NOW I understand. Gentle??? dominance?
BlueIris
Language 101," and some have vehmently informed me that I
should go to Deja and read those threads to learn to
"understand" horse "language." Having some time this morning
I did that. Anyone who wasn't on the group back then
*should* definitely review it, particularly those who have
been arguing the "dominance" issue.
For those not familiar with it, the thread apparently
started over a rogue stallion that was charging Jane
Kilberg, and was essentially an arguement between Jane and
Jackie. To whet your appetite, here are some quotes from
those posts and companion threads:
Jackie: "You seem to believe that horses want to attack and
kill humans, but that is thinking like a predatory killer,
not a hierarchical prey animal.
Jane: If you can't believe horses to attach (sic) and kill
humans, you defintely (sic) have rose colored glasses or are
extremely limited.
Jane, further in post: "A whip, spur, rope, hand, bucket,
stick, 2x4, dirt, rocks, and so on are all "smacks" if one
chooses them as tools for the extension of your "leg-hoof."
It just depends on how you use them, in what capacity, and
knowing the reaction before you apply any tool."
2x4's? Rocks? These and the other itemized things are
"tools?" For training? Or dominating?
Another post, on how Jane retrained the horse: "I carried my
whip. As soon as he saw me, he instantly charged. I
side-stepped him and wacked (sic) him very hard one time
accross his cannon bones. He whirled and charged again. Same
response from me. He must have done this a dozen times. Each
time, he got my whip hard accross his cannons. Each time I
spoke to him with my body language, giving him a chance to
stand still. He charged, I whipped. An hour or so later, he
stopped and stared at me. I said good boy and left."
Where the heck was Sheila when this hour long beating was
going on? This sounds to me more like someone throwing a
temper tantrum over the horse's behavior than training,
IMHO.
Jackie has been severely criticized for using a "spring
clip" to defeat a horse trying to bite. This is what she
actually described: "The best way is to ensure you have a
large spring clip or some such uncomfortable object in your
hand which "accidentally" meets with the underside of his
jaw on the way."
Jane's way: "I use an aid of some sort depending on what I
have on hand. It could be a rope, whip, stone, dirt, halter
in my hand, stick, rasp, bucket, or whatever. I use is
against the horse's shoulder, cannon bones or hip depending
on where I am at the time the horse attempts to bite me and
the particular tool I have at my disposal. I use it one time
switly and hard....."
Ah, yes, a "swift and hard" whack across the cannon bones
with a rasp will teach the horse not to bite. If it doesn't
break or chip a bone, of course. I wonder if "whatever"
includes the 2x4; that wasn't itemized in the list of
training "tools."
And then we have the clincher:
Jackie: "I do not believe a horse would choose to kill."
Jane: "However, you are wrong on this account. Horses to
choose to kill. It's basic to the nature of the horse to
kill, maim, destroy or get rid of anything that threatens
their existance. (sic) It's called self-preservation. Horse
language 101"
I wonder where Jane got *that* translation. Soooo, now I
know why so many of the "dominance" crowd are so fearful,
and believe that if ya don't dominate 'em, yer gonna git
killed.
And I say to Jane and the other posters who have tried to
claim that I really "dominate" my horses, and just won't
admit it, you are dead wrong. I have *never* beaten a horse
with a whip for an hour. I have *never* used a rasp, rock,
stick, or 2x4 against a horse.
Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt
with that and more. Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.
*Don't* speak to me of "dominance" again. I am furious after
reading some of these posts. What you candy-mouthed posters
call "gentle dominance" I call abuse.
Roberta
Dar
BlueIris wrote in message <364B14C3...@totalnetnh.net>...
This is the Horse 101!? Oh My God!!!!
This is their "Gentle Dominance"!!???
Well I NEVER!!!!
Just to think...I can't right now.
Roberta...I do NOT call this "Gentle Dominance" either.
Brute Force of Submission, Abuse..yes.
I've had Stallions and Horses that were like
that. I NEVER had to do any of that. I am just so Shocked
that these people try to tell us what to do.
Maybe they should try listening...instead of telling.
Dar
BlueIris
Ah Dar! One poster called *me* a hypocrite! ROTFLMAO
Roberta
Ekqueen
to cut and paste...so we don't all have to read alll the way down the previous
post just to see your two lines at the bottom.
thanks
Abby
Mary Healey
> Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
> I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt
> with that and more. Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.
How? What were the circumstances leading up to your encounter with said
"charging stallion", and what did you do to deal with it?
> *Don't* speak to me of "dominance" again. I am furious after
> reading some of these posts. What you candy-mouthed posters
> call "gentle dominance" I call abuse.
M.
Dar
Mary Healey wrote in message <364B2513...@iastate.edu>...
It wasn't Roberta...& you should NEVER have to do that!
Read the original post.
Dar
Dar
Ekqueen wrote in message <19981112131013...@ng51.aol.com>...
It was too good of a post to cut!
Others have done it before that I have seen.
Didn't see you complaining there!
That's what the slide bar is for....
I have to use it a lot on some of these posts.
I'll try to remember to do that from now on though.
Dar
>
TrinityApp
And to think I caught hell for using a nerf bat as an arm extension.
Charging stallions? Where the hell do these horse come from? My stud would
no more charge me then he'd walk on the moon. Rocks and 2X4?. And I get a
ration of shit for saying a horse is spiteful, and she is spiteful to the
lower horses, well lets remember the old sticks and stones saying, my horses
would a lot rather be called names the be abused by flying missiles.
Horses are not a science ( neither are children), if they were you could
get an absolute reaction to every instance every time. Horses are more an
ongoing work of art, constantly being molded and shaped by their
surroundings and handlers, one small mistake can crack a masterpiece. The
beauty of the horse is in the eye of the beholder, not everyone seeks the
same thing, and not everyone requires a Frankenhorse programmed to do their
absolute bidding.
