Not all English people are, I know a few English people who aren't. On this forum a greater proportion of people seem very obsessive with lots of things not just hats! I've always put it down to the English habit of throwing a negative in somewhere (anywhere will do) regardless of what it is they're discussing so no surprise to me hearing it on this thread. My thoughts are that Jean Luc is old enough to make his own decisions about hat wearing. He is an amazing man with very impressive horsemanship skills and he is recognised for this by other top class horsemen. Great video, thanks for sharing
Well.....................................where do I start. That horse when kicking is aiming towards handler. That handler should be wearing a hat.
I think we can all safely say with behaviour like this it wouldn't be wise to ride it at all. Let alone without a hat
Depends what you mean by "these days". I reckon it has been like that for ten years or more, TP...
Depends what you mean by "these days". I reckon it has been like that for ten years or more, TP...
I should have started making a list when I first noticed statements that "x is a sign of dominance". You'd be amazed at some of the x's people come out with - "horse nuzzling you uninvited", for example. I expect "rearing" is one; "kicking" definitely is, despite there being a dozen reasons for a horse kicking which have nothing whatever to do with dominance. The popularity of the explanation may be due to it being both simple and having an authentic ring suggesting a knowledge of herd dynamics.
Trying to take over the world one sofa at a time! Shame that this idea is also spreading into the horse world
Probably!
Me too, at times.
Human leadership is very different from anything seen amongst horses, yet it is natural for people to look for what most obviously resembles the archetypal, strong human leader. Which horse stands out? The dominant, of course! Consequently people think that to be a good leader of horses you have to act like a dominant horse. Doing so may be good for one or two things - like teaching a horse to move away (which can be taught just as well in other, non-threatening ways), or as a punishment (there are better ways to do or avoid doing that). However, the assumption is that, by acting dominant, the horse will respect you and from that respect will come all sorts of good things. In fact, the good things happen despite not because of your dominant actions, horses on the whole being incredibly tolerant and forgiving (though some will react strongly against such actions).
Not sure I understand what you mean here... Can't horses be dominant in horse/horse relationships? And can't humans interact with horses in ways that show neither dominance nor submission? (Probably not all the time, in practice.)
I believe dominance is a useful safety mechanism to limit physical aggression, injury and energy wastage. The more it's needed, the more visible it is - hence the difference between domestic and feral situations, and between different feral ecologies. However, I get the feeling we may still disagree about what it is...I still cannot deny dominance as a part of every living creature and their interactions though I'm afraid. In humans I believe it's a case of own it and control it.
Sadly, in many cases, identifying a behaviour as 'dominant' appears to be an excuse for - and rationalization of - bullying the dog or horse.This has parallels in the dog world where for some people, a dog that paws you for attention is actually being 'dominant'
Oh, but he is both brave and a very clever man indeed - he has rehabilitated a host of no-hoper horses that other people have given up on, and mended others severely abused and badly ridden. It's his choice to ride without a helmet, but I notice that he wears gloves when leading and riding, a very sensible idea. I wish everyone would just let people make up their own minds about safety equipment. Not wearing a hat does not automatically equal instant death, and wearing one does not mean you will be 100% safe either. Personal choice.
Yes, it is always a personal choice. In this guy's case, I think that if he were to be killed (or vegified) by a blow to the head everyone - even relatives, probably - would consider that he had died (or not quite died) doing what he loved and did so very well. People would say "Tragic, yes... but it was his choice."
I did say horse/human relationships. Of course horses can be dominant in horse/horse relationships. The question is can they be "dominant" in horse/human relationships? Mmmmm, I'm not sure anymore but then I still find it hard to think of dominance as only being aggressive. I believe horses react to humans most of the time rather than try to aggressively impose their will on us. Is an assertive or aggressive reaction (usually defense) dominance or being dominant?
At risk of making an internet fool of myself once again.I believe dominance is a useful safety mechanism to limit physical aggression, injury and energy wastage. The more it's needed, the more visible it is - hence the difference between domestic and feral situations, and between different feral ecologies. However, I get the feeling we may still disagree about what it is...
I can never agree on such a limiting definition of dominance. Dominant possibly. I do believe horses become dominant towards humans when their basic needs are threatened, be that food, safety, ability to flee etc. Sounds very and too simple but I think much of what we see as problem horse behaviour comes down to this simple thing. Of course once a horse has learned that a dominant behaviour works with humans and continues to have no/ little oppourtunity to learn or display alternative behaviour it will use it and in some cases perfect and refine it over time.