Illusion100
Well-Known Member
I've just realised I've never actually owned a horse that hasn't reared on a few occasions, either on the ground, under saddle or both. There is an essay coming, so either get yourself comfy or hit the 'back' button! 
The below is of course just my perspective and please feel free to put your views across.
Mine have all done it and the main reason I've found/decided on is frustration, in one form/translation or another. Frustration for not getting on with things, waiting for another horse to catch up on a hack, not being 1st in a group, waiting in the XC start box, excitement being led when other horses are racing around loose in fields so frustrated they can't join in, not being allowed to avoid a situation where they need to answer a question and don't want to etc.
I also find it quite common that it is a learned behaviour horses use when trying to intimidate. Usually an effective way of avoiding getting on the box, being clipped, going over a coloured pole, into water etc. I can't count the number of 'naughty' horses that threaten to rear when they don't want to co-operate, people fairly shift out of their way and put the horse away again, horse learns a neat little trick. Problem is, it's a very dangerous party piece, one considered by the vast majority to be the most dangerous ability a horse can have.
I was once told when I was around 10/11 yrs old by someone who knew their stuff 'If a horse comes at you with the hinds, it wants to hurt you but if it comes at you with the fronts, it wants to kill you.' I can count on my fingers and toes the number of times that horses have deliberately tried to do me some serious damage and to be quite honest the fronts and hinds can be as lethal as each other in my experience, but having a horse come directly at you with the fronts is without doubt much more intimidating.
Anyway, the point he was making is that in general, the hinds are used in defence and the fronts (and teeth) are used to attack. This obviously makes sense as when stallions and most male mammals (afaik) fight each other, they do so head on as they get an optimal view of their opponent and can aim their attack to inflict the most damage, fighting is hard work after all so it is vital to cause maximum injury while using minimal energy. Yet, we are informed that a horse makes itself vunerable by exposing it's belly while rearing. The fleshy belly is a large and easy target, therefore when working with a rearer a well timed strike to the belly will force this 'instinct' to kick in and so prevent further rearing. I don't buy that at all.
Watch how big cats/wolves etc hunt their quarry. They chase it, they don't confront it. The hindquarters and back are targeted to initially slow down the prey due to inflicting damage to 'the engine', the major muscle groups providing their 'food' with forward propulsion, plus the chances of it getting a well aimed kick in at a predator behind them are low due to the preys range of vision combined with the complication of continuing to try and run away. If the prey freely manages to turn and face it's attackers, it completely changes things. The predators back off. Their prey can see them now and strike back with accuracy. The predators know this. To get the kill they must utilise teamwork with some distracting the prey from the front to gradually exhaust it and allow blood loss to do it's thing while the rest attack from behind when the time is right.
Therefore logically a horse would be instinctively far more wary about something behind it, or on top of it, which explains backing preparation etc quite easily. Rarely have I found a horse to be panicked about having it's belly touched in comparison, if at all. It just has no real reason to as that's not/ever has been the initial target of predators.
Take dogs and cats for example, when dogs are being submissive they expose their belly and when cats feel confident with you they do the same. I truly believe most mammals (including us) are 'hard wired' to know that the belly is a vunerable area in general in the same way we instinctively know our eyes are vunerable, so if a trainer manages to slap a horse in the gut when it's rearing, I doubt the horse responds with any ancestoral instinct that the rest wouldn't if we got a slap there too, as in 'Oooof, I didn't see that one coming and I didn't like it!'.
So why would a horse rear if it makes it vunerable? Well, I don't think it does as that makes no sense as rearing is a generally aggressive act BUT not every horse that rears is being aggressive. So then why do horses use a primarily aggressive strategy with no intention to attack but instead are using it as evasion?
Well, most learn to rear because they want to get away from the situation they are in and when they do, it generally works. Although fear, for instance, might drive them to rear in the first place, they quickly click that rearing intimidates, getting us to back off, remove pressure and ultimately give the horse the response it wanted. Let's face it when they are on their back legs they're pretty big and this is a tactic used by thousands of species, when threatened make yourself look larger than you are. Not only can it put off a would be attacker but it can also defeat an opponent/potential rival without a fight. The bigger you can make yourself look the less likely someone is going to challenge you, pretty simple really. To add another string to the rearing bow, some just realise they they can fling puny humans completely off the end of the rope with a well timed manouvere, why obey such a weak creature if I don't have to, I'd rather do something else! There is neither fear nor malice in the horses action, just indifference when it boils down to it.
To complicate things further, rearing can be caused by pain. Although we have numerous reasons why any horse can rear, even just sheer exuberance (!), pain is always a potential factor. Even if pain is ruled out/eliminated or managed effectively there is always the possibility of learned pain response/memory to contend with thereafter.
All in all there are lots of reasons why a horse can rear just on the ground and under saddle isn't really any different. Again they can quickly learn that rearing gets them the response they want, whether it be the rider getting off, being returned to the field, being allowed to go first etc.
So this is the problem, if a horse rears where do you start? What is the reason or is a combination of a few or many of them? What if it was a complete one off? What if the Vet misses something or follows a course of action/treatment that may not be effective? What if the Pro trainer needs (costly) months to work on the horse or worse is out of their depth? What if they horse knows who it can push it's luck with, returns home and rears again the very next day? What if that's the rear that kills someone?
Herein lays the complexity of dealing with rearers. Is it really worth it, the time, money, patience? There are worse fates for a horse that displays a potentially lethal trait than a bullet after all. Yet on the other hand, all it may take is for a handler/rider to actually listen to the horse, or simply some physio subsequently allowing it to go on to enjoy a happy life in a loving home? Is each case unique or is there always an inevitable pattern?
