[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8800856]
G.
re: Newton’s first law
Horses’ legs are not inanimate objects, they are highly organized living systems for locomotion incorporating tendon rebound, proprioception, muscle flexing, etc.
I understand this. But the Law applies to the chain as well as the foot.
Chemically soring an object in motion. like a softball, will not make it ‘go higher’ because there is no sensation within the ball. Adding a weight will not make it ‘go higher’, either. Basic gravity acting on an inanimate object.
If this is true then why do people use 48oz. shoes, which presently are completely legal?
A dog with a loose collar could be subject to the same ‘dumb training’ argument. There is a training effect of habituation: ‘getting used to a novel sensation’. A puppy will react to having a collar put on for the first time - until it becomes habituated. Same with a foal and a halter. A young horse with a saddle with flopping stirrups. Even a human with a bracelet or watch.
Pretty much “no” to all of the above.
Light chains or leather rings or bell boots have similar effects on unhabituated legs.
Perhaps so, perhaps not.
This is the point of REMOVING the stimulus as soon as habituation begins to occur or preferably just before: you are giving a stimulus that elicits a higher step, and you pair that with other signals the rider gives or the audience supplies.
The horse learns that the higher step is desirable and it will ‘show off’ when cued later on without the leg strap or chain or a pole or cavaletti. As a learned response.
Your explanation, then, is that you combine a specific cue with the chain (or other device) and then you can remove the device but keep the result because of the cue. Is that correct?
The goal is the offered higher step with no leg appliance, no boot. Praise works once the response has been stimulated.
Vilify it if you will, but it is not soring when done that way.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
And it IS within the trainer’s control. The trainer decides how long, how heavy the horse needs, whether the desired effect is happening, if another route or boot or terrain or work in lines or pulling a cart is what the horse needs to strengthen the desired response.
The trainer does have the control you note but what they do NOT have is control of the the motion of the device on the foot. Every time that foot hits the ground the chain hits the foot. Refer back to Newton.
A bell boot is an object, just as a chain is. It just isn’t tarred with that ‘soring’ brush.
No; bell boots have legitimate therapeutic uses.
"The “soring” of Walkers (and the use of “dumb” training devices) is a whole other level of human depravity. The people who do/use these things do so with malice aforethought. They know what they are doing and intend the consequences of their actions. Or if they don’t actually intend injury to attain a cosmetic goal they are more than willing to accept that injury. "
I do understand that seeing truly sored horses would lead one to believe ANY measure should be taken to end soring, regardless of the fallout.
You also, however, believe that ‘dumb’ training devices are agents of the devil.
So Dressage shoes, cavaletti, poles, deep going, pads (some endurance horses use them, too), boots, chains, straps, mud, tall grass, ideally smooth footing, ANYTHING other than the rider’s natural and artificial aids is symptomatic of abuse and malice aforethought.
I’ve explained already why virtually none of what what you have written is correct.
Sorry, I have to disagree with such an extremist position.[/QUOTE]
OK, I’m an “extremist” when it comes to inflicting discomfort on a horse for cosmetic purposes. You got me, I’m guilty as charged. 
But my opposition is based upon a combination of education, experience, and sound science.
G.
