# Professionals demonstrating my "Opinion"--watch these vids



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

First vid: fearful, anxious horse showing aggression.
Second vid: horse seeking dominance "A horse does not act out of emotion."
Third vid: these problems are curable: misbehavior is a program, not a premeditation.


Sound familiar?

(You have to watch the vids all the way through and pay attention.)


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Seems to me to be back to front somehow, "Professionals demonstrating my opinion" Makes it sound like you trained them??


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

Well...or the fact that the girl in question on the other thread is far from a professional.


----------



## oneslicktrick (Sep 16, 2010)

So...tieing a lasso around my horses butt and chasing him until he ****es himself in fear, will break him of his aggression and fear? Good to know.


----------



## Lonannuniel (Jun 13, 2008)

this still doesn't prove the point that ALL horses can be 'fixed' ( for lack of a better word ) 

These professionals are ONLY going to put successful horses up for viewers to watch, it would be counter productive for business if they showed the world the horses who do not shine a positive light on their training methods.


----------



## apachewhitesox (Dec 9, 2010)

I just want to point out didn't the last video say she had an 80% success rate or something.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Yes, running the horse around gets his feet moving. That helps remove anxiety. Relieving the bladder shows a release of anxiety and a giving over of the dominance instinct. (Listen to the man.)

If you look at the websites, you will see these are all professionals.

No, I didn't train them (?) but the principles used are based on all the principles I discussed.

80% percent is really impressive. If you look back at an old post, I did say that I thought some horses could get screwed up beyond repair (but they are still not mean or bad or malicious--they can't be.) 80% is great.

But ok, if you want to just deny horse behavior and real horse training, ok. I have better ways to spend my time than trying to help and teach people who won't even listen.

But if you don't understand these simple principles, you don't understand a horse. And that is awful for horses. And this "bad horse" thing will continue, and horses will suffer.

This is, in fact, my last word here. Ever. Please, if anyone can get anything from what I have said from the past five days, very good. It's all true.

For those of you who got mad and refuse to see, I don't know what to say. Try to think of your horses. Do some real research. Try to learn to think like a horse. Don't be too proud to take advise from people who haven't been riding as long as you have. Go read books on horse psychology, real books, not popular magazines.

For the sake of your horses, I sincerely implore you to this.

I wish your horses good luck.


----------



## Jake and Dai (Aug 15, 2008)

I don't read anyone saying these techniques don't ever work, I just read that people are of the opinion they do not work 100% of the time. Which one of the professionals said herself. *shrug*


----------



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

Is it just me, or does it seem like the horse in the first video gets spooked towards the woman by someone in the pen, off-frame? Then the trainer goes about trying to **** the horse off, scratching around his butt - why is he allowing the horse to show him his rear end when he's "so aggressive" anyways? 
Guy brings him into the pen, wants the horse go go to the right, horse says "no" so the guy gets tangled up in his own line, and says "ok, go left." I cannot stand that he's allowing a dog (predator - heh) to be so underfoot and aggressive towards the horse. Get the dog out of the pen for crying out loud. 
I see a confused horse that has NO clue what the man wants, and I don't blame him. I haven't a clue either. He says at 4:37 "I'm gonna approach him at the shoulder" and it takes him choking up on the lead until 5:00 to get to the shoulder. I seriously doubt he wanted the horse to keep moving away from him; the horse was confused. I don't see an aggressive horse - I see a confused horse. 
Cannot stand that he's constantly getting tangled up in his ropes. I don't understand the NEED for a lariat around his butt except for trying to get a "dangerous" reaction. I understand it fine for desensitization - but not in this context. He wanted a "wow" reaction that he could then "fix" as the horse wound down and realized that the thing squeezing his butt wasnt going to kill him. At 8:09, his lariat is completely tangled with his leadrope. 
No siree, not impressed by this "trainer" one bit.

For the record, as soon as you accept a penny for anything, you're legally a "professional." I've seen more crappy horse "professionals" than good ones; just because someone is a "professional" by the Webster definition does not a good trainer make.
Also, for the record, dogs pee in submission. Horses, as far as I know, do not - I've never in my life seen or heard of a horse doing a submissive piddle. They can **** themselves when they're frightened; passing manure and gas (in a relaxed way) is a sign of relaxation when one is working a horse.


----------



## oneslicktrick (Sep 16, 2010)

Sorry, but I can not, and will not just blindly believe everything I hear.


----------



## Ferhoodled (Jun 7, 2011)

oneslicktrick said:


> So...tieing a lasso around my horses butt and chasing him until he ****es himself in fear, will break him of his aggression and fear? Good to know.


Yeah, and don't forget to lunge him like a maniac while you're purposely provoking his bucking. Also, if you let the rope just drag across the ground until he steps on it when you lead him, that's a bonus. :wink:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I havent' watched all of the videos yet (I will, I promise), and I was not a part of the thread in question, but If you want to see what a really aggressive horse can be like, go see the movie, "Buck". That stallion is so aggressive, he puts these horses to shame. And if a hrose really wants to kill you, he will find a way.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I see aggression in the first video, bigtime. I would not have the dog in there, but thta is not the real problem. That is not a confused horse. The man is pretty clear in what he asks. Perhaps you are not used to seeing a horse lunged in this manner.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Aggression in Horses


----------



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

The dog is a huge part of the problem. Get a horse cornered (for lack of a better term) between two predators, and you've got a huge problem. The dog is being aggressive; he's not sitting nicely to the side. The horse strikes out at the lariat as many horses will when something flies up their butt. 
No, sorry, I see an extreme amount of confusion, not aggression. I'm still not convinced the first frame isn't set-up. Call me cynical. I see a horse possibly reacting to some stimulus off-frame to the inside of the pen, and spooking towards the woman, then the camera cuts just as he's about to move out and away. I could very well be wrong, of course.

Welcome back


----------



## oneslicktrick (Sep 16, 2010)

DSJ46 said:


> Aggression in Horses


This has:
a. No references.
b. No bibliography.
c. No author.
d. No date.

In my line of work this would be an instant "can not use."


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Julie Goodnight Natural Horsemanship / Horse Master TV Show


----------



## oneslicktrick (Sep 16, 2010)

DSJ46 said:


> Julie Goodnight Natural Horsemanship / Horse Master TV Show


This more or less disproves the first video. The horse's head does not lower, nor does he show any other signs of submission. Only confusion.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Treatment of fear-induced aggression in a horse. [Mod Vet Pract. 1979] - PubMed result


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

In the first video (I didn't see part where horse moves toward woman), he uses the lariat on the horse's butt because he is trying to help the horse go "through" the anxiety and learn that he can do it and survive. So, yes, he is kind of provoking the horse but he wants the horse to learn that a rope over it, even around it's butt, is acceptable and surviveable. Also, he wants the horse to be able to do this while walking. Notice that the horse tolerates it at first, but he is "frozen", he is putting up with it, but as soon as he starts walking, he cannot hold it in any more and out comes the anxiety and the reaction. The trainer wants the horse to be able to experience anxiety and know that he MAY walk forward and it will be allright.

