Dressage WTF

[OrkneyGirl]

I have just been watching Olympic dressage...a poor horse moving its hooves in time to 'Another one bites the dust'...surely this is done for human entertainment only. The horse wouldn't do this naturally. Commentator saying the horse 'clearly loves moving to the beat'. What a load of crap. Years of making the horse move unnaturally. Probably with a stick or whip. AIBU that this sport is about privileged humans dominating a beautiful animal. Makes me so sad...and angry!

You are showing your ignorance. It is about highly trainec rider and horse and rider working in complete harmony.

Agreed, Mark. It’s also the perfect illustration of the importance of a strong horse-rider partnership built over years, not scrambled together frantically over the 20 minutes the pentathletes have to get to know their pool horses.
I believe there is talk about scratching the equestrian part of the pentathlon. That would be a good move.

Oh no, please don’t look up Big Lick or any of the many criminal abuses done to the Tennessee Walking Horses. It would probably plunge you into a deep depression. I can still remember the mixture of shock, anger and powerlessness I felt when I first looked into those evil practices.

But hey, there’s no music involved so maybe it’s OK after all, right Orkney?

That person didn't say it was her horse that she knows well that was banging the door. She said she visited a dressage yard.

That's not the same thing.

The horses banging their door because they were desperate to be ridden is one, very unlikely interpretation. There are lots of others, as i mentioned, but she saw what she wanted to see and now apparently uses that as evidence to prove that all horses love being ridden in high level dressage even when they're treated cruelly.

So i was simply providing some balance for any non horsey people reading that there are many reasons why a horse might bang on it's stable door. The horse wanting to be ridden is not high among them.

Unless, it suddenly occurs to me, it's the only time the horse is ever removed from its stable is to be ridden, which is a very sad thought and probably does seem more likely in high level horses at a top dressage yard, who are never allowed into the field for fear of injuring themselves.

The poster you're talking about has absolutely not said anything about 'evidence to prove that all horses love being ridden in high level dressage even when they're treated cruelly.'
That's a flat-out lie. Or, being generous, you're failing to read and comprehend properly.

Read their post again.

Please, tell me, where does it say 'all horses love being ridden in high level dressage even when they're treated cruelly.' ?

Warning : VILE :

Watching a video of the rodeos for convicted felons to take part in utter horrified and disgusted me .
Basically 3-4 groups of men , all high catergory prisoners (murders/GBH/rape /) are in groups of 4-5 .
Each has an unbroken horse they have to catch, saddle, bridle and have it laid on it's side
For a, vunerable unhandled horse the most frightening experience

And let me tell you they don;t give a fuck how they do it .
All for "entertainment" and their "Day Out"

Hear, hear!

So sick of this outdated belief that horses are only owned by the rich and privileged. This just isn't the case for the best majority of horse owners today.

I'm an NHS nurse, so not that well paid, but I go without lots of things others take for granted (holidays abroad, new cars, meals out etc.) to ensure my horse has what he needs, and it's the same for the majority of people I know with horses.

The irony is, it's way more expensive overall to have and raise kids, but that's not seen as some kind of elitist privilege!

Yes, it is infuriating to be judged as posh and rich for having a horse. Although the way we're going (in terms of lack of public facilities and/or support, good riding schools, maintenance of bridleways etc) if we're not careful, it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Horses can bring so much to our lives. They are recognised as an evidenced form of therapy for many people with a variety of illness and disabilities. For many horse owners, the personal sacrifice (especially when things go wrong and when insurance cover runs out for ongoing but treatable conditions etc) is enormous. It is an industry that supports many rural economies. Done well, equestrianism can work well for horses and people, but ethics and welfare need to be at the forefront. Sadly, many just see horses as tools or expendable, like those in the meat trade. But as with the meat industry, our standards of welfare need to be much higher than they are.

OP sounds quite bitter , are you struggling?

Personally, I'm not sure pass agg or disrespect really helps the situation, on either end of the debate.

All true, but horse-owners and riders / producers need to be honest with themselves about the reality of equestrianism, and what ethics and welfare really look like.

You talk about personal sacrifice, but that's a sacrifice to the end of keeping a horse for human benefit. In the 21st century, there are no practical arguments for that (we don't need work horses anymore), so human pleasure alone has to be weighed against animal welfare.