I don't want to be herd boss, because inside the herd my horse is just
another animal trying to survive, I want to elevate my horse above such
mundane surroundings and give him wings, I want to teach him that for brief
moments in his otherwise boring life he is the most powerful, beautiful,
majestic animal, worthy of the praise of kings and princes and the
admiration of all. This is my job, not being some bitchy alpha mare telling
him he can't drink yet.
Sorry about a the ramble, had a bitch kitty morning at the vet and watched
an autopsy. starts the day all wrong.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
>Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
>I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt
>with that and more. Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.
>
>*Don't* speak to me of "dominance" again. I am furious after
>reading some of these posts. What you candy-mouthed posters
>call "gentle dominance" I call abuse.
>
>Roberta
C. S.
who's the hypercrite now? Roberta your post is most suitable for
framing. Thanks for signing it.
suzan
wkambic
<selective deletia>
> Jackie: "You seem to believe that horses want to attack and
> kill humans, but that is thinking like a predatory killer,
> not a hierarchical prey animal.
>
> Jane: If you can't believe horses to attach (sic) and kill
> humans, you defintely (sic) have rose colored glasses or are
> extremely limited.
>
> Jane, further in post: "A whip, spur, rope, hand, bucket,
> stick, 2x4, dirt, rocks, and so on are all "smacks" if one
> chooses them as tools for the extension of your "leg-hoof."
> It just depends on how you use them, in what capacity, and
> knowing the reaction before you apply any tool."
>
> 2x4's? Rocks? These and the other itemized things are
> "tools?" For training? Or dominating?
We once had a boarded horse, a BLM mustang mare. One day this
mare cornered one of my pregnant brood mares and kicked her
until she went down. Then she kept kicking. We tried to run
her off with words, then gestures, then clumps of dirt, then
rocks, and large chunks of brick and concrete block. She kept
kicking. As a friend came around the corner with his .44 Magnum
Ruger Blackhawk she ran off. Tell me, Oh Worshipers of Buck and
Ray And Whoever, what would you have done?
> Another post, on how Jane retrained the horse: "I carried my
> whip. As soon as he saw me, he instantly charged. I
> side-stepped him and wacked (sic) him very hard one time
> accross his cannon bones. He whirled and charged again. Same
> response from me. He must have done this a dozen times. Each
> time, he got my whip hard accross his cannons. Each time I
> spoke to him with my body language, giving him a chance to
> stand still. He charged, I whipped. An hour or so later, he
> stopped and stared at me. I said good boy and left."
>
> Where the heck was Sheila when this hour long beating was
> going on? This sounds to me more like someone throwing a
> temper tantrum over the horse's behavior than training,
> IMHO.
What is the problem, here? When faced with an aggressive,
dangerous, 1000 pound beast it seems that you have two choices:
end the behavior or can him.
<more deletia>
> And then we have the clincher:
>
> Jackie: "I do not believe a horse would choose to kill."
>
> Jane: "However, you are wrong on this account. Horses to
> choose to kill. It's basic to the nature of the horse to
> kill, maim, destroy or get rid of anything that threatens
> their existance. (sic) It's called self-preservation. Horse
> language 101"
>
> I wonder where Jane got *that* translation. Soooo, now I
> know why so many of the "dominance" crowd are so fearful,
> and believe that if ya don't dominate 'em, yer gonna git
> killed.
In Nolensville, TN this past summer a farmer was killed by a TWH
stallion. He drove his tractor into the field and dismounted.
The stallion attacked him, biting and striking. The farmer
managed to get back to his tractor, where he died of massive
internal bleeding. When the animal control officer entered the
field to try and catch the stud, he chased her back into her
car, then struck and kicked and bit the car multiple times.
The situation was ended when a deputy dispatched the stallion
with a 12 ga.
> *Don't* speak to me of "dominance" again. I am furious after
> reading some of these posts. What you candy-mouthed posters
> call "gentle dominance" I call abuse.
>
> Roberta
I will speak of dominance when the spirit and the cicumstances
move me to do so. If you don't like it, don't read it. And I
hear the Spirit of Sheila saying "The horse that kills you has
warned you first."
Bill Kambic
Paraphrase of Joe Bob Briggs from TNT Monstervision: In dealing
with horses, anyone can die at any time.
Jackie
<blue...@totalnetnh.net> wrote:
>Several posters have referred to "Horse 101" or "Horse
>Language 101," and some have vehmently informed me that I
>should go to Deja and read those threads to learn to
>"understand" horse "language." Having some time this morning
>I did that. Anyone who wasn't on the group back then
>*should* definitely review it, particularly those who have
>been arguing the "dominance" issue.
LOL, you definately found the 'juicy bits' Roberta - it must've taken
you all day to read that lot!!! The argument has been going on for
about a year now - but I must admit I have long since given up
debating with Killer Killberg - I just don't like her attitude.
The conversation actually started with a casual enquiry from someone
about habitual biting- the 'killer stallion scenario' only came into
the discussion as a 'proof' that there are some horses you 'just gotta
beat'!
So now you know - Horse 101 in some places is called anthropocentric
paranoia in others!;-)
Jackie
Dar
Jackie wrote in message <364b3f11...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
They can & others can't?
Dar
BlueIris
>
> BlueIris wrote:
> > Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
> > I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt
> > with that and more. Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.
>
> "charging stallion", and what did you do to deal with it?
OK Mary, you are basically asking me to back up my words,
and that is good. However, I have to post with warning
labels all over the place. We both know that describing a
way of handling a rogue horse is dangerous, because the
inexperienced may think they can use the method. First
warning label: there is no *one way* to handle the rogue. I
can't emphasize that enough. Any people reading this post
who do not have vast experience with horses SHOULD NOT EVER
try to deal with a rogue.
The principles I use in handling *any* horse are simple. We
all agree that the horse is a herd animal, a grazing animal,
and they are prey animals. They *do not* attack other
species except in defense of themselves or their young. They
are basically timid animals that will run from the strange,
the threat, or the danger.