If you only stay in the place where the horse is never exposed to anxiety producing stiumlae, horse may be fine, but when that day comes when he meets something over that level, he will not know how to just walk through it, he will explode.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Horse Psychology and Behavior (Part I)


----------



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

There's a certain je ne sais quoi about claiming to have worked with a horse on the whole "anxiety issue" with the rope and still getting such a strong response that the horse pees itself. Insanity is doing something over and over again, and expecting a different result. He states in the video that he's been doing the lariat thing for a while - and it's obviously not working if the horse is still reacting in such a way. The horse offers very, very few signs of relaxation throughout the entire video. The one spot I saw where he actually relaxed was when the trainer scratched his shoulder, and he dropped his head a bit. The muscles on the underside of his neck are overdeveloped from the horse holding its head up, instead of relaxing downwards. 
The horse is anxious and tense, absolutely. But I greatly dislike the approach that person is taking towards fixing the problem.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

There are many ways to fix this type of problem or any problem for that matter. Saying that this in the best or only way show lack of under standing and working with the needs of the horse as an individual.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

In regards to your scholorly paper (which is just an abstract):

Fear induced aggression is one type of aggression. There are many 'types' of aggression including dominance based aggression, sexual aggression, etc. I do agree that counter conditioning and desensitizing a horse to fearful stimuli are productive. However it does not prove your argument that all horses can be trained out of all bad habits. I'm assuming that's what your hypothesis is here.

As far as the videos, I see a tense, agitated horse and a 'trainer' who isn't quite reading his horse the best he could. (my sound isn't working, so can't hear any commentary)


----------



## oneslicktrick (Sep 16, 2010)

DSJ46 said:


> Treatment of fear-induced aggression in a horse. [Mod Vet Pract. 1979] - PubMed result


Are you talking about this? This is merely an abstract, with no annotations, references, or actual writing in depth.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Spastic...READ! I said not all horses can be fixed! I have never said that. Good that you learned something by some good reading, though. It's most than most people here will do.


----------



## Jake and Dai (Aug 15, 2008)

I agree with NHRA, and I don't think anyone disagrees that there are ways to fix a lot of dominate behaviors that are natural to horses.

What I personally believe is that there is no one way, nor that any horse can be 'fixed' by any person. I certainly don't have the skills, knowledge or experience to 'cure' a horse of, say, rearing under saddle. 

Does that make me a bad person or someone who doesn't love their horses? I don't think so. I just recognize my limitations.

And if I could not afford to get the best professional help possible, then heck yeah I'd sell my horse!

I don't really understand what you think, DS, we don't understand.


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought the horse was confused in the 1st video.
If he is trying to desensitize the horse to the rope, why doesn't he remove it when the horse is standing or moving with it on him quietly. Also, the dog thing really bothers me. He looked like he was trying to herd the horse. If this horse was truelly aggressive he would nailed that dog 1st chance he got.
The second video was ok, but 1/2 the time the horse didn't look like he was listening and watching the lady. He was very distracted.
The 3rd video I saw a horse at the beginning that was acting aggressive, at the end of the video he seemed better, and was rewarded for the behavior. (but there seemed to be no time lapse)
I agree that most horses can be worked out of their problems with time and patience, but I don't think these really proves the point.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Oneslick...if you take the trouble, you can get at the paper...geez...


----------



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

DSJ, I don't think anyone here even knows what your point is anymore. I think we're all agreeing to basically the same thing:
Horses get screwed up. Horses can experience anxiety. A lot of horse issues are caused by humans, though I must write a disclaimer that some horses truly are screwed up due to some other force of nature (i.e. tumor, misfiring neurons.) 
A lot of horses can be fixed. Some cannot. You said so yourself that 80% was a good percentage of horses that can be fixed. What about the other 20% though? What about the 20% that your own proclaimed professionals can't fix? 20% is a significant number. If 20% of most cases cannot be fixed by professionals.... what then? What are non-pros supposed to do? 
I don't understand what you're arguing here... Can you please clarify??
I really really think that you might want to take a step back here and realize that NOBODY is saying that horses can't get screwed up - the big fight stemmed from the suggestion that people (no matter their experience level) should never sell a problem horse; they should stick with it even if they can't do a darn thing with the animal, because the person made a commitment when they bought the horse.


----------



## oneslicktrick (Sep 16, 2010)

Training methods for horses: habituation to a frig... [Equine Vet J. 2006] - PubMed result

"
*HYPOTHESES: *

1) Horses are able to generalise about the test stimulus such that, once familiar with the test stimulus in one situation, it appears less frightening and elicits a reduced response even when the stimulus intensity is increased or the stimulus is presented differently;"

This disproves the first video, if indeed the horse had been worked with multiple times with the lariat. Even twice or three times should be enough for a horse to have a LESSOR reaction to a stimulus. This horse is still peeing out of fear (which, is NOT a "relieving of anxiety". There is no, or VERY few, creatures that urinating themselves means "I am relaxing". Perhaps deficating, but not urinating. Especially in a prey animal. Urine produces a scent, scents attract predators.) This horse should not have had the extreme reaction to the lariat if he had been worked with it previously.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

I am READING. I didn't learn anything from that abstract. It's pretty common knowledge. My question is what you are trying to prove in this thread other than how ignorant we are. 

So instead of calling me ignorant, you could answer my question of what your hypothesis is in this case. There's been so much ranting and yelling, that it's been sort of lost. 

As JDI I said, and I agree with her, I think your point has been loss in your frustration.


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

I've owned an honest to goodness aggressive horse. Not some hot head who liked to kick or your run of the mill fear rearer. I am talking about a don't turn your back on him, God help you if you try to get in his stall with him, Heaven forbid you were to fall off of him while riding, horse. I would have challenged anyone, your heros or not, to come try to change that horse. If they didn't get killed trying, they would have packed their things the first time he came charging from across the field. I did what was right for him and had his misery ended before he could hurt someone. 

Theres an 'off topic' shift for you. If you encountered a horse with real, honest to Chrysler aggression where anything with breath in 100 feet of that horse was in danger, would you have him put down? Or try to convince him with studies and lurve?


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

If a horse is that dangerous, he should be humanely put down. I feel the same way about aggressive dogs. A human's life especially a child's life is worth more. I'm sorry if that makes me a bad person.


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

I am with you on that fly. 