I believe there is no easy answer. I also appreciate your thoughts on the matter?
The below is of course just my perspective and please feel free to put your views across. Mine have all done it and the main reason I've found/decided on is frustration, in one form/translation or another. Frustration for not getting on with things, waiting for another horse to catch up on a hack, not being 1st in a group, waiting in the XC start box, excitement being led when other horses are racing around loose in fields so frustrated they can't join in, not being allowed to avoid a situation where they need to answer a question and don't want to etc.
I also find it quite common that it is a learned behaviour horses use when trying to intimidate. Usually an effective way of avoiding getting on the box, being clipped, going over a coloured pole, into water etc. I can't count the number of 'naughty' horses that threaten to rear when they don't want to co-operate, people fairly shift out of their way and put the horse away again, horse learns a neat little trick. Problem is, it's a very dangerous party piece, one considered by the vast majority to be the most dangerous ability a horse can have.
I was once told when I was around 10/11 yrs old by someone who knew their stuff 'If a horse comes at you with the hinds, it wants to hurt you but if it comes at you with the fronts, it wants to kill you.' I can count on my fingers and toes the number of times that horses have deliberately tried to do me some serious damage and to be quite honest the fronts and hinds can be as lethal as each other in my experience, but having a horse come directly at you with the fronts is without doubt much more intimidating.
Anyway, the point he was making is that in general, the hinds are used in defence and the fronts (and teeth) are used to attack. This obviously makes sense as when stallions and most male mammals (afaik) fight each other, they do so head on as they get an optimal view of their opponent and can aim their attack to inflict the most damage, fighting is hard work after all so it is vital to cause maximum injury while using minimal energy. Yet, we are informed that a horse makes itself vunerable by exposing it's belly while rearing. The fleshy belly is a large and easy target, therefore when working with a rearer a well timed strike to the belly will force this 'instinct' to kick in and so prevent further rearing. I don't buy that at all.
Watch how big cats/wolves etc hunt their quarry. They chase it, they don't confront it. The hindquarters and back are targeted to initially slow down the prey due to inflicting damage to 'the engine', the major muscle groups providing their 'food' with forward propulsion, plus the chances of it getting a well aimed kick in at a predator behind them are low due to the preys range of vision combined with the complication of continuing to try and run away. If the prey freely manages to turn and face it's attackers, it completely changes things. The predators back off. Their prey can see them now and strike back with accuracy. The predators know this. To get the kill they must utilise teamwork with some distracting the prey from the front to gradually exhaust it and allow blood loss to do it's thing while the rest attack from behind when the time is right.
Therefore logically a horse would be instinctively far more wary about something behind it, or on top of it, which explains backing preparation etc quite easily. Rarely have I found a horse to be panicked about having it's belly touched in comparison, if at all. It just has no real reason to as that's not/ever has been the initial target of predators.
Take dogs and cats for example, when dogs are being submissive they expose their belly and when cats feel confident with you they do the same. I truly believe most mammals (including us) are 'hard wired' to know that the belly is a vunerable area in general in the same way we instinctively know our eyes are vunerable, so if a trainer manages to slap a horse in the gut when it's rearing, I doubt the horse responds with any ancestoral instinct that the rest wouldn't if we got a slap there too, as in 'Oooof, I didn't see that one coming and I didn't like it!'.
So why would a horse rear if it makes it vunerable? Well, I don't think it does as that makes no sense as rearing is a generally aggressive act BUT not every horse that rears is being aggressive. So then why do horses use a primarily aggressive strategy with no intention to attack but instead are using it as evasion?
Well, most learn to rear because they want to get away from the situation they are in and when they do, it generally works. Although fear, for instance, might drive them to rear in the first place, they quickly click that rearing intimidates, getting us to back off, remove pressure and ultimately give the horse the response it wanted. Let's face it when they are on their back legs they're pretty big and this is a tactic used by thousands of species, when threatened make yourself look larger than you are. Not only can it put off a would be attacker but it can also defeat an opponent/potential rival without a fight. The bigger you can make yourself look the less likely someone is going to challenge you, pretty simple really. To add another string to the rearing bow, some just realise they they can fling puny humans completely off the end of the rope with a well timed manouvere, why obey such a weak creature if I don't have to, I'd rather do something else! There is neither fear nor malice in the horses action, just indifference when it boils down to it.
To complicate things further, rearing can be caused by pain. Although we have numerous reasons why any horse can rear, even just sheer exuberance (!), pain is always a potential factor. Even if pain is ruled out/eliminated or managed effectively there is always the possibility of learned pain response/memory to contend with thereafter.
All in all there are lots of reasons why a horse can rear just on the ground and under saddle isn't really any different. Again they can quickly learn that rearing gets them the response they want, whether it be the rider getting off, being returned to the field, being allowed to go first etc.
So this is the problem, if a horse rears where do you start? What is the reason or is a combination of a few or many of them? What if it was a complete one off? What if the Vet misses something or follows a course of action/treatment that may not be effective? What if the Pro trainer needs (costly) months to work on the horse or worse is out of their depth? What if they horse knows who it can push it's luck with, returns home and rears again the very next day? What if that's the rear that kills someone?
Herein lays the complexity of dealing with rearers. Is it really worth it, the time, money, patience? There are worse fates for a horse that displays a potentially lethal trait than a bullet after all. Yet on the other hand, all it may take is for a handler/rider to actually listen to the horse, or simply some physio subsequently allowing it to go on to enjoy a happy life in a loving home? Is each case unique or is there always an inevitable pattern?
I believe there is no easy answer. I also appreciate your thoughts on the matter?