A horse charging, threatening to bite or kick a human often
appears to be angry, or enraged. The horse's appearance and
demeanor certainly give rise to that "read," as their
countenance and expression is similar to the angry human
threatening to hit. We have all seen the countenance and
expression of a horse facing the strange, and we recognize
fear in that. I think that nature has actually provided two
different emotions or urges in the horse which satisfy the
survival instinct, one being fear, which triggers the horse
to flight, and another, which perhaps does not replace, but
overlays the fear, when the horse must defend. That emotion
could be actually similar to what we know as anger, in the
sense of the anger we feel if we are attacked.
I also believe that in many of the animals mankind has
domesticated, there is an innate but latent capacity to
learn behaviours that are not normal in the wild or feral
state, perhaps because the animal is not exposed in its own
environment to things that go beyond simply its instincts.
It may be that latent learning capacity that has insured the
survival of various species through changes in the earth
itself, as well as changes due to natural disaster, and the
evolution of other animals, particularly predators.
My own belief is that it is that latent learning capacity
that has enabled horses to adapt to living in the
environment the human creates for it, and that we play on
that learning capacity in teaching the horse new behaviours.
Horses are social animals, but in the wild, they live in
company of other *horses,* and do not customarily adopt
other species into the herd. Why then, should they adopt us?
And not only adopt us, but "view us as the alpha mare?" I
don't believe they do. They adapt to us, they learn, they
obey, but just beneath the surface are their instincts, and
if we do something they *perceive* as a threat, their fear
and their defensive mechanisms will come into play. We are,
after all, *different.* That fear can be relieved
immediately, or it can become a steadily increasing factor
in the horse/human relationship, to the point where the
horse is called a "rogue."
When I deal with a horse such as the charging, striking
stallion, I first try to avoid *anything* that may increase
the fear to the point of defense. I'll spend hours, because
I care enough, observing the horse's behaviour. There
usually a chink in the defensive armor, and I try to find it
and play on that. The last thing I want at that point is for
the horse to see me as a threat. I don't care what I have to
do, or what kind of a fool I'd be making of myself in human
eyes, to find and work my way through that chink. I want to
alleviate the horse's fear and gain the beginnings of trust.
It helps to know what happened to the horse, it makes things
easier to figure out. With this horse, I didn't know.
I saw that he was eager when there was food in the offing,
grain or hay, and would allow you to put it in his stall. As
soon as the food was down, he threatened, and you got out
fast, because he would follow up. So I got through the chink
by not putting his food down, but by causing him to eat
while the bucket was in my hands. It was a bit tricky on the
first try, as he wanted his grain, and was confused when I
didn't put it in the feeder. He would not come close enough
to eat, and I did not approach him with my body, I simply
held out the bucket so he could see and smell the feed, and
talked to him quietly. He started to become defensive, his
ears went back. So I walked out of the stall, taking the
feed with me. That probably confused him further, but there
was no threat at all on my part. I waited awhile, then went
back in with the bucket. He finally would snatch a mouthful
and fly back, which was fine, it was a start. He gradually
learned to eat, while keeping a wary eye on me! Once we
reached that point I would hold the bucket in one arm, and
smooth his forelock, pet his neck, anything to give him
gentle, non fear arousing contact. He'd jerk away at first,
but gradually he came to *trust* me. Once that occurred, it
was easy to continue with him and introduce other humans
into the equation.
Warning: THIS WILL NOT NECESSARILY WORK WITH EVERY HORSE! It
is risky to do this, and requires quick judgment of what the
horse will do next, and quick reflexes to avoid injury to
yourself!
You can overcome the horse's fear by beating it, and wearing
it down. I think nature provides the horse, as it does with
humans, with a mechanism whereby fear recedes and pain is no
longer felt. I call it resignation to death, although death
does not always occur. I have mentioned in another post the
"breaking of the spirit." You can see this in humans who are
badly injured, but do not feel the pain of the injury any
longer. I've seen this in people involved in a bad
automobile accident. Fear and pain are extreme stress, and
the body, human or animal can sustain it for just so long.
You can also cause the animal to become determined to kill
you in defense of himself. That's the big risk you taking
beating a horse like that.
If I could not find the "chink" to get through to the horse,
I would resort to help from the vet, and tranquilize the
animal in whatever way we could, and give him a good
experience while calmed, with human touch and voice. I've
never had to go that far.
Sure that this post will start a whole new argument,
Roberta
>
> > *Don't* speak to me of "dominance" again. I am furious after
> > reading some of these posts. What you candy-mouthed posters
> > call "gentle dominance" I call abuse.
>
> M.
BlueIris
> >> Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
> >> I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt
> >> with that and more. Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.
> >
> >How? What were the circumstances leading up to your encounter with said
> >"charging stallion", and what did you do to deal with it?
> >
> >> reading some of these posts. What you candy-mouthed posters
> >> call "gentle dominance" I call abuse.
> >
> >M.
>
> Read the original post.
Nope Dar, I handled one of those two. I answered Mary's
questions, but I had to write a book to do it! I hope the
server's aren't clogged up for a week.
Roberta
>
> Dar
BlueIris
> >Language 101," and some have vehmently informed me that I
> >should go to Deja and read those threads to learn to
> >"understand" horse "language." Having some time this morning
> >I did that. Anyone who wasn't on the group back then
> >*should* definitely review it, particularly those who have
> >been arguing the "dominance" issue.
>
> you all day to read that lot!!! The argument has been going on for
> about a year now - but I must admit I have long since given up
> debating with Killer Killberg - I just don't like her attitude.
>
> The conversation actually started with a casual enquiry from someone
> about habitual biting- the 'killer stallion scenario' only came into
> the discussion as a 'proof' that there are some horses you 'just gotta
> beat'!
>
> paranoia in others!;-)
I only wish I had gone in and checked it out when other
posters told me to. I would have saved a lot of wasted
keyboard time debating that "dominance" thing!
"Horse 101" indeed. That translation is not the same as my
translation!
