How Did We GET HERE?
February 2011
Gingered tails, wigs (false hair pieces), eye shadow (clip all hair off the horse right down to the skin around the eyes using surgical blades and apply “grease”) to make the eyes “stand out,” as if Arabian’s eyes weren’t already mesmerizingly intense; lit from within with the fire of their spirit! With Saddlebreds, ginger doesn’t seem to be enough (?) so many Saddlebred show people have their horse’s tails surgically altered, cutting the ligaments under the tail and then setting it with the use of a “brace” into a fashionably arched position. Of course the horse can’t use their tail for protection against flies, but, hey, we all have to sacrifice for “beauty,” right?
While we’re on the topic of tails, how much hair is too much? Are the judges visually measuring the length of the tail that is dragging on the ground to help them decide how the class is pinned? Maybe that is why the western pleasure horses have to move as though their feet are mired in molasses. It can’t be easy for judges to make an accurate estimate of the exact length, in inches, of the amount of tail dragging behind a (barely) moving horse, especially from the center of the arena! If a half inch can be the deciding factor between a first and second place, I could come to understand why “how slow can you go” (at every gait) has become the mantra of the western pleasure divisions. The irony in all this tail business is that if you hop in your car and drive to a different breed show, you’ll find the riders cutting nerves or injecting “nerve blocks” to insure their horse’s tails stay tightly clamped to their ass without any movement! Could it be that the judges which officiate at these breed shows can’t find enough to separate one exhibitor performance from another, and came up with the idea of counting the number of times the horse swishes its tail during a class to use as a penalty in the overall scoring? Ludicrous you say? I agree, but in my agreement, I also notice no one is saying why anyone would feel the need to alter a horse’s natural tail carriage or its ability to swish or swing its tail as it feels the need!
Jumping to the other end of the horse, I’ve got to ask myself what idiot would ever ride a horse whose head was carried so low, as to earn the breed the derisive title of “peanut rollers.” Any cowboy that ever had to chase a cow down a rough hill would laugh himself sick at the sight of the horses in today’s show rings, many of whom carry their heads like a cur dog which has just been whipped. What’s more there is some concern that this unnaturally low head position might be contagious! We may be seeing the beginning of an epidemic since this behavior seems to have passed over to the reining horses who are suddenly starting to drop their noses into the arena floor, as thought all of their neck muscles turned to water and their skulls are too heavy to hold up, after the slide stop!
While the waxing and waning of fashion trends may compel humans to wear the unwieldy foot wear known as “platform shoes,” I’ve yet to meet a horse who just can’t wait for the farrier to nail, glue and staple on the multilayered wooden torture devices that pass as “horse shoes” for the gaited set. Would someone please explain to me what’s to be gained here, other than a ribbon (gratification of the human ego, since the horse doesn’t care) and the insane perpetuation of a cruel practice?
The jumper crowd all love to put those cute little ear nets on their horses, ostensibly for fly protection, but also used to hold ear plugs in place, but at least no one is suggesting surgically stitching the horse’s ears closed as yet! Plus, as long as we’re talking about trends, will the hunters please make up their minds as to whether they prefer to go in standing martingales or running martingales! I could accept the constant changing back and forth if the tack changes happened one horse at a time, but they don’t. Instead, about every other year, whole classes simultaneously appear in running martingales (one year) and standing martingales the next!
Dressage riders don’t get a pass in this “dirty little secrets” equine show world expose. Evidence the recent negative worldwide press around their “training technique” known in the biz as “rollkur,” (often achieved with the use of draw reins), which, in some cases, has caused so much damage, surgery was required to repair what was done to the horse in the name of training.
There’s more (and worse) as anyone who’s been around the show scene can tell you; horror stories that happen repeatedly because we’ve come to accept these aberrations as “normal.” But why? The answer to that question has two parts: ego and ignorance. The human “need to win” driven by runaway ego and the ignorance (until it is too late) about the suffering often caused by many of these practices. So what I’m really asking is: why can’t we show all of our horses naturally, highlighting their inherent talent through humane training and good horsemanship? Considering the physical feats horses can perform; jumping, height and width, speed over distance and speed of reactions in small spaces, the horse, athletically speaking, is the supreme “all-around athlete” of the animal kingdom. Which leaves me shaking my head and wondering “what are we thinking?!”
Signed:
The Horse Advocate
PS, while I appreciate the fact that many of you will be willing to accept my word for the aberrations that are forced on horses, especially show horses, I think you should see it with your own eyes. To that end, You Tube and the internet are great tools. Enter the following titles in the search bar and take a look. What do you think about all of it? If you are one of those who participate in the events singled out for the purposes of this article, try to see these clips “with fresh eyes” and from a horse’s perspective. These practices would change if enough humans are willing to change.