Doesn't that negate your 'you are just feeding the slaughter houses with 'bad' horses' theory DJS? Responsible owners will have a truly aggressive horse euthed...based on my short little study here.


----------



## gaelgirl (Mar 3, 2011)

flytobecat said:


> If a horse is that dangerous, he should be humanely put down. I feel the same way about aggressive dogs. A human's life especially a child's life is worth more. I'm sorry if that makes me a bad person.


This. And it doesn't make you a bad person fly, it makes you a responsible person.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

flytobecat said:


> If a horse is that dangerous, he should be humanely put down. I feel the same way about aggressive dogs. A human's life especially a child's life is worth more. I'm sorry if that makes me a bad person.


Gets my vote, with the current huge overpopulation of horses there are so many who need loving homes, I'd rather we spent our energies on those who are not dangerous.


----------



## heartprints62 (Feb 27, 2010)

I read in in someones post closer to the beginning.... INSANITY- doing the same thing expecting different results. 


I would rather be blistfully ignorant than obviously insane.


----------



## heartprints62 (Feb 27, 2010)

Jake and Dai said:


> I agree with NHRA, and I don't think anyone disagrees that there are ways to fix a lot of dominate behaviors that are natural to horses.
> 
> What I personally believe is that there is no one way, nor that any horse can be 'fixed' by any person. I certainly don't have the skills, knowledge or experience to 'cure' a horse of, say, rearing under saddle.
> 
> ...





JustDressageIt said:


> DSJ, I don't think anyone here even knows what your point is anymore. I think we're all agreeing to basically the same thing:
> Horses get screwed up. Horses can experience anxiety. A lot of horse issues are caused by humans, though I must write a disclaimer that some horses truly are screwed up due to some other force of nature (i.e. tumor, misfiring neurons.)
> A lot of horses can be fixed. Some cannot. You said so yourself that 80% was a good percentage of horses that can be fixed. What about the other 20% though? What about the 20% that your own proclaimed professionals can't fix? 20% is a significant number. If 20% of most cases cannot be fixed by professionals.... what then? What are non-pros supposed to do?
> I don't understand what you're arguing here... Can you please clarify??
> I really really think that you might want to take a step back here and realize that NOBODY is saying that horses can't get screwed up - the big fight stemmed from the suggestion that people (no matter their experience level) should never sell a problem horse; they should stick with it even if they can't do a darn thing with the animal, because the person made a commitment when they bought the horse.


In both of these posts, points were clearly laid out as to the relevence of this argument, yet there has been no answer from DSJ. Again, proving that you will not listen to any reasoning, nor will you succumb to the fact that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. WE HAVE ALL AGREED WITH YOU ABOUT TRAINING!!! The only point not agreed apon, as stated by JDI, was that most people agree its ok for the girl to sell her horse IF NEED BE and you did not. This part has NOTHING to do with facts. This is all opinion, and actually no matter who's opinion might be the "better" one, the only opinion that matters is the owner of the horse and the decision about the situation is COMPLETLEY HERS! 

So why is there ANOTHER pointless thread about this?


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Wow, I can honestly say that the first video was disgusting. Not only was the guy allowing the dog to further agitate an already frustrated horse, the sound of that loose shoe nearly drove me batty. I didn't really see any blatant aggression there either. Even at the very first with the woman, that was at most a feigned attempt at aggression. If she had reacted by throwing her hands up and stepping forward, the horse would have stopped. What I saw during the rest of the video was a horse that felt trapped between the guy and the dog and was unable to focus because of that. 

I also don't really see the point of the whole thing with the rope, he's not accomplishing anything except reinforcing the horse's first reaction to buck and kick. Every time he bucks and kicks, the rope falls off and he gets his "reward" by the removal of the stimuli :?. Couple that with the fact that the ropes were constantly tangled and wrapped around the guy's feet do nothing to demonstrate even a _lick_ of horse sense. Anyone with experience handling any horse at all knows that you keep all ropes up off the ground and away from feet, both the horse's and your own.

The second video, I still didn't see an aggressive horse. I saw one that was spoiled and disrespectful, but that is a long way from aggressive. Plus, the lady just seemed to be nagging him instead of correcting the behavior.

Because of my life experiences, I have had the opportunity to see some _truly_ aggressive and dangerous horses. Horses that would charge the bars of the stall when you walked by and charge and attack in the pen. Horses that had to be handled from the back of a pony horse that was bigger, tougher, and stronger than them until proper respect could be re-established.

Very few people have the tools and courage to handle a truly dangerous horse. There are lots of horses out there that have a few aggression issues that are easy enough to solve with the right training but most average horse owners/riders don't have much knowledge on what to do to correct it.

I honestly don't understand the point that the OP is trying to make and I see that I am not the only one.


----------



## corinowalk (Apr 26, 2010)

After the woman leaves, the horse is SEEKING attention from the mulleted one. Head between the panels "I can haz treat now? I scare gramma away...I can haz treat?!"

I would have kicked that guy had he rubbed my butt like that. And I can imagine the horse was less than thrilled when he was pulling on his short tail hairs. 

Nothing but fear training at its worst!


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

What is wrong with a push button horse? Isn't that the ultimate goal to have such a close relationship with your horse that all you have to do is think it and they do it?
I think most people want someone else to do all the work for them and just enjoy the ride. More power too them if that is what they want. Heck on some days that is me. 
However for those who want more and have more to give, well there's no shortage of critters that could use some patience, time, TLC, and a light hand.


----------



## apachewhitesox (Dec 9, 2010)

Northern said:


> I, myself, had to remind myself that some people want a push-button horse/don't want to progress past Level 2, and that's ok.


I just want to clarify what you meant by this. Is this mean to be an insult of some sort? Are saying people only want horses that are easy to handle and they don't want a challange?


----------



## Northern (Mar 26, 2010)

Apache, what part of "Some people want a push-button horse and that's ok" don't you understand?

It's ok to not want a constant challenge, endless self-improvement in horsemanship, i.e., as some others do want.

Some do, some don't, & it's all ok.

Ok?


----------



## apachewhitesox (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm sorry I didn't clarify myself I meant the don't want to pass level 2 part


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

You know what, Northern. You're right. 

1) Horses can not be mean or malicious
2) Many, many horses wrongly labelled "bad" can be reformed
3) We should try as often as we can to save horses from being
labelled and passed on

I suspect I prodded a couple of consciences and that was a good deal of it with the original provokers. Then the others came at me like jackals.

I see a lot of fluff on here, and when someone comes on with a problem, that person often wants to be patted on the head and be told it's all right. I didn't do that. And the verbal crucifixion began. 