Roberta
>
> Jackie
TrinityApp
Actually Dennis Manger said it in 1850 and a hell of a lot clearer, John
Lyons also said it in the article " Warning signs of an angry horse". As for
handling dangerous studs, shoot first, try your domination tactics on
something else. Your point about killing the dangerous horse is more
plausible then standing there and looking him in the eye with your best
alpha stare. You hit the nail on the head, domination can fail and badly.
Sometimes a horse just can not be made safe. But for those that are, to much
mind control can result in worse behavior, let them be horses free and
students when tied.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
>
blue...@my-dejanews.com
regular server. Never figured out why. I would appreciate it Bill, if when
replying to one of my posts you'd copy me by e-mail.
In article <364B3E5F...@vic.com>,
wkambic <wka...@vic.com> wrote:
> BlueIris wrote:
>
> <selective deletia>
>
> > Jackie: "You seem to believe that horses want to attack and
> > kill humans, but that is thinking like a predatory killer,
> > not a hierarchical prey animal.
> >
> > Jane: If you can't believe horses to attach (sic) and kill
> > humans, you defintely (sic) have rose colored glasses or are
> > extremely limited.
> >
> > Jane, further in post: "A whip, spur, rope, hand, bucket,
> > stick, 2x4, dirt, rocks, and so on are all "smacks" if one
> > chooses them as tools for the extension of your "leg-hoof."
> > It just depends on how you use them, in what capacity, and
> > knowing the reaction before you apply any tool."
> >
> > 2x4's? Rocks? These and the other itemized things are
> > "tools?" For training? Or dominating?
>
> We once had a boarded horse, a BLM mustang mare. One day this
> mare cornered one of my pregnant brood mares and kicked her
> until she went down. Then she kept kicking. We tried to run
> her off with words, then gestures, then clumps of dirt, then
> rocks, and large chunks of brick and concrete block. She kept
> kicking. As a friend came around the corner with his .44 Magnum
> Ruger Blackhawk she ran off. Tell me, Oh Worshipers of Buck and
> Ray And Whoever, what would you have done?
Bill, I suppose when you've gotta save a life, or two in your case, you would
do what you have to do under the emergency conditions. That, however, is not
a training situation. I do not agree that such items as Jane itemized or the
items you used in an emergency, are "tools" that anyone should be using for
"training."
>
> > Another post, on how Jane retrained the horse: "I carried my
> > whip. As soon as he saw me, he instantly charged. I
> > side-stepped him and wacked (sic) him very hard one time
> > accross his cannon bones. He whirled and charged again. Same
> > response from me. He must have done this a dozen times. Each
> > time, he got my whip hard accross his cannons. Each time I
> > spoke to him with my body language, giving him a chance to
> > stand still. He charged, I whipped. An hour or so later, he
> > stopped and stared at me. I said good boy and left."
> >
> > Where the heck was Sheila when this hour long beating was
> > going on? This sounds to me more like someone throwing a
> > temper tantrum over the horse's behavior than training,
> > IMHO.
>
> What is the problem, here? When faced with an aggressive,
> dangerous, 1000 pound beast it seems that you have two choices:
> end the behavior or can him.
There are other ways to end the behavior. This was not an emergency, Jane was
in with the horse and whip voluntarily. IMHO, if she couldn't find a way
other than beating the animal, she should have put him in another's hands.
>
> <more deletia>
>
> > And then we have the clincher:
> >
> > Jackie: "I do not believe a horse would choose to kill."
> >
> > Jane: "However, you are wrong on this account. Horses to
> > choose to kill. It's basic to the nature of the horse to
> > kill, maim, destroy or get rid of anything that threatens
> > their existance. (sic) It's called self-preservation. Horse
> > language 101"
> >
> > I wonder where Jane got *that* translation. Soooo, now I
> > know why so many of the "dominance" crowd are so fearful,
> > and believe that if ya don't dominate 'em, yer gonna git
> > killed.
>
> In Nolensville, TN this past summer a farmer was killed by a TWH
> stallion. He drove his tractor into the field and dismounted.
> The stallion attacked him, biting and striking. The farmer
> managed to get back to his tractor, where he died of massive
> internal bleeding. When the animal control officer entered the
> field to try and catch the stud, he chased her back into her
> car, then struck and kicked and bit the car multiple times.
> The situation was ended when a deputy dispatched the stallion
> with a 12 ga.
That doesn't explain how the horse got that way, Bill. It's usually caused by
humans. Horses are not killers, they don't choose to attack and kill people
out of the blue.
>
> > *Don't* speak to me of "dominance" again. I am furious after
> > reading some of these posts. What you candy-mouthed posters
> > call "gentle dominance" I call abuse.
> >
> > Roberta
>
> I will speak of dominance when the spirit and the cicumstances
> move me to do so. If you don't like it, don't read it. And I
> hear the Spirit of Sheila saying "The horse that kills you has
> warned you first."
You can speak of anything you like. Unfortunately, as I said above, I don't
usually get to see your posts unless I go looking for them. And yes, I
thought of Sheila and "The horse that kills you has warned you first."
However, from her posts it does not appear that she advocates beating horses.
I just hope that you don't either.
Roberta
>
> Bill Kambic
>
> Paraphrase of Joe Bob Briggs from TNT Monstervision: In dealing
> with horses, anyone can die at any time.
>
>
--
Roberta Stone
Blue Iris Stud
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AlaTmPnr
I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt with that and more.
Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.>>
Just out of curiosity what "rogue horse" have you had to deal with?
I dealt with one when I first started training(back at the dawn of time for
Tracy). I was dealing with a 3yo palomino that had never been worked with but
had been tormented by some neighbor boys who used to shoot at him with BB guns.
He had no use for humans period. The first time I stepped into his paddock to
get him he charged me and chased me out of the pen. You could hear the teeth
gnashing. I did finally get a rope on him. From there we started working. It
wasnt pretty and it wasnt nice but I got him to accept me and let me ride him.
