quirky
Well-Known Member
Spot on, agree entirely
.My horse has never shown any inclination to rear in hand or under saddle.
I can't see any advantage in teaching her a potentially dangerous move
Teaching to rear
- Thread starter vieshot
- Start date
Spot on, agree entirely
.My horse has never shown any inclination to rear in hand or under saddle.
I can't see any advantage in teaching her a potentially dangerous move
dafthoss
Well-Known Member
Marydoll - there are certain horses that have been taught to rear that I wouldnt touch with a barge pole and I can see why you wouldnt want to put your children or granchildren on them so I'm not completly discounting them (and your post wasnt up when I wrote my reply and no mention of children yet). But a lot depends on how it has been taught and I can honestly say I'd have no worries about fergie going up with a child on him, I really struggled to find the right button on him and JFTD had to help me from the ground and even then he only did a tiny one like the one in the second photo (not me but I was there when it was taken).
dafthoss
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't sell Fergie (truly I can't stand the thought!), but if I were to, I would only consider someone like you - competent and sensible enough to handle him whether he messed about or not! - I'd never sell him as a kids pony or to a novicey home as he'd be truly wasted.
Rob would worry me at this stage, given his tendancy to fall over for no reason! But I think if you want when he's more mature, he'd get the hang of it
I know you wouldnt sell him but it was to make a point
and although he would be wasted as a kids pony I'm sure he could add it to his many talents. Yeah we need to get on top of staying upright on 4 legs yet and I'd like to remove the strop response before we consider doing any thing like that
although I have been doing the ground work to get him more responsive to body language so when he is ready it shouldnt be that hard to teach.Marydoll
Well-Known Member
Youre bringing the topic back to JFTD'S horse, we are talking about teaching horses to rear in general.
Fergs may be the best horse in the world to you both, but the facts remain the same to me, the horse has been given a set of aids to produce a result that most buyers would never want in a horse, and the button whether easy to find or not is now there. Whether the rider of the horse who is taught to rear is novice or experienced most riders i know would prefer it not to have a " rear button " and these arent novice riders.
Id have to say taught to rear on command isnt something that would attract me to a horse but to each his own.
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
I know you wouldnt sell him but it was to make a point
Yeah we need to get on top of staying upright on 4 legs yet and I'd like to remove the strop response before we consider doing any thing like that
Oh he'd be fine with kids, but he'd be bored witless, and frankly the way people keep the majority of kids' ponies makes me sick, so he'd never go to be one full time!
Bless Rob
It would be nice if he could not fall flat on his side - best not let him hang around J, he's a hundred times worse, falling flat on his face!Jesstickle
Well-Known Member
For me, if the horse rears on command but also does other things I want on command without fuss I'd not be concerned.
I'd rather have that than something horribly rude with no manners (which seems to be becoming the norm these days) that didn't rear on command.
But then, I'm not that fussed by rearing. I'd rather have a rearer than a horse that spooks/spins as I can sit the former far better than the latter!!
In short, and IMHO, it's no more irresponsible to teach a horse to rear than it is to let it get away with blue murder and barge/nip/refuse to tie up etc which seems to be completely accepted by most.
I'd rather have that than something horribly rude with no manners (which seems to be becoming the norm these days) that didn't rear on command.
But then, I'm not that fussed by rearing. I'd rather have a rearer than a horse that spooks/spins as I can sit the former far better than the latter!!
In short, and IMHO, it's no more irresponsible to teach a horse to rear than it is to let it get away with blue murder and barge/nip/refuse to tie up etc which seems to be completely accepted by most.
Marydoll
Well-Known Member
I agree a rude, bargy, nippy horse is a pain in the arse and tbh i wouldnt put up with one of them either, but if theres a chance the horse is to be moved on, then imo its just as irresponsible not to teach it manners as it is to teach it to rear
fburton
Well-Known Member
Nice summing up. Argument over (imo).
Marydoll
Well-Known Member
Because 1 person on here is happier to sit to a rearer than a napper means the argument as to whether a horse should be taught to rear is over
coming on and saying theyve taught their horse to rear, to me is akin to saying ive taught my hotse to nap, spin and buck isnt it great ! None are desirable in a horse
diluteherd
Well-Known Member
^ This is a very valid point. We have spent years teaching horses manners, not to rear, buck,nip, barge etc...
Now suddenly we are glorifying something that is a bad habit.
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
Strictly speaking, war horses were routinely taught to rear, plunge and generally behave in a manner we would find unpleasant today, so I'm not sure the history arguement holds water.
fburton, I didn't realise this was an argument, I thought it was a discussion about horse training
ponypilotmum
Well-Known Member
WHY would anyone teach their horse to rear? is it 'cool' or something? Very valid point about not teaching them to nap and spin too.
Regardless of what anyone says, you are teaching the animal that it is desirable to do something dangerous.
Regardless of what anyone says, you are teaching the animal that it is desirable to do something dangerous.
fburton
Well-Known Member
You're right, JFTD - it's a discussion... or would be if I refrained from flippant comments. Sowwy.fburton, I didn't realise this was an argument, I thought it was a discussion about horse training
Playing Devil's Advocate here (because I'm in an funny mood)... Why would anyone teach their horse to jump over things? I mean, it's surely safer for the rider if they stay on the ground.
happyhacking:)
Well-Known Member
Isn't there an argument though that a horse that has been taught to rear is going to be far more balanced when rearing than a horse who has not. If taught In a way that isn't likely to cause the horse to rear by mistake then what's the problem? At some point in our riding careers the odds are that a horse will rear with you particularly of you ride a large range of horses. So on that basis would you not be better off on a way being taught how to sit a rear on a trained horse? All the nasty accidents involving a horse rearing that I've come across have been made worse by the fact that the rider is unable to sit it out and makes the horse worse! Teaching a horse to rear isn't something I would do because I don't feel sure enough that I would end up with a safe horse. But I wouldn't not buy a horse that on all other ways I liked because it had been taught to rear on command. A rearer I would not touch. After all of someone is confident enough I'm the horses manners to teach it to rear on command then that's probably a pretty nicely schooled horse.