People in this thread have argued that you can't make a horse do what it doesn't want to, or that a horse will simply tip a rider if it's unhappy, concluding that a horse will not therefore endure something it's not actively enjoying. This is disingenuous - wishful thinking at best. No-one who posts on Mumsnet can be unaware that abuse comes in many, many forms, most of it not physical violence. Humans, especially when conditioned to it from childhood, will endure a great deal of abuse before they finally say, "enough" (if they ever do), and they have far more agency and intelligence than horses.

Coercion is absolutely integral to horse sport, and most equestrian activities. You wouldn't need the gear if it wasn't. Maybe the non-horse people in this thread, rather than being ignorant, are more clear-eyed about that, having an outsider's perspective and no skin in the game?

Can the coercion be acceptable? That's the question that needs to be asked and answered, rather than denying it exists at all.

I agree and I won't watch it. The amount of riders who turns out abuses their horses, I just won't watch or be involved at all. Animals shouldn't be made to be in competitions.

Can the coercion be acceptable? That's the question that needs to be asked and answered, rather than denying it exists at all.

To add: I genuinely don't know the answer to this, because I do believe domestication can benefit animals, I just don't know what the acceptability threshold is. For me, though, it's nowhere near Olympic-level equestrian, even though I hypocritically make money working on the peripheries of that world.

I agree with you OP. I used to really enjoy the watching Grand National when I was a kid. My family were poor but we all put on cheap bets and made a day of it. As an adult, I realised it’s glorified animal abuse. My family all still participate and I’m the only one who doesn’t join in. I think part of the reason those involved in dressage don’t want to admit it’s wrong, is because they enjoy being part of a community and it’s not easy to stand up and criticise the ethics of family/friends in that community. It’s easier not to question what’s happening and stay in denial.

I'm kind of with you @Alfarrobeira. I don't know what the answer is either, other than we can all strive to be better than we were, in light of new information. I don't like a lot about the industry, but I also don't know what we'd do with all the horses if sporting just stopped. I vacillate on this a lot!

Sadly horses (as all other domesticated species) are dependent on us to survive. We cannot offer them a natural habitat for them to thrive, because we've messed them up through breeding in and out various traits. I do think we're far too indiscriminate in breeding though and I think rare/ancient species are important to conserve. But we'd do well to better regulate the minimum standards of how horses are kept and to understand their experiences of pain better, which have largely been anthropomorphised, as pointed out previously.

As far as coercion is concerned, to me this describes manipulation with mal intent and driven purely by self interest. I'm not sure that is what drives the majoirty of horse owners or riders to do what they do. Yes it's lovely and the goal of many to do everything with 100% effort and willingness, but how realistic or common is that, even in humans?! (Genuine question!). I'm minded that, as with children, you do have to be firm and apply a bit of pressure (not physical!) where safety, discipline and health is concerned. We all have to do things we don't want to do, because it's good for us. Feral horses are often driven by the the lead mare, who ticks others off with a baring of teeth and a warning kick. Weak or sick animals are often driven from the herd and abandoned. Stallions assert dominance over bachelors to maintain their role and access to mares, fighting to the death if needs be. Nature itself can be very cruel. We've removed a lot of the natural, very great pressures and stressors, so I don't think it's beyond acceptability to apply a bit of low pressure from time to time to make a horse handleable for vet or farrier at least, but I wouldn't always call pressure and release coercion or abuse.

When my mare is cautious of something I usually stop and give her the space and time to work it out in her mind. Once she's sussed it, that's that, and on we go. But if there is a hidden danger she's not aware of (such as us being close to a road junction where a spook or backing up will put us both in danger) I may well tap with my stick and say come on, we've got this, there's nothing to fear, we need to go forward to safety. For me that's acceptable leadership, and similar in ways to how a horse would treat another horse, not excessive dominance or coercion. But I'm not sure personally I'd be happy doing that just to win a competition though! I am possibly in awe of people who never have to apply pressure in any sense, it's certainly not what I was taught as a child. And I think if most were honest they'd say the same, and that's really what we're in the process of undoing.

I witnessed very harsh ways of dealing with horses when I was growing up (such as one being beaten by my instructor for getting loose and not being caught for ages, as a result of me deciding it was a good idea to lead him out to a paddock with just my hand on his forelock, because I desperately wanted that level of trust! He had his eyes on the prize of long grass and freedom!). I vowed at that time I would never beat a horse or ever cause one to be in that situation again, and I've never needed to. Time and patience, breaking things down, step by step to minimise the amount of pressure that might be needed in any situation, is all I draw on. I don't profess at all to being brilliant at it, there are far better riders and horse people out there than me, but I do my best with the skills, tools and resources I have available, getting in professional support when needed. And we get by.