But I didnt use 2x4's either.
Bill
BlueIris
>
> <<Roberta wrote: Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
> I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt with that and more.
> Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.>>
>
> Just out of curiosity what "rogue horse" have you had to deal with?
Dealt with quite a few Bill. It's one of the things I do,
especially when I see a horse that I know is going to end up
either getting the crap beat out of him again and again, or
is going to be dog food. Yeah, there's a likelihood that
somebody's going to hurt with the horse, too, but I usually
worry about the horse. I posted a little bit about that
thoroughbred gelding, and you thought it was very funny. If
you ever saw that horse, you wouldn't have been laughing.
There's a lengthy post from me in this thread in answer to
Mary Healey's questions. Another rogue is described in
there. You'll probably enjoy laughing some more. But, I
don't care. The horse is an excellent animal today, and
that's what matters to me.
Roberta
AlaTmPnr
I also read about the TWH in Tenn. We had two members of our saddle club had a
Stud horse that went berserk on them ... it mutilated one of the men and the
other managed to get his friend free of the horse but suffered numerous
contusions doing it.
Jackie
>So why are they on anyone that slaps a horse?
>They can & others can't?
No, you got to understand - Sheila can't stand any physical contact,
but thinks it's OK to threaten a horse with whips, Jane likes to belt
them accross the cannon bones - but only the malevolent, murderous
ones; but they're both into domination of horses and newsgroups, so
they 'overlook' each others discrepancies for the sake of cameraderie.
Most of their acolytes are just intimidated as far as I can gather -
it's a bit like the psychology of a street gang at times<g>!
Jackie
TrinityApp
Sorry typo, it's Dennis Magner. Any horse that attacks humans needs to
be evaluated and if found to be a true threat then they need to be destroyed
before someone is killed.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
AlaTmPnr wrote in message <19981112173605...@ng-fd2.aol.com>...
TrinityApp
While i can concede that desperate times call for desperate measures.
Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery it's
stupidity. And adding abuse to an already abused animal isn't fixing the
problem. A SMART trainer would have left the stall after the first charge
and reassessed the situation from a safe stand point. You haven't proved a
damn thing to the horse except that you're tough while carrying a stick, and
he's going to wait for when you don't have one.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
Mariah Walker wrote in message
<01be0eac$986e93e0$884e...@RSD-Notran1.UBCpharm>...
>BlueIris <blue...@totalnetnh.net> wrote
>
>> Several posters have referred to "Horse 101" or "Horse
>> Language 101," and some have vehmently informed me that I
>> should go to Deja and read those threads to learn to
>> "understand" horse "language." Having some time this morning
>> I did that. Anyone who wasn't on the group back then
>> *should* definitely review it, particularly those who have
>> been arguing the "dominance" issue.
>
> Wow. This started off quite a wave, didn't it? Except I notice that most
>of the people who have responded to this thread so far are people who
>weren't around when that whole thing got started. I can understand why
>you're all upset and god, if I read your post I'd feel the same way. But
>you wanted to learn what people here refer to as "Horse 101" that WASN'T
>the place to do it. I believe I understand the term quite well, and I also
>might be one of those people who are on the "dominance/alpha mare/herd
>leader side". I also happen to have been around these here parts regularly
>when that whole thread got started and I can say that you have really taken
>an example *quite* out of context. (btw, not implying you did it
>deliberately)
>
>Jane was referring to a situation where her life and safety were at stake.
>We all agreed that had this stallion been properly trained, had not
>suffered the past abuses he had, training that would not have involved
>beating, hitting, whatever you read Jane describing, that this situation
>Jane found herself in would never have happened. *Nobody* would advocate
>what she did as a normal everyday way to handle a horse. This was not how
>you show yourself to be "alpha" and Jane herself would never say that it
>is. This horse tried to attack and severly injure, if not kill, Jane. The
>animal cannot be blamed for whatever horrid experiences in his life led him
>to the conclusion that humans are to be feared and fought, but that fact
>remains that in that moment when the stallion charged at Jane, Jane had to
>defend her safety with whatever means she could. Smacking a horse across
>the canon bones, hitting it with stones, whatever else you quoted, was
>meant to describe the dire situation where your safety/life is in danger.
>Jackie claims that she could have gotten out of that situation without
>touching the horse. I have no reason personally to believe she's not
>telling the truth. My hat is off to her if that is so. But Jane defended
>herself the best way she knew how, and when your life is at stake, anything
>goes.
>
>This discussion and your selective clipping of quotes is *not* in any way a
>description, not even a loose definition, of what people refer to when they
>are talking about "Horse 101". So for all of you who are saying to
>yourselves...."so that's what they mean???" and wondering that so many
>horse abusing loonies are populating the net these days, DON"T. That thread
>was not about normal training of a horse and not to mention Jackie and Jane
>were going at it like cats and things got rather nasty at times.
>
>My $0.02 on the whole "dominance" debate that has been going on here of
>late is that frankly all of you are talking about the same bloody thing for
>the most part and arguing over semantics. Whether you know it or not you
>communicate with your horse with your body language, your voice, your tone,
>everything you do and he interprets it the only way he knows how - as a
>horse. If your horse is happy and confident in your company, if he performs
>well for you and tries his heart out, if he would never think of shying
>right into you, stepping on you, biting you, if he always gives you your
>"space" then you are his herd leader, like the definition or not, that's
>how he sees you.
>
>My dog thinks I'm the pack leader of our tiny group. Why do you think
>horses and dogs are so willing to give their hearts out to you but your cat
>doesn't a damn? Hint: humans also develop social hierarchies and we respond
>to dominant leader types just as animals do. And they don't have to beat
>you to win your loyalty either.
>
>Mariah
>defender of the faith, loyal Church of Equinology disciple, rubbing dust in
>hair and donning sackcloth in preparation for the Holy War about to
>begin.....
>
>--
>remove "eat_this!" to reply...