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
Come to think of it, we do teach horses to spin - pirouettes, anyone? Not to mention barrel racing and mounted games where horses are asked to spin around then end of a line of poles, or round a barrel pattern. I don't see that a controlled rear is an inherently dangerous move - the danger factor only arises if the horse is encouraged to rear to the point of over-balancing, or if the rider is so woefully unbalanced as to be incapable of sitting a rear.
Marydoll
Well-Known Member
Having sat my fair share of rearers, one who was able to walk and hop on his back legs, i would disagree wholeheartedly that this is a move we would wish to teach any horse.
Not all horses who instinctively do this, or have been taught to do this, when passed on find their way into experienced hands, sadly they tend to find themselves in the hands of dealers and slaughtermen as there are very few people who would want to take on a horse known to rear.
If a rider is a novice, its very likely they will be unbalanced if they find themselves unwittingly sitting on a rearing horse, or were you as a novice never " woefully unbalanced " always in perfect balance .... I doubt it, of course a novice or even experienced rider could find themselves out of balance especially if they may have accidently given aids for said horse to rear and knew nothing about it.
While rearing may not be considered a vice it is not desirable, i cant think of any horse wanted advert ive seen stating, must know how to rear, buck, spin and nap on command, but lost count of the ones ive seen stating must not
vieshot
Well-Known Member
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
Ahh so you have seen it too
If it's the haffy I'm thinking of, I find it deeply worrying that it's being sold as a child's pony, as it has not, in my opinion, been taught well, and has a history of rearing off command.
vieshot
Well-Known Member
type into youtube 'she gets you high horse' its the first one listed.
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
vieshot
Well-Known Member
yep, same horse
Oh dear. Just makes it 100 times worse!!!
Oberon
Well-Known Member
There's only one rear at the end.....but this is cool
[YOUTUBE]knRpvurKuqU[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]knRpvurKuqU[/YOUTUBE]
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
For me, it's like anything - done well, it shouldn't be a problem. Done badly and you've got a nightmare on your hands. If you look at the way the pony rears, it goes up vertical, with its head held tensely up and thrown back (if that makes sense?) putting it off balance - it's a very aggressive way of rearing, and the rider has no control over the height of the rear.
eta - that's awesome, Oberon
I've always wanted to jump fire too
Last edited:
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
How do the airs above the ground fit into it if teaching to rear on command is fundamentally wrong? Whilst I agree there's a world of difference in their training & some numpty socking their horses teeth out, that proves to me its the horse & riders training & the specific aids that are debatable, not the fact the horse is/isn't trained to rear.
Just like many of us enjoy a good gallop, & have horses that respond to the aids to do so, it doesn't mean they're more likely to bolt, or even accidently misread the signals & tank off.
Just like many of us enjoy a good gallop, & have horses that respond to the aids to do so, it doesn't mean they're more likely to bolt, or even accidently misread the signals & tank off.
Marydoll
Well-Known Member
The ad with the haflinger kinda proves the point, its not a good thing to teach a standard ridden horse to rear, then for whatever circumstances when moved on problems arise that can be fatal to horse and rider
ponypilotmum
Well-Known Member
I stand to be corrected but Airs above the ground is usually taught to horses which aren't then sold to the average amateur?
A rear is dominant behaviour, behaviour used by a horse challenging it's rider / handler.
Do we teach horses to nip and pull away from their handler?
I'm not disputing horses used for stunts being trained to do it, but the average owner's horse? can that owner guarantee they have a job for life and are going to outlive their horse, therefore that it truly will never be sold on?
A rear is dominant behaviour, behaviour used by a horse challenging it's rider / handler.
Do we teach horses to nip and pull away from their handler?
I'm not disputing horses used for stunts being trained to do it, but the average owner's horse? can that owner guarantee they have a job for life and are going to outlive their horse, therefore that it truly will never be sold on?
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
Interesting you caveat stunt horses. I believe some stunt horses have made it onto general markets, but certainly, they are well known to have been sold onto (less than expert rider) actors after big film productions - most famously in the case of the Lord of the Rings horses.
Last edited:
Littlelegs
Well-Known Member
I agree that a horse trained to do airs above the ground is unlikely to later be sold as an amateur horse, which is why I think trained rearing has to be judged on an individual basis rather than it being always wrong or always right. As for buying one trained to rear, again I would judge it on individual circumstances.
amandap
Well-Known Member
I disagree with this. Horses rear when ridden/lead for more than one reason imo. The main one being frustration from conflicting aids, confusion, not being listened to and fear.
Saying behaviour is dominant is dangerous imo because it leads us straight to dominating back rather than asking the question...why? Horses behave with us according to how we train or don't train.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lolo
Well-Known Member
I think teaching a horse to rear well (ie teaching well and safely) is one thing. It's another when you get those teenagers (stereotype, sorry!) 'teaching' their ponies to rear by kicking and holding the mouth... Pointless and dangerous.
In general, I class rearing as one of the more dangerous behaviours. If a horse Al had had the default reaction of going up as a way of saying no, it would find a new home nice and quickly. But a horse who is trained to rear on very specific and clear commands? Not an issue really...
In general, I class rearing as one of the more dangerous behaviours. If a horse Al had had the default reaction of going up as a way of saying no, it would find a new home nice and quickly. But a horse who is trained to rear on very specific and clear commands? Not an issue really...