- US Arabian Western Pleasure Open Final
- Sr. Western Pleasure AQHA World Show 2008
- Cruelty Behind Tennessee Walking Horse
- The Damage Inside: Rollkur, Hyperflexion, LDR & Behind the Vertical
- World Championship Horse Show Louisville, Kentucky 2009
Industry Contracts, What They Do and Don’t Do
Your Rights and Responsibilities As Your Horse’s Advocate
Recently a Texas trainer was sued by two of her clients. The clients "allege that they had disagreements
over training methods, as well as which trainer was riding the horses in preparation for shows." The
lawsuit revolved around payment. The horse owners maintained that [the trainer] would not release their
horses to them until they paid their bill in full. The suit requested the return of their horses and personal
property, unspecified monetary damages, and a jury trial.
The above news piece came to my attention when it was included in a column written by Elizabeth
McMillian (of Equestrianprofessional.com), in the most recent edition of the Bay Area Equestrian Network
(BAEN) electronic news letter. What bothered me wasn’t that an equestrian trainer was being sued by
his/her clients, (frankly, as a long time equestrian professional, I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more
often). It was Elizabeth McMillian’s statement that she “hates negative press” when it comes to the
equestrian industry. It is true that our industry is rife with whiners, gossip mongers and less than professional
professionals who look to get a “leg up” (so to speak) on the people they see as their competition (other
trainers) by “bad mouthing” same, and I’m sure Elizabeth McMillian is aware of that and it is that aspect of
the industry which she was bemoaning with her statement about hating negative press.
But, with 47 yearsas an equine industry professional, I also know that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to industry abuses has been more of a “turn a blind eye” than a successful approach to policing our own. The situation might
not concern me as much as it has come to, if it didn’t impact those least able to defend themselves the
most; incoming novice, inexperienced, and/or amateur owners/riders and their horses. The nature of the
industry (i.e. half ton animals being handled by 150 pound people) has a great enough inherent risk, that
practices which increase that risk in any way should be intolerable to all of us.
The wording of the news story makes it appear that the Texas horse owners sued their trainer to get
their horses and equipment back without full payment of their bill, but my guess is that not paying their bill
was the only way the owner(s) felt they had of protesting what they felt was a breach of ethics (good
behavior/open disclosure/honest practices) on the part of the trainer they had hired and to whom they
had entrusted their horses. Elizabeth McMillian points out that the apparent lack of a contract between
the parties in this case made things more complicated for all involved and I agree. But it should be noted
that any perception that such a contract would have provided equal protection to all parties involved, does
not fit with my life experience in the industry. It most likely would have given the trainer all the advantage
unless, the “client” was
a) smart enough to carefully “read all of the fine print” of the contract they were
signing before they left their horse(s) for training and
b) knew enough about “normal” training practices in the industry to know what they wanted/needed spelled out in the contract, like who was to ride their horse while it was in training, how many times a week the horse would be worked and whether that work wasto be under saddle, or longeing, etc.
Problem here is I’ve never met an uncoached beginner/novice/entry level participant who would think of such issues on their own. Rather it would be natural for the industry neophyte to assume that when they brought their horse to “J. Smith” to be trained, it would be J. Smith who would be sitting in the saddle and/or doing the ground training of their animal. Most contracts that are in use in the industry today are drawn up (worded) primarily to protect the trainer in such situations. They do very little to protect the horse owner (bill payer) and almost nothing to protect the horse. As a
matter of fact, the concept that a horse should have rights in such a situation as this is an alien one in the
industry, as horses are generally looked upon as “chattel.”
Now I am fully aware that if other professionals happen to read this, there will be howling simply because
my statement may lead the inexperienced amateur to believe that the “head” trainer should be the one
doing everything with a horse who has been put in training with them and that just isn’t cost effective.
What a client/horse owner should be able to expect is that the primary trainer (not the assistant or the
groom) is the one doing the training of the horse. A trainer might use an assistant to “warm a horse up,”
(where an assistant rides the horse quietly around an arena, usually in a non-demanding way), while the
trainer sits on/works with another clients horse or coaches another client. When the horse is warmed
up by the assistant and the trainer is ready, the assistant will dismount and the trainer will step up into
the saddle and begin to put in its primary training work for the day. In this way, the trainer’s time is
maximized.
A trainer’s time is not being well used if they are in the barn grooming, saddling/ unsaddling,
bathing, cooling out and putting horses away. The exception to that would be when/if a horse exhibited bad behavior during those particular activities. If that is the case, then the head trainer should be present
and in control of the situation (horse?) while those activities are taking place, even if they only supervise
the horse’s handling by others or their staff.
There is another instance where having an assistant (trainer?) ride a client’s horse might not only be
justified, but actually be a planned part of a head trainers strategy and appropriate and/or necessary to
the proper training of the horse. The thought process which can engender such a decision on the part of
the head trainer is as follows. The owner’s riding skills are usually considerably less accomplished than
those of the trainer. While the horse is being trained, it becomes used to (and expects) the precision and
clarity of the trainer’s aids (quiet hands, quiet seat, quiet legs, etc.). When the training of the horse has
progressed to where the horse clearly understands what is expected of it in the way of specific responses
to various cues and most importantly consistently demonstrates the right attitude toward its work, a head
trainer might deliberately have the horse ridden by a lesser skilled rider in preparation for transitioning the
horse to being ridden by the owner. However, a considerate, thoughtful trainer will prepare the client by
informing them that someone other than the trainer will be riding their horse and explaining why.
