a bit, bitless, instead of a halter/headcollar.

Just wondering, insurance issue aside, why do people think that you have more control in a bitless bridle rather than a halter or headcollar? All dont have bits, and all work on nose pressure. Whats the big difference? Name? One is called a BRIDLE, the other a halter?

I think its daft to say that i bitted horse or one ridden in a BITLESS BRIDLE would surely have more control. Ive seen enough horse's running off with the riders in both, and on the roads. Like what andy has said, its about TRAINING. It doesnt matter a damn bit what you use, as long as your horse is familiar with the equipment, and is safe. Weather that is a bit, bitless or headcollar.

In regards to insurance for halters, ive really know idea how i stand. Maybe im covered, because my horses are well trained in them, but at the end of the day, if i had an accident, how would i prove i was in control of my horse. But at the same time, how does a bitted horse rider prove they are in control of their horse? If you horse bolt or something on the road, and you were NOT in full control, you could very easily been in as deep **** as me.
Click to expand...

It's the insurance question Im asking, yes. If people want to do Parelli or whatever they want, in my book, they can go ahead if it floats their boat, not for me to dictate what a person does!

I'm just curious as to whether anyone has come up against this anytime, would be very interesting reading....as to whether they proved control or not...

Doesn't have to be a bolt, does it? Something could spook a horse and it could side-step into the path of another vehicle, or treads on a pedestrian on the pavement....

Surely the first question asked would be 'were you in control, and how can you prove it?'...
 
When I used to exercise hunt horses on the road , I would ride 1 and lead 1 . To be insured , the led horse had to be in a bridle. Was common sense:), I had much more control over very fit horses.
 
Jennyharvey said:
Before i learnt about riding in a halter, i would have thought the same as you. But luckily i have been priveleged to have ridden some very well schooled horses in halters, so perhaps you yourself might change your view if you had this same opportunity? After all, its not the tools we use, its how we use them. If we teach a horse to respond well to a bit, we will have plenty of control. Same for the halter, if the horse is taught to be soft and responsive, you would have plenty of control too.

But i guess, until you ride a well trained bitless horse, you are perfectly intitled to thinking its unsafe.
Click to expand...

Still not sure what you mean by bitless ? Dr Cook, hackamore, nasty NH stringy,knotty thing or bog standard leather headcollar ?
You and another poster refer to training as being all you need to have complete control and safety. Not so. Even Mark Rashid and Buck Brannaman have had their own horses bolt with them, not client 'problem' horses. I'm guessing these are pretty well trained and well ridden.
Given the choice, I think mine would rather be ridden in a snaffle than a NH halter. They are very harsh, particularly when incorrectly fitted.
Mine go quite happily in a headcollar, but for riding in traffic, I'd rather be covered by insurance. If you are not sure if you have public liability insurance cover, perhaps its not very responsible be on the roads.
 
To ride out in a headcollar is negligent and dangerous to other road users, give me a good argument that you have more control in a bog standard headcollar then a bridle (bitless or non) then I will change my mind.

I ride in a helmet, doesn't mean I'm going to fall of and hit my head but if I do I'm protected.

My horse hacks in a bit (and a pelham at that I should burn in hell or something :rolleyes: ) I don't want to have to use the bit but if he spooks at something or gets excited then I have that extra bit of control. (I think bitless bridles are okay but a headcollar is different.)

If one of your horses damages my property whilst in a headcollar on the road I would sue the hell out of you, end of.
 
For the record, I ride in a natural hackamore, so I guess you could call it a type of bridle, though to me it is more of a headcollar than bridle.

Yes, I can get insurance.

No matter what you do, or how good you are, you can never say that your horse might not get you into a sticky situation. But, you have to accept that these things happen and minimize the risks.

Before I got into NH and trained in a more traditional way, I had a few horses bolt and to be frank once they had taken hold of the bit, were impossible to stop.

Now I train everything to stop on one rein. In my view, when a horse bolts in a natural hackamore, and is trained to a one rein stop, because the leverage is better, I have been able to regain control easier than in a bit.

Once the neck bends the hind quarters disengage if your lucky, otherwise, you have to go in tight circles.
 
DragonSlayer said:
It's the insurance question Im asking, yes. If people want to do Parelli or whatever they want, in my book, they can go ahead if it floats their boat, not for me to dictate what a person does!

I'm just curious as to whether anyone has come up against this anytime, would be very interesting reading....as to whether they proved control or not...

