I was mostly speaking in the abstract up there, but yes, actually, I do think it was your insults specifically, that got me thinking about how ineffective such a tactic is in a discussion or debate.
Statement from the British Horse Society. (Apologies if this has been posted here already.)
"Hyperflexion Statement
As the debate over the use of hyperflexion as a training technique continues, The British Horse Society’s policy may be stated as follows:
The British Horse Society strongly recommends that all riders training horses on the flat and over fences should adhere to the official instruction handbook of the German National Equestrian Federation. Whilst we appreciate that horses are as individual as humans, and that some may require corrective schooling, the BHS’s stand on hyperflexion (by which we mean the extreme flexion of the horse’s head and neck beyond normal limits) remains clear: it is an unacceptable method of training horses by any rider for any length of time.
We recognise that the scientific evidence is conflicting, and likely to remain so as each party seeks determinedly to prove its case. For this reason we doubt that science will ever provide a single, clear, unambiguous and unarguable answer. It therefore falls to humans to do what the horses cannot, namely to follow the precautionary principle: as nature provides no evidence of horses choosing to move in hyperflexion for an extended period of time; and as hyperflexion can create tension in the horse’s neck and back which has no justifying necessity; and as the horse in hyperflexion is, by definition, unable fully to use its neck; and as the psychological consequences of such treatment remain latent (perhaps in an analogous position with horses which are whipped aggressively but which can still pass a five star vetting), we should take all appropriate steps to discourage the use of this training technique, for the horse’s sake."
http://www.bhs.org.uk/Press_Centre/BHS_News/Rollkur_Update.aspx
[QUOTE=slc2;4650860]
On the flip side, quite a few people believe that a less experienced person is a far better choice to evaluate something than someone who is an ‘insider’. That’s a very, very strong part of the baby boomer, ‘I can protest everything’ mentality.[/QUOTE]
Seeking analogies for RK in the horse world, where practices of ‘insiders’ may be questioned by less experienced persons, I came up with use of physical restraints - hobbles, leg strap, twitch - for live cover of mares. It looks abusive to some, but it doesn’t harm the mare. It should only be practiced by those who know what they are doing. In many cases it is a short cut, though a necessity in some; either way it can be justified if it keeps the stallion safe and leads to a positive result. It isn’t exactly natural, but it gets the job done. Those who use it routinely will say that anyone who criticizes it doesn’t know what they are talking about - and how would they know anyway?
That’s just the kind of thing I was thinking of.
Some would accuse you of using a bad example, ie, comparing restraints unfairly (or fairly, if they dislike hyperflexion, especially if they equate restraining arbitrarily with hyperflexion). But I think what you’re trying to illustrate is a thinking process, not that restraints are like or unlike hyperflexion. Is that right?
DA the sad possible truth(maybe it’s not sad not sure yet) you and those that think it is cruel will probably get what you want in the end. If the rather large group of you stay focused I have a feeling you will make a difference. Many are just angry that you are forcing the FEI to deal with this. If you don’t win this battle and you and the anti RK people stay together you will most likely win the war. They better hope PETA doesn’t get involved because if they set their sites on dressage I can bet you it will be yanked from the Olympics…that is one powerful sometimes horrible group.
[QUOTE=slc2;4650912]
Some would accuse you of using a bad example, ie, comparing restraints unfairly (or fairly, if they dislike hyperflexion, especially if they equate restraining arbitrarily with hyperflexion). But I think what you’re trying to illustrate is a thinking process, not that restraints are like or unlike hyperflexion. Is that right?[/QUOTE]
Exactly right. The first example that came to mind was palpating the mare, but not many owners do that and I wanted something that was at least a little controversial even amongst professionals.
[QUOTE=fburton;4650885]
Seeking analogies for RK in the horse world, where practices of ‘insiders’ may be questioned by less experienced persons, I came up with use of physical restraints - hobbles, leg strap, twitch - for live cover of mares. It looks abusive to some, but it doesn’t harm the mare. It should only be practiced by those who know what they are doing. In many cases it is a short cut, though a necessity in some; either way it can be justified if it keeps the stallion safe and leads to a positive result. It isn’t exactly natural, but it gets the job done. Those who use it routinely will say that anyone who criticizes it doesn’t know what they are talking about - and how would they know anyway?[/QUOTE]
If they have sense, they know what is cruel and what is not.
Not talking about twitches here, but so many horse people have such a strange outlook it’s not even funny.
Here’s an example: a place where I used to board, briefly, as we were finishing up preparations to bring the horses home, also boarded an Arabian stallion who was very rarely allowed outside. He was a terrible weaver. I brought along a non-horsey friend who saw this stallion, who was actually turned out for 15 minutes that day.
“That’s it? That’s all of the time he gets outside?” asked my friend. “He makes me want to cry.”
I mentioned her sentiments (which I shared) to the BO, who said “Oh, he’s not unhappy. He’s fine.” Needless to say the stallion owner felt the same way.
What idiots. Even worse, the stallion owner was a selfish idiot.
Of course a lot of horse people would disagree with that type of management, but a lot of people also would not. It’s amazing the justifications that people will make for what they do.
Remember my previous example?
I have heard my share of non horse people ask if it does not hurt horses for people to sit on their backs.
You think about that one.:eek:
I have also met people who were so convinced that horse shoe nails were driven into soft tissue, causing blood loss and agonizing pain, that they could not BEAR to watch a horse be shod and screamed at me when I mentioned (without knowing their attitude) that my horses were shod.
I’ve also been pulled down off a stepstool while braiding a horse, and screamed at that I was torturing the horse and told never to do it again. I’m standing there with my roll of tape going, ‘huh?’
