Yeah, but if they’d written “acceptance of the bridle” the ODGs who wrote that probably considered that a synonym and we’d be having a different argument. So then I go back to, what is our actual first principle here? Why is “acceptance of the bit” (or bridle) a goal, and what does that actually look like? Is it about harmony and communication, or is it about holding a (metal) rod in the mouth?
(Thank goodness they didn’t write that it had to be metal. 
)
I think it is about harmony and communication. I think acceptance of the bit means not a lot of locking of the jaw, teeth grinding, etc. As for the bit having to be metal, I think it is required.
You can use plastic and rubber, to my knowledge. Just not leather or rope.
Just because we have always done it one way doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be open to change!
We can change the tests so “acceptance of the bit” is “acceptance of the bridle”.
Easy peasy.
Again, perhaps the folks championing bitless dressage should form their own organization with their own rules and shows.
Why? Why shouldn’t any variation of tack be permitted, as long as it achieves the goals. And yes, I think “acceptance of the bridle” is a more up-to-date goal than accepting a physical bit.
So you’re OK with western tack, including curb bits, in all dressage? How about bicycle chain bits? Or sharp-edged twisted snaffles?
You’re just being obtuse. Are you claiming that a sidepull is painful to the horse?
Bits must be smooth, that is clear as a horse welfare issue and is already stipulated.
I would not choose to allow a curb on its own, even though at upper levels under current rules you can effectively ride your test from a curb with a loop in the snaffle rein if that’s what floats your boat.
Of course, if you do want to show dressage in a western curb, Western Dressage is its own thing and available. That is a wholly different system of communication, of course.
I’m not claiming anything, and not being obtuse. I was responding to the idea that any tack, any variation, is ok as long as it gets the job done.
The western dressage people organized, formed two associations, and have their own requirements. They didn’t expect USEF/USDF to change to accommodate them. I’m suggesting the the proponents of bitless riding do the same. What is the big problem?
I confess I haven’t read the entire thread but I have always thought that the language “on the bit” etc., should be changed to mean “through.” I used to ride an Appaloosa mare that I could get through in just a halter with lead rope tied to both rings (and often bareback, too). If she had had a bit in her mouth, she would have been “on the bit” but she had a propensity to lean on the bit and pull. But not so when she was bitless - I could get her engaged and coming through with nice impulsion, lifted in her abdominals and topline, and rounded from tail to nose. Oh, and her poll was the highest point and her nose was slightly ahead of vertical - again in just a halter. 
Leather bits are permitted in eventing dressage but not regular dressage.
Don’t be ridiculous. You know that my statement didn’t include abusive tack.
If you don’t write clearly, that’s on you. There are folks on this thread who believe any bit is abusive, and that a noseband is abusive, and that a double bridle is abusive. Any tack can be abusive in the wrong hands.
And, you’re on ignore. You’re clearly one of those people that thrives on drama and attacking other people. Life’s too short to interact with you.
Ok, so I guess SBrentnall won’t see this, but maybe someone can explain where I “attacked” her? Talk about drama! LOL!
I mean, just say why you think it’s a good rule @SillyHorse. There’s no need to invent strawmen or to suggest that people who don’t agree with you are stupid or unworthy.
Way back in the beginning of the thread, I said this:
Same deal. And it’s kind of exclusionary and, well, silly. People can disagree and that’s okay.
FWIW despite your implications, I have not particularly been interested in showing bitless. I just don’t care if other people want to. It’s a big tent, more entry fees are good for the sport. I don’t think it is harder to judge, just like we’ve managed fine with all of the disability accommodations.
I AM grateful that I can use my bendy soft rubber unjointed snaffle, though.
I think it’s a valid question if “any bit or bridle” is permitted then that opens the door for abusive tack.
On the flip side, “acceptance” of a bit less bridle means the horse is behind the contact as bit less tack works on pressure and release and maintaining contact is not the goal.
I’m truly confused. Where did I suggest that anyone is stupid or unworthy? Is this an “attack” on me? I don’t think it is, but is seems that pointing out that someone made an unclear statement is now an attack.
What implications? If you can point them out, fine. Otherwise, you’re just making stuff up.
Can you explain what you are thinking here a bit more?
I mean, most people (myself included) using a bit also are creating pressure. It’s pressure on the tongue (which connects via muscle and ligaments all the way to the scapula, such an interesting fact). For people who use a flash or drop or figure-8 noseband, it’s ALSO creating pressure on the nose.
I don’t have a ton of experience with sidepulls but I don’t see why - with the right horse and rider - you can’t have the same idealized soft contact. Worst case, as far as I can tell, you have a situation that is just as ineffective as your ineffective riders with bits and flash nosebands.
I suspect very few people would be successful with this equipment, but I don’t think it hurts anyone if they want to try, is all.
“Soft contact” on what, pray tell? Contact, in its dressage definition, is contact with the bit. If you don’t have a bit, you can’t have contact. So I ask again, contact with what?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