Hate me, folks. But like it or not, everything I said is true of horses. If you learn it, you will be better horse people who don't have to get rid of so many horses, and the horses will sure as the world benefit from it. Science is not an opinion. It's fact. Nature is not relativistic. It functions on laws. Animals function on laws of instinct. Do they vary a bit in individuals? Sure. But it is always there. You can count on it.

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. A horse kicks when it feels threatened or challenges for dominance--not because it dislikes you. It is just such basic horse knowledge.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

Your first two points, I agree with, DSJ. I think _most _people here tend to agree too. 

It's the third point where I think the trouble is coming up. From what I understand, you say we have a personal responsibilty to show commitment to our horses unless they should end up in a kill pen. Where others are saying that there is nothing wrong with passing on a horse that does not suit your needs/you can not handle/you don't like/whatever. 

Is that the basic picture here, or what am I missing?


----------



## apachewhitesox (Dec 9, 2010)

I think what you said is about right Spastic Dove


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

And my God! Remember the post that girl made about Jessica whatever her name is who died "I finally Get It" and every single one of you--and me too--told that silly girl (not only to quit getting her jollies with false grief) but that the horse didn't throw Jessica whatever her name is and kill her because he wasn't being a faithful companion, but because he was just reacting like a horse.

It is the same thing you all have been denying me for the past 5 days. And all because you got angry and put on your blinders.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

My point was don't sell a horse you have messed up and then go get another one and mess it up. Get the confidence level straight before getting another horse, but try to stick by the first one and get professional help if you can.

If there hadn't been such a firestorm, people could have gotten my original point straight. As it was, I said it a thousand times in five days.


----------



## apachewhitesox (Dec 9, 2010)

I agree with you to an extent DS what a am not really agreeing with is the way you keep insulting people when they don't agree with you. You were calling people on it but then you keep doing it right back.


----------



## Northern (Mar 26, 2010)

OP, I want you to see this one video on youtube in which some jerk is abusing a small horse in an alley of some foreign country, & the horse takes a dislike to him! (re: a horse doesn't try to kick you because he dislikes you) Yes, the horse was being threatened/abused, but you can see & perhaps feel the dislike, to use a milder term, in the facial expression, ears, actions, & vibes.

I'm too busy to try & find it; hope someone unearths it & posts it, for an interesting learning experience.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

My answer to you, Dove, begins, "My point was don't sell a horse..." I think you saw something more aggressive aimed at someone else.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

The thing is, I think that a lot of people are agreeing with you... it's just getting kind of loss. 

Whenever a newbie owner comes in saying "My horse is rearing/running away/bucking/biting/whatever" the first advice is to get a trainer. Most of the people here do not think the first instinct is to euth/sell/move on to a new horse. This is a board which generally advocates very strongly for personal responsibility and horsemanship. So while people will disagree with staying with a horse when you do not have access to a trainer or when it becomes unproductive, the general idea seems to be the same from the posts I have read. =/

ETA: Northern, is this the video?


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Northern, I posted it on the other thread. My contention would still be that the horse was still just in defense mode. He didn't kick out of dislike. He kicked out of feeling threatened. If the man stops hitting at him, he will stop kicking. Unlike people here. They just keep kicking.

My comment after the vid, by the way, was "Good horsie!" If the horse can't hate the jerk, I certainly do.

I guess if you want to call it dislike, ok--but because it was threatened. These people on here who have said their horse kicked them for sheer maliciousness, when they had done nothng to it don't know horses. If a horse kicks, it is threatened by something, not necessary the thing it kicks either. Thus to say a horse kicks with premeditated malicious intent is just not true. This is not my theory. This is horse psychology.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

No one has been able to come up with hard facts to dispute what I say (quoting reputable science) in "Horse Taking Over" posts 112, 116 and 176. Would you like to talk about that or insult each other some more?


----------



## Northern (Mar 26, 2010)

Some folks say that horses can't love or hate, but I believe that I've seen them do both.

Some say a horse can only "resent" a bad horseman, & don't have love like a human does. I say that their love is purer than most humans', so humans don't detect it.

And with that, I've GOT to log off; nighty-night!

eta: OMG, thanks, SD, for posting the vid! 
eta: Shoot, it's not the one I was talking about, but this one's a good one, too! Yay, Horsie! The one I meant was in an alley with old stone buildings, if I recall, & that horse gave that guy a lickin'!


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Seriously, dude. You've made some valid points. People have acknowledged and *agreed *with said points. Then you apparently purchased a one-way ticket to Crazytown and went off on some ill-fated, cryptic, nonsensical diatribe.

On the subject of equine brain physiology, well, that's still a very much ongoing field of research, and you know what? They are finding that animal emotions and motivations are far more complex than previously thought. Temple Grandin does a very nice summary of this in some of her books; I'm sure there are more technical papers out there for those so inclined to read.

Motivations for undesirable behaviors will influence the proper course of training action to take. They do not affect the outcome (in terms of dangerous behaviors like biting, kicking, etc.). Only very experienced horse people should deal with these issues...and those people need to understand WHY the horse is reacting in such a manner.

Not all "bad" horses are salvageable, nor are they all the result of bad handling on the part of humans. In my lifetime, I have known several aggressive horses (yes, it was a mismanaged dominance thing), but I have also known a horse who was born dangerous and untrainable. She was not mean. She was self-destructive, and it was her own undoing. Call it a mental disease or birth defect or whatever....that mare was _wrong_.

Don't assume that everyone else is ignorant. Don't take disagreements as evidence of your own superiority.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

Do you have any response for all the people that are actually agreeing with you? http://www.horseforum.com/horse-training/can-horses-intentionally-mean-90168/

So if we are so lacking in knowledge, answer our questions rather than insult us. I'm trying to understand where I am missing your point. All these people that are agreeing with you seem not to matter, so I'm confused as to what all the **** and vinegar is about.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

So I presume you're very familiar with all this? 
Fear, rage, panic, maternal care, vigilance, seeking, play, and mating are hard-wired brain instincts.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

And for the ten zillioneth time Bubba. Yes, I have acknowledged the occasional RARE case of horse mental illness. My intial point, if anyone cares, is that I don't want to see people messing up horses, passing them along without trying to get professional help, and then just getting another one and messing it up too.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

Hmmm. Maybe this one? 







To the OP: I'm trying to understand your point though right now. So if you will, have a discussion with me, since I'm not interested in who is or is not an idiot. If you can clear up what all this fuss is about (since as far as I can tell, most people agree with your points even though they may not like you).


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Well, I do believe hard-wiring is what I have been arguing all along. A horse is a hard-wired critter and thus CAN NOT MAKE A MALICIOUS DECISION. It acts based on its hard wiring...to kick out when threatened. See that, Bubba?