>needless to say the spam mafia saw through
>my pathetic asterisks
BlueIris
>
> BlueIris <blue...@totalnetnh.net> wrote
>
> > Several posters have referred to "Horse 101" or "Horse
> > Language 101," and some have vehmently informed me that I
> > should go to Deja and read those threads to learn to
> > "understand" horse "language." Having some time this morning
> > I did that. Anyone who wasn't on the group back then
> > *should* definitely review it, particularly those who have
> > been arguing the "dominance" issue.
>
> Wow. This started off quite a wave, didn't it? Except I notice that most
> of the people who have responded to this thread so far are people who
> weren't around when that whole thing got started. I can understand why
> you're all upset and god, if I read your post I'd feel the same way. But
> you wanted to learn what people here refer to as "Horse 101" that WASN'T
> the place to do it.
I saw that quite quickly. I still, after reading much of the
thread under "Horse Language 101," and sub threads, do not
understand why several posters referred me to it.
I believe I understand the term quite well, and I also
> might be one of those people who are on the "dominance/alpha mare/herd
> leader side". I also happen to have been around these here parts regularly
> when that whole thread got started and I can say that you have really taken
> an example *quite* out of context. (btw, not implying you did it
> deliberately)
I quoted what was written. I don't see how the context
matters, those threads did not seem to be a joke or a
fictional story.
>
> Jane was referring to a situation where her life and safety were at stake.
> We all agreed that had this stallion been properly trained, had not
> suffered the past abuses he had, training that would not have involved
> beating, hitting, whatever you read Jane describing, that this situation
> Jane found herself in would never have happened.
I find no excuse for what was done. I speak from the
experience of having retrained some horses that were as bad
if not worse than the one described therein. It was not
necessary. If her life and safety were at stake it was
because she put herself in the position. I think she was
lucky, frankly. A horse like that can go around the bend
completely being whipped like that, and then no mere whip
will stop him.
*Nobody* would advocate
> what she did as a normal everyday way to handle a horse. This was not how
> you show yourself to be "alpha" and Jane herself would never say that it
> is. This horse tried to attack and severly injure, if not kill, Jane.
That is no excuse. She should not have taken him on if she
could not handle straightening him out without resorting to
abuse.
The
> animal cannot be blamed for whatever horrid experiences in his life led him
> to the conclusion that humans are to be feared and fought, but that fact
> remains that in that moment when the stallion charged at Jane, Jane had to
> defend her safety with whatever means she could. Smacking a horse across
> the canon bones, hitting it with stones, whatever else you quoted, was
> meant to describe the dire situation where your safety/life is in danger.
I did not find *that* to be so reading those posts. Jane was
not describing a life endangering situation in listing the
things she would hit a horse that bites with.
> Jackie claims that she could have gotten out of that situation without
> touching the horse. I have no reason personally to believe she's not
> telling the truth. My hat is off to her if that is so. But Jane defended
> herself the best way she knew how, and when your life is at stake, anything
> goes.
I could accept that if the horse had suddenly attacked. He
did not do that. Jane knew when she went in that pen with
her whip exactly what the horse was going to do and exactly
what she was going to do. Whip him into submission.
>
> This discussion and your selective clipping of quotes is *not* in any way a
> description, not even a loose definition, of what people refer to when they
> are talking about "Horse 101". So for all of you who are saying to
> yourselves...."so that's what they mean???" and wondering that so many
> horse abusing loonies are populating the net these days, DON"T. That thread
> was not about normal training of a horse and not to mention Jackie and Jane
> were going at it like cats and things got rather nasty at times.
I think anyone who wants to verify the quotes is capable of
going into Deja and checking it out for themselves.
>
> My $0.02 on the whole "dominance" debate that has been going on here of
> late is that frankly all of you are talking about the same bloody thing for
> the most part and arguing over semantics. Whether you know it or not you
> communicate with your horse with your body language, your voice, your tone,
> everything you do and he interprets it the only way he knows how - as a
> horse. If your horse is happy and confident in your company, if he performs
> well for you and tries his heart out, if he would never think of shying
> right into you, stepping on you, biting you, if he always gives you your
> "space" then you are his herd leader, like the definition or not, that's
> how he sees you.
I don't agree that we are talking about the same bloody
thing. (Oh, heck, what a word you chose to use there!)
Ekqueen
>>Most of their acolytes are just intimidated as far as I can gather -
it's a bit like the psychology of a street gang at times<g>!
>>
Spoken by one who shamelessly feeds her own acolytes..who also calls names,
and twists words, takes things out of context over and over and over...just
cause you think you have God on your side doesn't make you and your cronies any
less gang like, Jackie. The whole mentality is retarded, this factionism that
you seem to feed into. If people get intimidated on any ng, they need to remind
themselves what an ng is..words. Written by strangers. Words. You seem just as
determined to dominate the ng as anyone.
Wouldn't it be great if you could see that just because someone doesn't always
agree with *you* that they are hardly intimidated by *them*...that many even
get something of value in yours AND Janes And Sheilas posts. Imagine! People
who can actually think for themselves, without you telling them who to read and
why they must do so, and lumping all posters into "us" vs "them", the 'killers'
vs the "moralists.." Its silly, and meaningless, and makes you sound like a
small, spiteful, insecure person. This ng has obviously answered some deep need
of yours, and maybe someday you'll figure out the real reasons you post, and
post, and post, and malign, and pontificate, and inspire ill will, and yes,
bore, and bore, and bore.
Abby
.
EPONASAPPR
>From: "TrinityApp" <spell...@texoma.net>
>Date: 11/12/98 11:08 AM PDT
>Message-id: <72f7i4$k...@enews2.newsguy.com
********************************
********************************
> Horses are not a science ( neither are children), if they were you could
>get an absolute reaction to every instance every time. Horses are more an
>ongoing work of art, constantly being molded and shaped by their
>surroundings and handlers, one small mistake can crack a masterpiece. The
>beauty of the horse is in the eye of the beholder, not everyone seeks the
>same thing, and not everyone requires a Frankenhorse programmed to do their
>absolute bidding.
