Seconding this! Imagine how many horses in showjumping land get their feet caught in flowerboxes at ALL levels because someone missed! Then they have to scurry backwards with a box attached to their feet. Is that wrong? Even over a crossrail? So that begs the question, where is the specific place that we draw the line? Or is it we don’t ride in general? Related to each individual horse?
2 Likes
I think a jump requiring power tools to extricate a horse should be a no brainer, no?
2 Likes
Power tools are rarely involved, a horse can scramble out of it pretty easily. But if that’s the route we want to take then we can eliminate the flower boxes. So no filler, just poles. What about the times a pole gets caught in between a horses’ legs and they go down. No poles then? I’m just trying to figure out the line you are drawing here.
8 Likes
Like a horse trailer?
2 Likes
That’s the problem I’m having. From how I’m interpreting it, I disagree with where the line is being drawn.
Are we incapable of separatating necessity from nonnecessity?
Is there a necessary reason, ever, to jump around solid fences at max/advanced height and difficulty?
1 Like
Is trailering to shows and clinics a necessity?
5 Likes
No, but it’s an acceptable risk. That’s the whole point of this. When is the risk unacceptable?
Is 5* eventing today an acceptable risk to you?
3 Likes
If I had a horse that I loved, that had the scope to do it all, not a chance would I run that horse at Badminton. No way.
That’s me. I wouldn’t put a horse I loved through the Tevis, either. Or enroll them in those chuck wagon races. There are sports today that are an unacceptable risk. Eventing at the highest levels is in that category, for me.
11 Likes
That’s the problem isn’t it. None of horse sports are a necessity. Neither is trailering. Remove the top level of eventing; then the next level of eventing (or any horse sport) is the target. To me, this is a slippery slope argument.
To me, higher than training is too much for me. For other (talented) people and horses, not so much. What is an an acceptable risk is a matter of opinion. We all can work to make the sport safer and advocate for horse welfare; what is an acceptable risk is actually a matter of opinion.
28 Likes
And you are entitled to that stance. I wonder why you watch 5* Eventing though? And participate in threads about it?
6 Likes
I agree with you, to a point. If you don’t set the limit in the right place, in today’s day and age, the whole thing will get shut down by the animal rights groups.
Horse diving is no longer acceptable, why? Lots of circus and animal acts are no longer widely accepted, why? The public opinion can turn on you in a new York minute. Racing is starting to feel the heat, and hopefully they have the time to make the necessary changes before the public turns on them totally.
You can’t prevent all risk, nor should you bubble wrap and not do anything with the animal. It’s deciding where that risk becomes abuse that’s tricky.
1 Like
Because it impacts the lower levels, too. The public isn’t educated enough to differentiate.
This is flawed logic.
Almost nothing we do with horses is a necessity anymore. Domesticated horses don’t even need to exist.
I don’t have a problem with horses jumping 1.2m solid fences. Zero problem with it.
The “difficulty” part is what everyone in the sport is trying to figure out. But “difficulty” isn’t the only reason accidents occur; fatalities can happen even when the difficulty is minimal.
21 Likes
Racing is something that isn’t necessarily going to change, though, and I feel the same way about eventing to an extent. Think of the sponsors from the big events and how much money they bring in. You would need a whole lot of people to turn on you to change the tide. Heck, I know so many people who refuse to watch horse races, yet they are among the most watched sporting events.
I’m not saying that we don’t need change, I am saying that the change needs to start at the top, and that might not happen. As long as the top is reaching their markers of success, they have no reason to change.
1 Like
I just don’t understand why the top needs to be where it is. It’s arbitrarily set, so set it lower. It’s human ego that puts the heights and widths where they are now, no?
It’s the limits of the horse that sets it where it is.
Doing hard things isn’t inherently bad.
There’s only 6” difference between the max height of a one star fixed fence and the max height of a five star fixed fence. However, there is a world of difference between a one star and five star course. Height alone is not the issue.
17 Likes
And a full 30cm between 5 star show jumping and the top levels of pure show jumping. The ability of an (appropriately chosen) equine athlete to clear the height is not the primary issue here.
9 Likes
The “top” would be determined by governing bodies by defining how much risk is acceptable. The next step would be to determine by statistical research what height, scope and type of jump should be excluded from a course if it proved to exceed the acceptable risk.
If no risk is acceptable, then leave all horses out of it. They become pasture ornaments.
6 Likes
Even statistical research is hard when there are so many variables. Ability of the rider, ability of the horse, fitness of rider/horse, the ground and weather conditions, where the fence is placed on the course, the order of go of the combination, etc. etc. Then you are dealing with a small sample size on top of that.
3 Likes