Doesn't have to be a bolt, does it? Something could spook a horse and it could side-step into the path of another vehicle, or treads on a pedestrian on the pavement....
Surely the first question asked would be 'were you in control, and how can you prove it?'...
Click to expand...

In all fairness, a bitted horse can spook just as easily and can cause an accident. If your horse causes an accident, whether bitted or bitless, your gonna be in trouble.
 
One rein will always make it easier to stop, in a bit or a halter etc. However, I personally feel more comfortable if I have to take a real hold on one rein to be doing it in a halter. The halter is not a soft piece of equipment when used that way, and it still puts a lot of pressure on the horse when you use it to stop a bolt, but I feel I'd rather take a hold that way than on a bit. I'd really hate to do that in a bosal, which is a very deceiving piece of equipment as it just looks like a nice thick noseband. I could stop my big bolty cob in about the same distance, using the same 1 rein stop, regardless of whether or not I was riding in a rope hackamore or a strong bit. I couldn't prevent him leaving in either. That's my own personal unscientific bit of scarey research!
I think that a lot of people here are trying really hard to maintain that they aren't saying one is better than the other - bit or bitless, however you wrap it up - they are saying that the control is no more or less in either option.
People seem to think that Dr Cook's bridles might give more control than a rope halter. I suspect that isn't the case. Dr Cook's don't release well, and I think the constant pressure desensitises the horse. A rope halter, bosal or rope hackamore however, should be in the "neutral", no pressure position for most of the time. That means that when the rider picks up the rein there is an instant feel and it means something because there wasn't constant pressure before. (I think that applies to how a bit can be used as well).
I agree with some comments, some rope halters are a horrible fit. They should be fitted correctly to the individual horse. I've got a couple where the knots aren't perfectly positioned, but I'm very careful to avoid dangly nosebands.
As for the insurance question, I'm just not going to repeat the information I've given earlier again. If an insurance company is OK with insuring and supporting a "bitless" rider then I think that should be good enough, even for the H+H legal eagles.
That's all said in the spirit of sharing information and views, I'm really not interested in fighting and arguing over which is "best".
 
I understand why horses who are particularly tricky in the mouth end up bitless, and horses with riders with terrible hands, but otherwise why not use a bit? Are you trying to show off how great you are? Do you think your horse can't be comfy in a bit, because most seem to manage, and bits work pretty well for the likes of Carl Hester so they can't be too bad for horses, can they? Is it because Parelli or someone says not to use bits?

It just seems random to me.
 
Mine all ride in a headcollar and have just as much control as with a bit. More for one horse, as a lot of bit pressure (as you would have to apply to 'control' him in a difficult situation) makes him panicy and therefore harder to control.

Why exactly should a bit give you more 'control' than a well fitted headcollar with reins? Mine are well trained to stop and turn to the pressure on a headcollar. They do the same in a bit. Surely the only difference is you can cause your horse a larger amount of pain with a bit? I'd rather not have to hurt them to make them do as I ask. And as that's not the point of a bit (i'm well aware it's a communication tool, not a torture instrument, before anyone goes off on one ;)) surely there's therefore no difference between the two for a well trained horse. One puts pressure on the mouth, the other on the nose, and hugs harder to hurt them with a headcollar.

I couldn't stop a blind panicing horse in a headcollar but neither can I stop one in a bit. In fact the bit may well make it worse by adding pain to an already panicing and stressed horse.

As someone else said I can't force 500kg of horse to do what I want, I have to rely on it's cooperation.
 
horserider said:
Still not sure what you mean by bitless ? Dr Cook, hackamore, nasty NH stringy,knotty thing or bog standard leather headcollar ?
You and another poster refer to training as being all you need to have complete control and safety. Not so. Even Mark Rashid and Buck Brannaman have had their own horses bolt with them, not client 'problem' horses. I'm guessing these are pretty well trained and well ridden.
Given the choice, I think mine would rather be ridden in a snaffle than a NH halter. They are very harsh, particularly when incorrectly fitted.
Mine go quite happily in a headcollar, but for riding in traffic, I'd rather be covered by insurance. If you are not sure if you have public liability insurance cover, perhaps its not very responsible be on the roads.
Click to expand...

well, for me it is about training. I would rather use training, rather than force, to control my horse. No amount of training will prevent a horse spooking, its in their nature. But what we can do is teach the horse to come back to us, whether by pulling both reins, or using a one rein stop, whichever has been taught to the horse. If we train the horse to respond quicker to our aids, we are going to be in much better control.