> I don't want to be herd boss, because inside the herd my horse is just
>another animal trying to survive, I want to elevate my horse above such
>mundane surroundings and give him wings, I want to teach him that for brief
>moments in his otherwise boring life he is the most powerful, beautiful,
>majestic animal, worthy of the praise of kings and princes and the
>admiration of all. This is my job, not being some bitchy alpha mare telling
>him he can't drink yet.
*********************************
*********************************
I framed it! THIS is a work of art!
I love it....so if ya skipped it the first time
read it again....... the way some of us feel
. .
. ...from the horaes mouth at .
http://mambers.aol.com/eponasappr/
. . . . . .
.
. ()__()
. / "" \
.. (O ' O)\
. \ / " \
. i i ^^---___ ---- ^^^\
. 0__0 \ \ " \
. ..=== I i i"i
*************************************
Mariah Walker
> Several posters have referred to "Horse 101" or "Horse
> Language 101," and some have vehmently informed me that I
> should go to Deja and read those threads to learn to
> "understand" horse "language." Having some time this morning
> I did that. Anyone who wasn't on the group back then
> *should* definitely review it, particularly those who have
> been arguing the "dominance" issue.
Wow. This started off quite a wave, didn't it? Except I notice that most
of the people who have responded to this thread so far are people who
weren't around when that whole thing got started. I can understand why
you're all upset and god, if I read your post I'd feel the same way. But
you wanted to learn what people here refer to as "Horse 101" that WASN'T
the place to do it. I believe I understand the term quite well, and I also
might be one of those people who are on the "dominance/alpha mare/herd
leader side". I also happen to have been around these here parts regularly
when that whole thread got started and I can say that you have really taken
an example *quite* out of context. (btw, not implying you did it
deliberately)
Jane was referring to a situation where her life and safety were at stake.
We all agreed that had this stallion been properly trained, had not
suffered the past abuses he had, training that would not have involved
beating, hitting, whatever you read Jane describing, that this situation
Jane found herself in would never have happened. *Nobody* would advocate
what she did as a normal everyday way to handle a horse. This was not how
you show yourself to be "alpha" and Jane herself would never say that it
is. This horse tried to attack and severly injure, if not kill, Jane. The
animal cannot be blamed for whatever horrid experiences in his life led him
to the conclusion that humans are to be feared and fought, but that fact
remains that in that moment when the stallion charged at Jane, Jane had to
defend her safety with whatever means she could. Smacking a horse across
the canon bones, hitting it with stones, whatever else you quoted, was
meant to describe the dire situation where your safety/life is in danger.
Jackie claims that she could have gotten out of that situation without
touching the horse. I have no reason personally to believe she's not
telling the truth. My hat is off to her if that is so. But Jane defended
herself the best way she knew how, and when your life is at stake, anything
goes.
This discussion and your selective clipping of quotes is *not* in any way a
description, not even a loose definition, of what people refer to when they
are talking about "Horse 101". So for all of you who are saying to
yourselves...."so that's what they mean???" and wondering that so many
horse abusing loonies are populating the net these days, DON"T. That thread
was not about normal training of a horse and not to mention Jackie and Jane
were going at it like cats and things got rather nasty at times.
My $0.02 on the whole "dominance" debate that has been going on here of
late is that frankly all of you are talking about the same bloody thing for
the most part and arguing over semantics. Whether you know it or not you
communicate with your horse with your body language, your voice, your tone,
everything you do and he interprets it the only way he knows how - as a
horse. If your horse is happy and confident in your company, if he performs
well for you and tries his heart out, if he would never think of shying
right into you, stepping on you, biting you, if he always gives you your
"space" then you are his herd leader, like the definition or not, that's
how he sees you.
My dog thinks I'm the pack leader of our tiny group. Why do you think
AlaTmPnr
Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery it's
stupidity. And adding abuse to an already abused animal isn't fixing the
problem. A SMART trainer would have left the stall after the first charge
and reassessed the situation from a safe stand point. You haven't proved a
damn thing to the horse except that you're tough while carrying a stick, and
he's going to wait for when you don't have one.>>
Hmmmmm yes .......... I agree with the reassessing idea. IMHO a horse that
charges like that is in pain. But the problem is....... you have to get the
horse to let you fix the problem. And that aint going to happen while the
horse is resistant to new ideas. It is already proven that walking into the
stall is dangerous to your health. MR(your hero)found ou, when he was in New
Jersey, that retreat is the better part of valor when a horse, he was working,
charged him and damn near counted coup on him. His solution was to get
additional help and force the horse. I didnt see the training value of this
and my friend didnt either but.........
I prefer the lets wear them down with kindness but if the owner isnt willing to
spend money and you want to save the horse then desparate times call for
desparate measures. The kindness approach is like using food to get a horse to
load in a trailer, it only works sometimes. You want the horse to load all
the time and with little discussion of the matter. To tell you the truth I
never know how Im going to handle a horse until I see him/her and can make a
spot assessment. I have never put one in a can but I have been sorely tempted
hehehe.
Bill
Susan Dangar
TrinityApp wrote in message <72g6ct$c...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>Mariah,
>
> While i can concede that desperate times call for desperate measures.
>Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery it's
>stupidity.
Where on Earth did you get the idea the horse was in a stall? This is
exactly the problem with taking snippets out of a discussion that went on
for months. The horse Jane was dealing with was in a large pen it had the
option of getting away from Jane. It was not on a rope. The horse chose to
attack.
It is a sad point this horse had reached the level of aggression that he
did, Jane would be the first to agree that his problems were caused by a
human, but she was not that human. But that does not alter the fact, that
this was a cure or kill situation. The horse had to learn that stomping
people was not an acceptable behavior.
I agree that normally horses are not agressive critters, but the fact
remains that there are the rare few that are. Roberta listed several causes
in another post. I've seen 3 in my life that fit into the category of the
horse that Jane was dealing with. Frankly, none of them were within my
skill level to deal with.