As with most things though, philosophies can and do get taken to the extreme.

I come across so many comments like this on the Facebook Reels video clips - people making assumptions and/or judgements on things about which they know a vanishingly small amount. This nonsense is about uninformed humans dominating the top end of the attention-seeking scale...🙄

You might not need work horses. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a need or a way of owning them and them leading great lives. Many of our heavy horse breeds are in danger of going extinct, shires and Clydesdales among them and also being bred into horses that are not the best version of the breeds.There is an increased interest in using them to work which in turn means breeding shorter, thicker healthier animals that do work. It’s better for the environment than machinery and better for the surrounding countryside than destroying habitat with big heavy plant.

I really don't think the answer to animal abuse is putting horses back to the plough.

Again, this type of thinking is all about you - what pleasure you get from owning horses, how sad you'll feel if these breeds die out.

Put the horses first - Shires and Clydesdales were created by humans to make human lives easier by performing hard labour. It doesn't actually matter if specific breeds die out, if they're no longer needed.

That's not strictly true. Rare and historic breeds play an important part in genetic lineage and diversity, that can be useful in our understanding of the history of domestication and evolutionary biology.

We practically extinguished the only species of truly wild horse in the last century, yet it emerged towards the end of it that certain domesticated breeds, such as exmoor ponies, most closely related to the true wild horse, have an important role in conservation, since they graze in a particular way that promotes biodiversity, similar to their ancestors, that no other species does. There may well be useful lessons from today's breeds that can help those used in conservation programmes (whether that be to conserve at risk truly wild equid species such as zebras and wild asses, or those used in conservation grazing) such as in disease control.

It's also a bit like saying no-one should keep domesticated animals of any description as pets, which is quite extreme. Cats are arguably the most invasive domesticated species in the world, but I can't see in all reality that we'd do away with them all, inspite of their impact on bird and vole populations!

There are by no means simple solutions, but we have to change and adapt how we do things, as we learn to do better.

I agree with all of this, and I don't think it contradicts what I wrote.

Cross-breeding to produce healthy populations of horses which can be used for re-wilding and natural grazing programmes - brilliant. They're trying this with native donkey breeds in Portugal, to reduce scrub and hopefully wildfire incidence. Equines being naturally nomadic, they are being put to use in a way that is also an ideal lifestyle for them. Win win.

Preserving a breed for the sake of it (especially when the genetic pool becomes so small that you have to in-breed), or subjecting horses to hard labour when there are perfectly good technological options - can't see the argument for that.

I think when the primary utility is human pleasure, then the onus has to be on equestrians to prove that the horses really are being allowed to exhibit their natural behaviours as freely as possible, rather than exploited at the expense of their welfare. And, as you described interestingly in your previous post, when training and controlling methods are employed, they're in line with the natural herd instincts of the animal, to keep stress as minimal as possible and build trust.

I had typed a ridiculously long screed detailing how I keep my chickens, as an example of how the main utility I derive from them is pleasure (I'd be kidding myself if I tried to make the maths work - it's way cheaper to buy organic eggs from the supermarket), but that my joy has to come second to their welfare. I see my responsibility as giving them enough space and protection that they can behave naturally and not be stressed. Chickens are also nomadic, and need a ton of space.

I deleted it because I'd rambled on and on, but I think that is more or less my line in the sand - can the animals freely exhibit their natural behaviours? Is their environment causing them stress? Done right, domestication can provide a much less stressful environment than the wild, and still provide utility to humans in one form or another. It's just not going to look like the history of domestication up to now.

Box banging because a horse wants to be ridden!??
What Lunacy is this.

Horses bang boxes usually out of frustration and boredom.
Being stabled is not a natural environment for a horse or pony- Box banging is almost a vice with some horses, akin to weaving and cribbing. -
Far better is to give them turnout.

Oh well in that case we don’t need to protect any animals. Let them just go extinct. That’ll be good for the planet.

Of course in answer to a post about the ‘need’ for horses I’m talking about how they are useful to humans. You didn’t ask about what’s in for the horse. But as I said working horses are bred for longevity and strength and that can only be good for the horse.

horses are spectacularly bad at staying alive when left to their own devices btw. They drop dead over the most ridiculous things. So again decent breeding is good for the horses.

we have no ‘need’ for most dogs or cats or fish or guinea pigs. We keep them becuase we love them.

You've completely missed my point.