If you dont think that training is all it takes, what do you think it does take?
Guts, luck, skill, bits, gadgets? you tell me.

I trained a bolter a few years ago. Her owner asked me to help because her and her daughter couldnt stop her.
She bolted ones with me, luckily in the round pen so she couldnt go too far.
I knew that strengh wasnt gonna cut it. So i had to use training, or tactic you could call it.
I spent the first two weeks riding in circles, so anytime she wanted to go, i had one rein shorter to bend her to a stop. Eventually i started to ride her in bigger circles when she bolted less, but i always did one rein stops because two reins wouldnt have stopped her. Eventually i was able to canter around the arena and jump her, because her bolting had nearly stopped. She actually got to the stage that when she felt scared and wanted to go, she would bend automatically. I had taught her to deal with her fear differently, by bending and relying on my guidance, rather than trying to escape.
I did all this in a rope halter, and in a bridle as her owner was a child and i would never encourage a child to ride without the tack she is use too.

I think thats its just ignorance when people dont understand how the horse responds to pressure. And to think that a bit is gonna stop a horse in any situation, and a halter wont, is rediculous. Like ive said lots before, its not the tools used, but how they are used that dictates how responsive to your aids the horse is.

ps , i ride in a rope halter mostly, but do own a dr cooks and a few libby's scrawbrid bridles. Contrary to popular belief, the rope halter is not used to inflict pain. Well, thats not what ive learnt to use it for. Nothing we use should hurt our horses, its how its used that makes the difference. If used harshly, it can hurt. Same as a bit, whip, spurs etc.
 
Last edited:
Flame_ said:
I understand why horses who are particularly tricky in the mouth end up bitless, and horses with riders with terrible hands, but otherwise why not use a bit? Are you trying to show off how great you are? Do you think your horse can't be comfy in a bit, because most seem to manage, and bits work pretty well for the likes of Carl Hester so they can't be too bad for horses, can they? Is it because Parelli or someone says not to use bits?

It just seems random to me.
Click to expand...

So if carl hester said jump off a cliff, you would do it?

Im sure my horse's will be perfectly happy in a bit, when trained in one, but at the end of the day, why should i use one? I dont have a problem with people who choose to use bits, i just prefer to ride in, in my opinion, kinder tack.

I really couldnt give a toss if all the best riders use bits, i dont look up to them in the slightest. I believe the bit hurts the horse, because its in a VERY sensitive part of the horse's anatomy, even more sensitive than the nose. Thats why i dont use bits. Plus im not a fan of parelli, so have no idea what his views are on the matter. As far as i know, he still rides his horse's in a bit.

Ps, i have no interest in showing off. If i was, i would be out competing and showing off how high my horse can jump, or how easy he is to stop. But i really couldnt care less.
 
Flame_ said:
I understand why horses who are particularly tricky in the mouth end up bitless, and horses with riders with terrible hands, but otherwise why not use a bit? Are you trying to show off how great you are? Do you think your horse can't be comfy in a bit, because most seem to manage, and bits work pretty well for the likes of Carl Hester so they can't be too bad for horses, can they? Is it because Parelli or someone says not to use bits?

It just seems random to me.
Click to expand...

So, if a horse dislikes being in a bit, but are quite happy being bitless, what does this tell you. And why not use a bit? Why the hell use one in the first place. Its traditional, it has ALWAYS been done, same as shoeing, and if its been around forever, i guess it couldnt be bad, could it? Dont forget, smoking was onces considered safe, and non harmful, but luckily people have realised this is not the case.

I really dont mind who rides in a bit, but its about time people stopped being so single minded and accept there are other, and possbly better, ways to train a horse other than ways that have been around since the dawn of time.
 
Flame_ said:
I understand why horses who are particularly tricky in the mouth end up bitless, and horses with riders with terrible hands, but otherwise why not use a bit? Are you trying to show off how great you are? Do you think your horse can't be comfy in a bit, because most seem to manage, and bits work pretty well for the likes of Carl Hester so they can't be too bad for horses, can they? Is it because Parelli or someone says not to use bits?

It just seems random to me.
Click to expand...

I don't see the need for a bit, my horses will go "on the bit" and do at the very least basic dressage movements (leg yield, shoulder in etc.) whilst ridden in headcollars. I also jump (up to 4'6") and hack bitless, is suits my horses and I have never had any control issues.
In fact the only times I haven't had any control on a horse has been with bitted horses, not that being bitless wouldn't have offered me more control but it certainly couldn't have offered any less.