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> And for the ten zillioneth time Bubba. Yes, I have acknowledged the occasional RARE case of horse mental illness. My intial point, if anyone cares, is that I don't want to see people messing up horses, passing them along without trying to get professional help, and then just getting another one and messing it up too.


Uh-huh on your intial point, but that's an opinion (which, believe it or not, I happen to share) and not a FACT as you keep asserting. The FACTS... well, very few are contesting those.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Got anything more than your blurb for a Temple Grandin book. Have you read her books, by the way? I have. Both the ones on autism and on animals.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> Well, I do believe hard-wiring is what I have been arguing all along. A horse is a hard-wired critter and thus CAN NOT MAKE A MALICIOUS DECISION. It acts based on its hard wiring...to kick out when threatened. See that, Bubba?


And the same for people. 

The "mean girl in high school" example you like to tout? You, throwing a fit on this thread and spewing retaliatory insults?

You're both just acting out of instinct, for your own advantage. That, too, is a dominance thing. It's more developed, it's more premeditated, it's more planned-out....but the primary motivators are still the animal emotions, or hard-wired instinctual behavior, if you will.

See that?


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

And in addition to my undergraduate and graduate degrees in literature, I also have an undergraduate degree in neuroscience. And if you look on post 176 of "Horse Taking Over" you might learn something about human and horse brain structures and how this makes them different--and how a horse can not premeditate maliciousness.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> Got anything more than your blurb for a Temple Grandin book. Have you read her books, by the way? I have. Both the ones on autism and on animals.


No, I just happened to know the contents by...guessing?


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

**** straight people jockey for dominance. Is that a revelation. But someone might plot to kill someone for dominance for a long time. A horse can only strike out in the moment. A horse cannot be "bad" in the way of premeditating harm. It can only react in the moment. This is what I have been trying to explain for five days.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Well, if you have read Grandin, you should know all this already.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

And I have not been trying to dominant people here...just defending myself. You are a late comer. You do not know what it has been like.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

I think most people agree that a horse can not choose to be mean for the sake of being mean. Anabel posted it quite well on the thread I linked to earlier. Horses do not posses the ability for pre-meditation. Horses react to stimuli, pressure, and their instincts as a prey animal. For the horses that are 'mean' it is not because he's saying "I really don't like her, I'm going to make her life miserable because I like to see her cry". It often can be due to bad breeding, handling, etc. I know one horse I would label as 'mean' when I knew him. Necropsy reveiled a brain tumor. 

When we train, we use these instincts to our advantage and keep them in mind if we are good trainers. I think if you believe a horse is malicious or not, this holds true. 

That much I think everyone agrees with as I said. Like my theory before, I think it is many of us think that some horses are untrainable by the vast majority of horsemen while you (i think) say that we need to stick by the horse or not ride if we can not handle the problems with a horse we have.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

But you said before that people can be "mean" but horses cannot.
Yet you just admitted that the primary motivators are the same.
Ergo, it's just a matter of degree.
Where do you make the cut-off?
Humans may have the most highly-developed brain/ frontal cortex of any known animal, yet to separate them into their own separate category smacks of arrogance and anthropocentrism.
Which animals can be "mean," and which cannot? Which are "smart enough" to get that distinction?


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Thank you, Jesus. Yes, Dove, you've got it. But believe me, look back...a lot, a lot of people just don't get it.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Bubba...neurology! We have big forebrains. That is where premeditation occurs. The frontal orbital cortex is where moral decisions are made. Horses don't have them. The corpus collosum is what makes for complex thought by allowing the two sides of the brain to communicate. Horses barely have any. They can't think in the complex way we do and so can't premeditate anything. Thus, they can be reactionary, but not "mean" or "bad" in the way of doing something malicious.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Humans are special. We can plan out and do great good...and plot out and do great bad. Name one other animal that can plan projects for years in advance. None.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

That's where I'm confused. 

I see people disagreeing with never riding again if you can't handle your problem horse. Or disagreeing with keeping a horse just because you started it to 'finish your commitment'. 

I see lots of people agreeing with the basic horse psychology though. 
Although as far as the videos you go posted, that disagreement I am on board with. I see poor horsemanship and a anxious as heck horse -- Not videos I would have chose to illustrate your point.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Spastic_Dove said:


> I think most people agree that a horse can not choose to be mean for the sake of being mean. Anabel posted it quite well on the thread I linked to earlier. Horses do not posses the ability for pre-meditation. Horses react to stimuli, pressure, and their instincts as a prey animal. For the horses that are 'mean' it is not because he's saying "I really don't like her, I'm going to make her life miserable because I like to see her cry". It often can be due to bad breeding, handling, etc. I know one horse I would label as 'mean' when I knew him. Necropsy reveiled a brain tumor.
> 
> When we train, we use these instincts to our advantage and keep them in mind if we are good trainers. I think if you believe a horse is malicious or not, this holds true.
> 
> That much I think everyone agrees with as I said. Like my theory before, I think it is many of us think that some horses are untrainable by the vast majority of horsemen while you (i think) say that we need to stick by the horse or not ride if we can not handle the problems with a horse we have.


Define premeditation here.

Once, years ago, I was attempting to catch a strange horse in a pasture. I brought grain, but I was keeping my wits about me and being careful. Every time the herd started to crowd me, I would swing my rope and back them off, as I didn't want to get caught in the middle of a scuffle. I looked up at one point and was horrified to see a big gelding, 20 feet off, backing toward me at a rapid pace. He wasn't going for another horse. He was coming for me. I threw my arm up at the last moment as he aimed a hard kick at my head. Instead, he caught me in the armpit, leaving a grass-stained shoe print and a very numb arm. Had the blow landed where it was intended, it might have killed me.

He knew what he was doing. He wanted the grain; I wouldn't let him have it; he wasn't going to get it one way or another. Did he "plan" to take me out? Well, it sure wasn't a "reactive" kick. It required some forethought on his part.

Does that classify as premeditation? I don't know, but there is no other reasonable explanation for why he would kick me, as he was not scared or threatened. Dominance, sure, to an extent, but he wanted the food and knew that I was preventing him from having it.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

As to the vids: dealing with a problem horse is not pretty. Especially dominating an out of control horse. But he NEVER hits that horse. Note that.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

I think you are really anthropomorphizing. You are describing simple dominance behavior. He is doing it out of instinct. He is not thinking "I am going to get this son of a *****." He is not even thinking. He is running on his dominance instinct.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

If you read Grandin, man, you would understand this.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

Bubba, I was talking premeditation in the way that DS was speaking. Earlier I saw some people were accusing him anthropomorphism and he seemed to be doing the same back. As he mentioned, they don't have the brain components necessary for human-type thinking. 