Not all horses can tolerate the mistakes innocently made by a less than skilled rider; mistakes which
are common and to be expected. If the horse becomes confused and upset because its rider’s (owner)
aids are erratic, (different in force from the professional, lacking in clarity or overly used), its behavior
is likely to deteriorate rapidly and the trust which should be present between the horse and its rider will
quickly disappear leaving both horse and rider nervous and unsure of each other. This situation does
not reflect on the correctness of the trainer’s input (training), but it may easily appear to the owner that
their previously “quiet” (when ridden by the trainer) horse is “suddenly” not as well trained as the owner
thought. When given enough time with a horse, the smart trainer will put in a correct foundation and then
gradually “desensitize” the horse so it learns to tolerate less exact aids, less balance in its rider, less
harmony (from the rider) as the horse performs its routines.
It should be noted here that it is the most common thing in the world for a novice rider to be using either their reins and/or their legs to signal/ask for one specific action from their horse, all the while, positioning their body in such a way as to be indicating to the horse a desire for the EXACT OPPOSITE from what their rein or leg is telling the horse to do. Part
of this “desensitization” strategy could involve having the horse ridden by riders with “lesser” skills (than
those of the trainer). But when this happens the head trainer should be on hand to observe the horse’s
reactions to the different feels it is receiving from its new rider and to coach, when necessary, their
assistant in how to handle the horse in question, calming its fears, helping it through its confusion, etc.
In this way, the horse is prepared, step by step, to be transferred out of its current training environment
and into the care and control of its owner/rider. Even when the horse in question is staying in the trainer’s
barn and will continue to be supervised by that trainer, this technique might still be employed prior to
the handing off the horse to its owner for unsupervised riding periods in order to “test drive” the horse’s
training and his or her ability and willingness to withstand confusion and forgive a lack of clarity in its rider.
As shown in the examples above, a trainer having someone other than themselves ride a client’s horse
is not in and of itself a betrayal of their clients trust. The why (did it happen) and who (was the rider) must
be looked at in order to determine if you’ve got one of the best in the business (someone who REALLY
knows what they are doing and wants to produce a happy horse, and a happy, safe and independent
rider/owner) or something of a much lesser standard. The s_ _ _ hits the fan when and because industry
professionals have betrayed clients trust by having less-than-qualified riders put in the paid for riding time
without a clients knowledge. As to the part of the article that suggested there might be a conflict between
owner and trainer over the type of training methods that were being employed on the horse(s) in question,
there is little recourse except diligent consumer research prior to leaving your horse in any trainer’s
barn.
Questions which might arise during this research could be: a history of the trainers own equestrian
education (who taught them their basics, who have they ridden with or cliniced under), what “system”
do they use when training a horse, how long have they been training horses as a professional (full
time), what are the expected 30, 60 and 90 day goals for your horse, how often and what type of
training “devices” are commonly used in the trainers program (training devices can range from a simple
running martingale to items such as the chambon, hobbles, draw reins, etc. which require a great deal
of equestrian tact and skill in order to have the benefits out weight the possible drawbacks (side effects)
which can accompany their use; and just as in real world business, if, as an employer, you receive, but do
not make some effort to verify an employee resume, you must carry some of the blame if it turns out your employee lied or embellished the truth on their job application.
Time is money and so time becomes king and many, many trainers across the board (in all disciplines) feel as though it is their right to “adjust” their training not only to the horse’s needs, but also to their own. An occasional adjustment (change of) daily routine or schedule is not a problem, but lack of consistency with horses is simply shoddy workmanship
and will result in more stress for the horse, which in turn can lead to poor performance, especially when
the horse long periods of time on the road in the pressure cooker of competition and in the long run, such
pressure can and does lead to the increased chance of physical injury as well.
Finally, the idea of being able to go to shows and select the best trainer for your horse on the basis of
who won the most in whatever discipline you are interested in pursuing, is both extremely seductive and
extremely risky. It is seductive because it is easy and because our culture tends to admire winners. But
a few moments of thoughtful consideration about the world of sports beyond horses will probably enable
you to recall more than one time a highly admired, winning athlete has been found to be “cheating his
or her way to top.”
Horse sports are no different. Involving humans means having to deal with such undesirable traits as ego and greed. The betrayals in the human sporting scene can run deep (children’s role models being destroyed), but it is worse when horses are involved. They are subject to our will and choices and unlike children we cannot use words to explain away the betrayal they experience. Your relationship with your coach and/or your horse’s trainer is an important one, perhaps even critical to your health, and being your horse’s advocate is a difficult job when you are in the earlier stages of learning
about the vast “world of horses” and how it can sometimes operate, but I encourage you to do your “due
diligence”.
Seek a mentor; an independent professional (if possible) consultant who is both experienced and savvy, to help guide your choices. The consultant/mentor hat is one that is often worn by both instructors and trainers, but I recommend looking outside your professional circle for your “over view”advice since it is often difficult to keep one’s vision crystal clear when a potential loss of income might be involved in the outcome.
Sincerely,
The Horse Advocate - Donna Snyder-Smith |