My horses will all accept a snaffle, but they are far happier in their padded headcollars or hackamores. It also means I can clip on two lead ropes jump on bare back in the field and school.

No one told me to not use a bit, I don't adhere to a school of training, and I certainly don't have terrible hands.
 
The last two pages of this thread form a very good argument why no horses should be allowed on the roads at all, bitted, bridled, hi vized or whatever tickles your fancy.
I have seen so many idiots (both with bridles and without) riding around the roads this easter in such a way it makes my ears hurt with anger, and I honestly believe if I weren't horsey I would be completely unamused and seriously question just why I should "pass wide and slow."
The more I think about this responsibility, the more I wonder why people ride on the roads, when there are so many other complete and utter doorknob roadusers about.
At the end of the day I'm not bothered whether you are riding your horse in an english gag or a dishcloth, if you can't control it, you shouldn't have it there. I know all horses can "bolt blind with fear" but that argument also does not help the equestrian enthusiast's argument for riding on public highways either...
Just saying ;)
 
You're quite right RuntoEarth. There are plenty of horses who shouldn't be on the roads, bitted, bitless or otherwise. Mine are thankfully well trained, sensible and good with traffic but I know some (inc one horse who is parelli'd to death;) who has so little control they shouldn't be allowed out the school. But that'd due to training (and partically temperament) rather than the gadget on their head used to control them.
 
As I've said before, there is an element of risk in everything, and all you can do is minimize the risk. Most accidents are young male drivers, if you stopped them driving until they were 30 there would be less accidents than stopping horses from using roads. Accidents will always happen, but, to be in constant fear is stupid, and your horse knows your frightened. 'A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man dies but one.'
 
Jenny Harvey - Good points raised. I know that Pat & Linda do use bits with their horses, they start with the halters but progress to bits, in later stages of training.

I use both rope halters and the kids ride around home, and occasionally hack down the road in them, and also we use bits. (Pony club and some adult riding clubs still insist on a bit in the horses mouth). I have found no difference in the way the horse goes regardless of whether they have a bit or not. For years and years I used the rope halters only, my horses were always responsive in them, whether they had been ridden in one before or not.

The horses seem to like the halters, I have had mys sons horse take off with him with a bit (kimblewick) and he could not stop him, it is not tools or strength but knowledge and experience that help you out in a situation like that (horse bolting etc).
 
Jennyharvey said:
In all fairness, a bitted horse can spook just as easily and can cause an accident. If your horse causes an accident, whether bitted or bitless, your gonna be in trouble.
Click to expand...

You are not getting what I am saying. IF you were in just a HEADCOLLAR and this happened, then you will be liable I am sure, forget the bridle....we are talking headcollar and who knows....rope halter....?

I have SEEN people riding in just a rope halter and it had a fancy name, but my argument is, it's all very well being 'au natural'......but in court, those people are not going to have a leg to stand on....are they?

You are going to have a better chance I'm sure, if your horse has what is considered a 'bridle'...bitted or otherwise. In a court of law, will they be interested in Natural Horsemanship? If the judge/jury/lawyers are not horsey, will they know what it means? Doubtful the parents of the kid your horse leapt on will care two hoots....they just want justice.....I am sure it will be seen as an accident if you had a bridle, and your insurance will pay whatever. If you are using a headcollar, then will the insurance cough up? Doubtful, then the rider is up the swannie without a paddle. 'It is in my opinion, Mr Bloggs, that if you had been using a bridle on your horse, this accident might have been avoided....therefore....'....

I said before, to anyone, I don't care what people do, but for goodness sake, if you are on a public highway, make sure you are correctly bridled, and get over this 'but my horse is so well-trained and only needs this halter/headcollar'....and understand the repercussions of your 'morals with regards to your horses'.....

Mr. Spooner answered my question about a bridle, so thankyou for that, I just get the impression from some others, that this 'Natural Horsemanship' often weighs heavy over sense and the legalities of the road....
 
Last edited:
I think a Court would make a considered judgment when the argument was put, using expert witnesses for and against the use of a bit for control.

My non horsey friends have no difficulty in appreciating how I do certain things, but they haven't been brainwashed by tradition.

Courts like everything else evolve through stated cases, so some insurance company trying to wriggle out of its financial obligation would soon be exposed.

The answer to all this is not bits and bridles or lack of , its training.
 
Just wondering, insurance issue aside, why do people think that you have more control in a bitless bridle rather than a halter or headcollar
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, once you understand the principles of how they work you would understand the differences in how they work - clearly.

Worlds apart....................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top