In your example, I think that it was reactive in the sense of he wanted his food and he knew that you had it. 

What I was trying to argue is that horses are driven by fear, food, dominance, and sex. In this case, it was food. I suppose you could reason that he knew that if he scared you off, he could get the grain. However, I am saying that horses aren't being mean for the sake of being mean. They're being mean for reasons already listed (dominence, fear, anxiety, past experience they have learned from...etc).


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> Bubba...neurology! We have big forebrains. That is where premeditation occurs. The frontal orbital cortex is where moral decisions are made. Horses don't have them. The corpus collosum is what makes for complex thought by allowing the two sides of the brain to communicate. Horses barely have any. They can't think in the complex way we do and so can't premeditate anything. Thus, they can be reactionary, but not "mean" or "bad" in the way of doing something malicious.


Still a matter of evolutionary degree. "Morals" are still instinctual. 
"Mean" and "bad" are moral terms. Maybe we should toss them out entirely. There aren't mean or bad people, either, just more aggressive ones, or those with brain pathologies, or, or...



DSJ46 said:


> Humans are special. We can plan out and do great good...and plot out and do great bad. Name one other animal that can plan projects for years in advance. None.


That we know of, after far less than exhaustive studies.

Unless great migrations count, or anything in categories like that.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

I don't believe morals are instincts. I think they are the opposite of instincts. If I am mad, my instinct is to kill. If I am horny, my instincts might say forcibly take sex. My morals, complex thought processes, tell me not too. Morals override instincts.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Spastic_Dove said:


> Bubba, I was talking premeditation in the way that DS was speaking. Earlier I saw some people were accusing him anthropomorphism and he seemed to be doing the same back. As he mentioned, they don't have the brain components necessary for human-type thinking.
> 
> In your example, I think that it was reactive in the sense of he wanted his food and he knew that you had it.
> 
> What I was trying to argue is that horses are driven by fear, food, dominance, and sex. In this case, it was food. I suppose you could reason that he knew that if he scared you off, he could get the grain. However, I am saying that horses aren't being mean for the sake of being mean. They're being mean for reasons already listed (dominence, fear, anxiety, past experience they have learned from...etc).


I would argue that no one, human or animal, is mean for the sake of being mean.

And that this gelding PLANNED to hurt me (or get the food, or whatever). It required him to think in advance before acting. Not for a long period of time, not, but he had to go away and then come back. 

And yet you typically hear it told that animals, and horses in particular, can only do things in one-second intervals. Not so, apparently.

I know a mule who will size up a fence for a long time. He'll walk up and down the fence line without touching it, just looking. Then all of a sudden he'll spot the weak board and go crashing through. Without fail. He's planning that. His motivator is wanting to get free. You can call it instinctual, since everything is. But it's still planning and forethought.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

If a horse had morals that could override instincts, a horse that cares for you would never throw you. But it doesn't have complex thoughts. It bucks and rears when it is scared or in pain or threatened. It don't care if the dearest person in the world to it is aboard, because it can't think things out.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Are you kidding? What about serial killers?


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> Only micro-evolution, Bubba, not macro-evolution. I believe species can evolve. But I don't believe one species evolves into another one. You got a creationist here.
> 
> I don't believe morals are instincts. I think they are the opposite of instincts. If I am mad, my instinct is to kill. If I am horny, my instincts might say forcibly take sex. My morals, complex thought processes, tell me not too. Morals override instincts.


You have also learned that society will condemn you if you rape or murder. So quelling those instincts is in itself self-preservation....another instinct.

Here's a link for you: Thinking Man's Chimp Shows 1st Animal 'Planning' - ABC News


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Your last post is dead-on, Dove. Dead-on right.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> Are you kidding? What about serial killers?


Pathological differences in the brain or a skewed upbringing that affects hormones and elicits a whole chain reaction. They've actually found physical neurological differences in a lot of serial killers, in addition to genetic differences.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

True enough, Bubba! But only humans have "higher instincts" if you want to call morals that. An animal will kill or take sex as it likes.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Another link: Birds found to plan for the future


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Right, Bubba! And do you know what that difference is in serial killers...No mirroring cells in the frontal orbital cortex! Same as animals. Serial killers are animals! I think that proves the point.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> True enough, Bubba! But only humans have "higher instincts" if you want to call morals that. An animal will kill or take sex as it likes.


Unless there is another dominant male who will fight them for the female, or unless the thing to be killed can fight back (or belongs to a very protective mother).


----------



## Lis (Oct 29, 2009)

DSJ46 said:


> Are you kidding? What about serial killers?


It's been shown that certain conditions such as schizophrenia do alter brain function and shape. In one of my psychology books it has a picture of two MRI scans from identical twins. One has schizophrenia, one doesn't and you can see the difference in brain structure in the MRI scan, one area of the schizophrenic's brain is enlarged. Or look at Raine's study on brain dysfunction.

What I consider to be a "mean" horse is a horse that for what ever reason has become stuck in a pattern of behaviour that is dangerous to a person. Where this habit is so engrained that it continues with different owners. To me that is a "mean" horse.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Sure birds have long-range instincts. But they can't plan something morally good or bad. They can't plan to save an inner city kid or plot to kill their husband for the insurance money. All their stuff is simple survival. And do I see similarities in human and animals? Sure. But big differences too.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> Right, Bubba! And do you know what that difference is in serial killers...No mirroring cells in the frontal orbital cortex! Same as animals. Serial killers are animals! I think that proves the point.


So is Temple Grandin, by her own admission, with her own abnormal brain pathology.
But it's all a matter of degree, and you can't apply "badness" to one without falling down the slippery slope and having to apply it to all.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

You're right. People are not necessarily born mean. Serial Killers often have co-occurring disorders leading to their behaviors. Maybe what I am thinking of is more of a moral action then. A human can say "That guy cut me off in his car. I'm going to follow him home and slash his tires because I'm angry." Where as a horse is typically more reactive than planning. I think the understanding of it comes down to morals in a large sense. 

I do see where you're coming from though. A horse does learn. He can learn to take advantage of a situation with a human, or he can learn things like opening a gate to get freedom or into a grain bin. 


As far as the videos-- By no means should training be 'pretty' all the time, I'm just saying I see poor horsemanship in these videos. When using the lariat saying the horse is anxious or has a history of being babied and getting away from the behaviors, I see a horse that has learned to be rewarded for his behaviors. For example, everytime he bucks, the pressure of the rope is removed. He may get made to trot forward or disengage his haunches, but the unpleasent feeling of the rope is gone which was his intention. 

When we use desensitization, we have to keep the level of the unpleasing stimuli until the horse shows some sign of relaxation or submission even if it is very small. The horse doesn't show much relaxation or submission and his negative behaviors are just being reinforced.