And…when a gal trimmed the long hairs from the sides of her horse’s tail for a dressage show, she was told by one horse person (very experienced, years of experience from another type of riding, that involved the horse having the muscles in its tail cut, and wearing a tail shaping harness 24/7) that trimming the hair was ‘the most horrible mutilation imaginable’ and that she should be ‘horse whipped or shot, or both’.
What we believe is very powerful. What we are surrounded with, we think is ok, and we believe everything else is wrong, and we find compelling reasons why.
That can be either good or bad. Or both.
Ever tried to keep clothes and shoes on a two year old, that is screaming bloody murder about it?:eek:
Pure torture, that is what the kid is saying.
All we have to endure, kids and horses.
Not making fun of those that call RK abuse, but yes, saying that to call RK abuse to the extent some are is a little bit extreme, no matter how many signatures they get to ban it.
I can remember our recent visit to the Spanish Riding School in Vienna. Every morning they turn out the young stallions in the main arena. Many visitors where screaming and yelling to the stewards when these youngsters started fighting with eachother, and the tourguide had a lot of explaining to do… :yes::lol:
[QUOTE=slc2;4651207]
What we believe is very powerful. What we are surrounded with, we think is ok, and we believe everything else is wrong, and we find compelling reasons why.[/QUOTE]
Very true.
Feaguing (gingering) for high tail carriage in Arabian and American Saddlebred showing is a yet another example/analogy. It’s a practice that is criticized by many professionals - and it does not enjoy widespread acceptance by the great unwashed. Insiders with knowledge know exactly why it is a useful and appropriate method, although explaining it to others is problemmatic, mainly because of the assumption that, just because it looks uncomfortable, it must be uncomfortable. They are also unable to understand the benefits in terms of showing. When it comes down to it, there is zero scientific evidence that it is actually harmful, either in the short or long term. Gingering merely encourages the horse to exhibit a natural pose. People will say “How would you like it if someone did that to you?”. However, that merely shows their ignorance and naivety. One cannot assume that humans’ and horses’ perceptions work in the same way. For example, horses can stand in icy water for a considerable time without any evident discomfort, yet we would become miserable very quickly if we did the same thing. In fact, we might even find the experience painful. Therefore one cannot argue it is abusive on those grounds.
Attack of the Lipizanners
Sorry, fburton, I think putting ginger up a horse’s rear is not without discomfort of some kind.
Re Lipizanners:
OMG! They’re…ATTACKING!
LOL.
“No, madame, I regret to inform you - they consider themselves to be playing at this point”.
I also hear the SRS has ‘the biggest horse walker in the world’ out back. The indoor arena, however, from what you say, appears to be the play yard for the youngsters.
From what I understand, the young stallions have spent the last 3 1/2 years running around in a field together, ‘attacking’ each other in exactly the same way.
That’s probably the funnest part of their day, the little monsters.
good example!
Rollkuring for control and suppling in Dressage showing is a yet another example/analogy. It’s a practice that is criticized by many professionals - and it does not enjoy widespread acceptance by the great unwashed. Insiders with knowledge know exactly why it is a useful and appropriate method, although explaining it to others is problemmatic, mainly because of the assumption that, just because it looks uncomfortable, it must be uncomfortable. They are also unable to understand the benefits in terms of showing. When it comes down to it, there is zero scientific evidence that it is actually harmful, either in the short or long term. Rollkuring merely encourages the horse to listen to his rider. People will say “How would you like it if someone did that to you?”. However, that merely shows their ignorance and naivety. One cannot assume that humans’ and horses’ perceptions work in the same way. For example, horses can stand in icy water for a considerable time without any evident discomfort, yet we would become miserable very quickly if we did the same thing. In fact, we might even find the experience painful. Therefore one cannot argue it is abusive on those grounds.
i’m sure a twh big lick rider could also explain why his methods are horse-friendly and beneficial too.
[QUOTE=slc2;4651300]
Sorry, fburton, I think putting ginger up a horse’s rear is not without discomfort of some kind.[/QUOTE]
You think, but you cannot know - that’s the whole point! What we believe is very powerful.
Based on the anatomy and physiology of the rectal mucosa in both horse and human, as well as the effect of ginger or other irritant substances, I think it is safe to say that the administration of such causes irritation to the horse, just as it would in the human. The likelihood that it probably causes no permanent damage is, to me, irrelevant.
I mean, I could slap you upside the head and not cause permanent damage.
And I don’t think it " encourages the horse to exhibit a natural pose", unless by that phrase you refer to a horse getting set to defecate…
What we believe is very powerful.
Yup. That’s what they said during the Spanish Inquisition.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Agree with Ghazzu. One of my clients has a rescued Arab who, as far as we can tell, was shown as a Park Horse. After four years, he is just beginning to trust us around his hind end.
I’m sure he was gingered.
Early on, he also happily assumed an extremely deep BTV position – self-Rollkur if you will. If he were a Unicorn, we’d have had a rotational fall by now! Getting him to come “up” has been a project. Results of years with various training gadgets, I imagine.
Even assuming the ginger has an “irritant” effect on the horse - it may well do, given that it enhances its tail carriage - can you prove that the horse perceives the sensation in the same way a person? Does the horse go loopy and wild-eyed? Does it become uncooperative and unhandleable? Does it try to kick the feaguer? If not, then maybe it’s not nearly as bad as you imagine. The people who do this (and who did this until it was outlawed by the anti-ginger animal rights mob) are experienced horsemen and women - acknowledged experts in their field. Are you saying they didn’t know whether it was unpleasant or not for their horses?
And I don’t think it " encourages the horse to exhibit a natural pose", unless by that phrase you refer to a horse getting set to defecate…
It is considered a beautiful pose in Arabian horses. However, I am not surprised that non-Arabian folks are unable to understand or appreciate that.
