Foxford
Well-Known Member
Having just read the H&H article about the native breeds at the recent dressage championships, I felt compelled to write my own take. As a paid up "believer" in native breeds being able to thrive in almost any competitive environment, I was dismayed at some of the language used.
Some thoughts!
1. Why are we surprised that a native breed could perform and execute a series of movements in between some white boards? Do people believe the warmblood dominance excludes any other breed from the placings, or even a place at the table? People's choice of horse is there own business, but it doesn't mean you get to be dismissive of someone else's choice - if it's out there doing the job.
2. Breed characteristics. Tough, sound and mostly sensible? I'm sold! Having seen many friends and yard neighbors go through the soundness rollercoaster with all kinds of breeds, I would like to stack the odds in my favour. I can't afford a string of horses and so I'll do what I can with what I've got.
3. Rules. Having a native breed isn't against any rules. Well maybe unless you want to be a flat racer? But come on, why are we writing breeds off on the basis of some unwritten expectations? Who decides what is a dressage horse? Why do they get to dictate that idea to others?
4. Reality. Having recently done some training at an exam and competition centre, I was told by the proprietor that the majority of dressage competitors she sees are hairy/native types - all the way to medium, where the numbers start to decline. So why are we still surprised to see them achieving good results?
5. The Partnership. Obviously behind every native or non-native equine competitor, there is a rider. The rider presumably chose that horse or pony, but that choice doesn't tell us how many times a week they ride, what experience they have or what their competitive ambitions are. Why do we celebrate the native "succeeding" but kind of ignore that behind that rosette someone has put in the hard work of getting the horse to whatever level.
I'll stop now, but I probably could go on. I've felt like this for many years and I'm not sure if things are changing? Probably because I will keep choosing and working with native breeds and what other people do is up to them. But when I turn up to a competition with whatever shaped horse, I would like to be judged on how many jumps are left standing or my execution of a test and not on how much bone or hair my horse might have.
Some thoughts!
1. Why are we surprised that a native breed could perform and execute a series of movements in between some white boards? Do people believe the warmblood dominance excludes any other breed from the placings, or even a place at the table? People's choice of horse is there own business, but it doesn't mean you get to be dismissive of someone else's choice - if it's out there doing the job.
2. Breed characteristics. Tough, sound and mostly sensible? I'm sold! Having seen many friends and yard neighbors go through the soundness rollercoaster with all kinds of breeds, I would like to stack the odds in my favour. I can't afford a string of horses and so I'll do what I can with what I've got.
3. Rules. Having a native breed isn't against any rules. Well maybe unless you want to be a flat racer? But come on, why are we writing breeds off on the basis of some unwritten expectations? Who decides what is a dressage horse? Why do they get to dictate that idea to others?
4. Reality. Having recently done some training at an exam and competition centre, I was told by the proprietor that the majority of dressage competitors she sees are hairy/native types - all the way to medium, where the numbers start to decline. So why are we still surprised to see them achieving good results?
5. The Partnership. Obviously behind every native or non-native equine competitor, there is a rider. The rider presumably chose that horse or pony, but that choice doesn't tell us how many times a week they ride, what experience they have or what their competitive ambitions are. Why do we celebrate the native "succeeding" but kind of ignore that behind that rosette someone has put in the hard work of getting the horse to whatever level.
I'll stop now, but I probably could go on. I've felt like this for many years and I'm not sure if things are changing? Probably because I will keep choosing and working with native breeds and what other people do is up to them. But when I turn up to a competition with whatever shaped horse, I would like to be judged on how many jumps are left standing or my execution of a test and not on how much bone or hair my horse might have.