----------



## Northern (Mar 26, 2010)

WHAT!? MY OP AN EVOLUTIONIST?! MY NEW HORSE LOVER AN EVO?! Hey, I can only grant immunity on that to Temple, cos she's so informative otherwise!

On the premeditative capacities of horses, their ability to feel the emotions of love & hate (& boredom & a whole bunch of others) I just don't like to impose any limits on their capabilities, belief-wise. 

That way, you never have to eat humble pie when Dobbin proves you wrong!

eta: sorry, I have a pc that takes 5 minutes to turn a page, scroll, etc. Wanted to say, YEE-HAW! He's a creationist, bubba!


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

I mean, ok Lis, as long as you qualify it that way. The danger, and we have seen it here a lot, is that you start using terms like that and people begin to believe a horse can plot out a malicious act. They think it has turned "mean" and thus can't be retrained. It has made a moral decision. Horses can't do that. Thus, we can help them. They aren't malicious. We can retain a lot of them. (Not all--but not because they are malicious with aforethought. Only because they are too screwed up--usually by humans.)


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

I believe my horse loves me. But if I startle her from behind, she's going to kick. Not because she is being hateful. Because she is being a horse. A horse gets startled from behind, they kick. That is exactly my point. My horse loves me, but I better not startle her from behind--because she can't be malicious or not malicious. She can only be a horse.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Love is a human emotion (and it stems, actually, from hormones like oxytocin, and the need to pair-mate and reproduce!). To say a horse can "love" is anthropomorphizing at its finest!


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Well, not if you say it's chemical. Animals do have oxytocin. In fact, it is the basis of how feral children can latch onto nursing animals, another favorite topic of mine.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

And Bubba, I can almost go with you...except for those higher complex thoughts. I am married. Supposed I get an oxytocin surge from a pretty little gal down at the barn. I can override that. Make a moral decision. An animal can not.


----------



## Lis (Oct 29, 2009)

I do believe horses can plan things, maybe not months in advance but there is a short time span prior to what ever act they commit that in some cases they have thought about it and therefore do rudimentary plan. A pony at my old yard had a trick of refusing to lift her back hooves until some poor kid moved to an angle where she slam out a cow kick straight into a knee. There may not have been excessive planning but I believe there was some even if it was just "move to the left, got you". To me that is a habit that becomes dangerous. Even if the animal just goes in its head, "duhhh that side looks nice, I go over there now," that is still rudimentary planning. The start of higher thinking. I also remember a story about a thoroughbred stallion (Halo?) that would attack and drown birds. I think there may have been some basic planning in there for him to do that. It just may not be planning as we think of it.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

I see an utterly terrified horse who is desperatly trying to comply but not being given the option, a "trainer" who is a bully and what amount to horse ABUSE in that video. It is called Flooding and is a barbaric method of essentialy overwhelming a horse to the point that it shuts down as it has no other option. 
I don't see submission from that horse, I see pain, fear and confusion. A horse will only wet itself in fear or pain, never in submission and normaly a horse wetting itself is something they do when they think they are going to die. It is a natural response to fear, they empty the bladder so that they can run faster as they are not carrying the weight of a full bladder. It is rare even in wild Zebras. It does not release anxiety, if anything it increases the flight response.

If the horse where truely aggressive then it wouldnt be searching for treats at 00:30-00:36. Having delt with truely agresssive horses an agressive horse would have been having a go at him through the bars. I've had a horse come over a stable door, pick a girl up by the ear and throw them accross the yard (unfortunatly minus thier ear). We had the horse shot the next day.

Reeco was a badly handled horse, you could not get a line anywhere near his back end, he freaked (bad handling in his past caused massive amounts of fear), he has come right and can now be longreined on a figure of 8 with no issues, including having a line up his backside. I can pull his tail no issues and he will let me put a passoa on him too. How did I do this? well it certainly wasnt by flooding. It was by working calmly, consistantly, with a firm hand and over the period of 6 weeks.

The video did make me laugh though, the guy is so clearly incompetant it is unreal. Getting tangled in your lines happens occassionaly but it is a rare thing normaly after a horse has done something unexpected and you've had to scramble to keep up and stay in control, it should not happen nearly every time you take a step.

If you are the voice of the horse then you are a p*ss poor effort. It is very obvious that you don't have the neuroscience degree otherwise you would know that what you posted was NOT a scientificly acceptable form of proof. it is mearly an abstract which without the rest of the paper is as useless as a chocolate teapot! Also scientific fact when it comes to biology and medicine is rarely concrete and is often disprooven very quickly. 
We have very little understanding of the brain itself. Yes we have labeled parts, can tell what they do in a normal brain, sometimes in a not so normal brain, but we cannot explain everything. What makes us alive? what gives us sentience? when a portion of the brain is damaged sometimes the entire brain rewires itself, what causes this and how it does so we still have very little understanding of.

It is plainly obvious that you are a NED (or a CHAV). A clear cut case of "all the gear, no idea" and "A little knowlege is very dangerous, far more dangerous then non".

Please please go away. I saw your "I'm leaving" post and was glad you were going as is may save a few lives. So please dissapear, you are not wanted here!


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

DSJ46 said:


> And Bubba, I can almost go with you...except for those higher complex thoughts. I am married. Supposed I get an oxytocin surge from a pretty little gal down at the barn. I can override that. Make a moral decision. An animal can not.


No, the oxytocin is what keeps you bonded to your wife. It's a pair-survival hormone.

The serotonin and dopamine will draw you to the pretty little gal...the oxytocin (and the fear of what would happen should your wife find out--self-preservation) it's what prevents the rendezvous. Presumably.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Ha! You may have something, Bubba. What chemical makes me afraid of divorce lawyers? (You know a bit of your neurochemistry yourself.)


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

Do me a favor and read faye's post minus the two closing paragraphs. I'm going to do MYSELF a favor and go to bed...here in a minute. :roll:


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

I am not giving her the dignity if she comes in with an insult. If she can come in nice, I will read her stuff.

I am going to bed too.

I like my new policy ; )

Night boys!


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

DSJ - you advocate abuse of a horse and say you are the voice of the horse? please explain that one to me? do horses now want to be abused? News to me if they do.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Ok...I am never going to get any sleep ; )

I am not wild about this guy's methods. But you do have to dominate a totally out of control horse, and it isn't pretty at first. They were going to put his horse down. Watch the second half (on youtube). The horse comes to hand, and the guy saves the horse's life with a little "tough love." You couldn't pet and love a wild horse. You have to break it.

And he doesn't hit that horse ever.

This is a great example of what we never want to have to do, why we get to work on a horse, like Max, early, so he doesn't just get passed along and passed along and get to this point.

And some people earlier ranted about the dog. If you know horse training, it is very common. The dog serves as a desensitizing agent during the breaking process. It is killing two birds with one stone.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

If they were going to have that horse shot Then they were morons, that horse was not an agressive horse and I can garentee that when he goes home he is just going to get worse, because instead of being a confused horse he is now a confused and scared horse.

I could have handled that horse with very few issues, all it needed was clear and definate leadership with clear and definate rules and instructions. The horse clearly wanted to be nice it was just never given the opportunity

If you are not wild about his methods then why did you hold them up as examples of good training? all I see is abuse in them, no training happening.

I've had totaly out of control horses. Pride attacked people when we first got him, he would come over the stable door at you, he would come down the field and attack people and god help you if you took a child or a yard brush anywhere near him. Took 2 people to get a head collar on him, did damage to people if you so much as looked at him wrong. He has come right and I certainly didnt flood him to do it. Nor did I confuse him. Every instruction I gave him was clear and consise, it was always backed up and he was made to do it. If I wanted him to go left, he went left even if it took me 4 hrs to get him to go left, I certainly never gave up and let him go right like that trainer did.

There have only been 2 horses that I have admitted defeat on, Oscar (the horse who ripped someones ear off) and a black cob called Sherbert (who put several people in hospital). I had both horses shot rather then pass them on.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

I posted it because he made it clear that the horse was scared, not malicious. My point. Yes, I do think it can be done gentler. This is an old cowboy, and his methods are a bit outdated, by me. Though I do not think I would call him cruel. He never once strikes that horse.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

So you only count striking a horse as cruel? there are far worse things you can do. He is torturing that horse mentaly. The horse is desperately trying to be nice and he is punishing it everytime it tries. There is nothing worse for a horse then to be confused, confusion leads to fear, confusion can get them killed and all thier instincts are telling them this.

Mental abuse is as bad as physical abuse.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

No, I don't think so. I don't see mental torture here. It's tougher than it has to be, but then, we don't see what the horse was like before. Part 1 is after two months work! (Actually given my training methods, I will say yes--this guy is too harsh. I am a totally non-violent trainer. But then, I have never worked with a totally bizerk horse. You say you have. Ok, you have the authority here. I will trust your word.)

Whatever we think of the methods, my point would be that this is not malicious aggression. It is self-preservation and dominance striving.

And we never want to see a horse get to this point. It is one of the dangers of passing along problem horses instead of hiring a professional and working out the horse's problems, especially if you were the one who messed him up. Do some troubled horses find good homes? Sure. Do many go down and down and down because of their increasing bad reputation so that people are going to put them down? Yes. That was my message to HD. If she possibly could, she needed to do the right thing by Max and get him help and not pass him on...to take responsibility for her mistakes.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

The horse is NOT aggressive!!!! nor is it perticularly dominant. A horse at that point? I wouldnt even concider that horse to be perticularly difficult, just needing a firm hand.

I do see mental torture. Equate it to me threatening to beat the pulp out of you if you didnt do what I asked and then doing it anyway when you do do it.

The deffinition of torture is "Infliction of severe physical or mental pain as a means of punishment or coercion".
I see lots and lots of mental pain from that horse. I see a moron attempting to bully a horse into unclear actions, a horse desperately trying to comply and being punished for it.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

I would have posted something by Klaus Hempfling, but he always does his up so the actual work gets drowned out in the music video format.

Ok, if you have done this kind of work, I trust you and am on board with you. I certainly prefer to be as gentle as possible while still being a firm leader.

But I think this only furthers my intital point. This horse is not "bad," "evil," or premeditatively "malicious." Just mishandled and undisciplined.


----------



## DSJ46 (Aug 11, 2010)

Well, I am going to bed. Almost 2 am here.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

I cant hear sound anyway. My speakers are broken.

Yes I've done that sort of work plenty of times before, but I also know when something is beyond my experiance and I have to pass the horse on. Further more I can recognise when a horse truely is aggressive and when it is just scared or confused. I can tell which horses will come right and which ones probably never will and I am responsible enough to have the horse shot rather then risk someones life. The vast majority of the horses I have had have come from auctions where there were kill buyers. The kill buyers pay decent money over here so non of them have been cheap.
Pride cost me £800 from the meat man so I only buy horses that I can do something with. I don't buy ill conformed horses, horses who never have any potential to go on to be stars. Pride was a stunning, very well conformed pony who had the potential to do very very well in the show ring (and ultimately did do extremely well and turned into the best horse on the yard, he has his own fanclub in the local PC and I have loads of people wanting him on loan) Pride was aggressive but it was all fear, he has had it beaten into him, litteraly someone had taken a yard brush and beaten the S*** out of him to the point he had had to fight back or die, so he learnt to fight, he learnt to be preemptive and attack you before you could attack him, all he needed was to learn that he could trust, that I was the leader and if he stepped out of line he would get punished but it would never be to that extent, it would never be for no reason and it would never be if I had given him unclear instructions. Yes I have smacked Pride when the situation warrented it, but it was always made abundantly clear why he was getting the smack.

Oscar had been in a stable fire and had come to associate people with the painful changing of dressings. Unfortunatly 3 yrs of trying with him did not help and the day came when he ripped of that girls ear that we just had to say enough was enough. 

Sherbert had something wrong in his head I'm sure of it. I have never met such a nasty, aggressive horse who was out to kill people.

i love my horses, but no horse is worth my life or my future, I will sell a horse on if I cant cope, I will have a horse shot if it is dangerous.


----------



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

DSJ, I don't think anyone here even knows what your point is anymore. I think we're all agreeing to basically the same thing:
Horses get screwed up. Horses can experience anxiety. A lot of horse issues are caused by humans, though I must write a disclaimer that some horses truly are screwed up due to some other force of nature (i.e. tumor, misfiring neurons.) 
A lot of horses can be fixed. Some cannot. You said so yourself that 80% was a good percentage of horses that can be fixed. What about the other 20% though? What about the 20% that your own proclaimed professionals can't fix? 20% is a significant number. If 20% of most cases cannot be fixed by professionals.... what then? What are non-pros supposed to do? 
I don't understand what you're arguing here... Can you please clarify??
I really really think that you might want to take a step back here and realize that NOBODY is saying that horses can't get screwed up - the big fight stemmed from the suggestion that people (no matter their experience level) should never sell a problem horse; they should stick with it even if they can't do a darn thing with the animal, because the person made a commitment when they bought the horse.


----------



## iridehorses (Oct 22, 2007)

Enough. Sunny (and others were not liars - I removed the post concerning "high school girls" and another mod removed others). Ignorance is not trying to understand someone's point beyond your own - you wanted to leave so now you have it.


----------