If anyone had bothered to read all of the thread they'd also know that the
horse Jane worked with overcame his problems and is doing quite nicely now,
so evidently something she did worked. Is this not better than having been
the main course in a French restaurant?
For those that find this inconsistant with telling folks not to slap their
horses, well, kiddies, ineffectual slapping and not letting a horse know
that you are a responsible, consistent, effective leader is one of the ways
that horses start down the path to this sort of behavior in the first place.
Whether one agrees with Jane's fix or not, those that can't or won't learn
to heed Horse 101 are generally the folks that end up bringing a "bad" horse
to some trainer to fix.
Susan Dangar
AlaTmPnr
horse Jane worked with overcame his problems and is doing quite nicely now,
so evidently something she did worked. Is this not better than having been
the main course in a French restaurant?>>
Hmmm You know the more I read this thread the more I see it is a lack of
experience on some people's parts that enable them to take the derogatory
stance. Until you have had the experience of standing where Jane was and
looking down the barrel of the gun so to speak then you dont know what the hell
you are talking about. It is all hypothetical. When your anus puckers up so
that you couldnt drive a ten penny nail with a sledgehammer and you have to do
something, anything to save your butt, then we can talk ...... but until then
I really doubt that you have a solution other than hypothetical rhetoric.
Jane's solution was not one that I would have chosen but she may not have had a
choice. Working alone limits your options in some ways........... I would have
called someone like I did with that palomino colt. We used ropes and threw
the horse and started from there. The point of all training is to be safe.
Safe for the trainer and safe for the horse. With a horse that wont let you
approach, unless you are on the lunch menu, is an ideal candidate IMHO for
getting thrown, so we can discuss the problem, without the distraction of him
chasing my ass around the pen. As for the rest of you unless you can come up
with a viable alternative then consider a good canner.
Bill
Jackie
(her usual vicious little snipes I suspect)
Ah, an acolyte.
Jackie
Jackie
On 13 Nov 1998 02:26:52 GMT, "Mariah Walker"
<mariawa@eat_this!unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>. I also happen to have been around these here parts regularly
>when that whole thread got started and I can say that you have really taken
>an example *quite* out of context. (btw, not implying you did it
>deliberately)
>
>Jane was referring to a situation where her life and safety were at stake.
Actually Mariah, that was not so in one quote, and the result of a
deliberate act in the other. The origin of the thread was a question
about how to stop habitual nipping/biting, I quote the original
'Biting Horse!!!!!' question:
"My new horse bites, he has no other vices except this. Whenever he
is brushed at the back of the rump , he swishes his tail , and puts
his ears back, I tie him up when doing this, so he cant turn around
and bite me. He does the same with his rugs being put on and the
girth being put up on the saddle. He is 16.3 hh, TB gelding 7 years
old. His trainer told me of this vice. I don't want to disipline him
the wrong way. Does anyone have any ideas?"
Several people, Catja, Laura B replied with advice about checking for
pain etc. Someone said bite him back! I mentioned about letting the
horse decide to quit for himself by 'accidentally' meeting with an
uncomfortable object on the way.
Jane's general training advice, posted in response to that SPECIFIC
scenario was the 'whack 'em hard, on the hip, shoulder or cannons with
the whip, rasp, rock etc; whatever was to hand, and make damn sure
they knew it came from you - to assert dominance' quote. Jorene
supported her.
When I said is it never necessary to strike horses so in training, the
scenario of a 'charging horse' was devised, which then metamorphosised
into a 'killer stallion' as the legend (and the need to justify the
whipping) grew. This scenario was offered to disprove my contention
that there is never a circumstance in horse training where it is
necessary to whip horses into compliance - certainly no excuse to plan
your 'training strategy' on that basis.
It was a fairly successful justification strategy - the majority did
then agree that "Oh well, of course, sometimes you just gotta whack
'em" - overlooking the fact that it had been planned that way from the
start, and no alternative had been tried - no attempt to allay the
horse's fear first. Indeed, she had already commented that the horse
had "such a fear and mistrust of humans" but saw no need to address
that.
I stand by my position - I don't care if it 'worked', it was
unecessary, and as a deliberate act it is plain wrong.
Jackie
BlueIris
>
> TrinityApp wrote in message <72g6ct$c...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> >Mariah,
> >
> > While i can concede that desperate times call for desperate measures.
> >Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery it's
> >stupidity.
>
> Where on Earth did you get the idea the horse was in a stall? This is
> exactly the problem with taking snippets out of a discussion that went on
> for months. The horse Jane was dealing with was in a large pen it had the
> option of getting away from Jane. It was not on a rope. The horse chose to
> attack.
>
> It is a sad point this horse had reached the level of aggression that he
> did, Jane would be the first to agree that his problems were caused by a
> human, but she was not that human. But that does not alter the fact, that
> this was a cure or kill situation. The horse had to learn that stomping
> people was not an acceptable behavior.
>
> I agree that normally horses are not agressive critters, but the fact
> remains that there are the rare few that are. Roberta listed several causes
> in another post. I've seen 3 in my life that fit into the category of the
> horse that Jane was dealing with. Frankly, none of them were within my
> skill level to deal with.
>
> horse Jane worked with overcame his problems and is doing quite nicely now,
> so evidently something she did worked. Is this not better than having been
> the main course in a French restaurant?
>
> horses, well, kiddies, ineffectual slapping and not letting a horse know
> that you are a responsible, consistent, effective leader is one of the ways
> that horses start down the path to this sort of behavior in the first place.
>
> Whether one agrees with Jane's fix or not, those that can't or won't learn
> to heed Horse 101 are generally the folks that end up bringing a "bad" horse
> to some trainer to fix.
Some of what you say is correct, Susan. However, I'm in the
position of the "trainer" that ends up with the "bad" horse
to fix. But I have *never* resorted to such methods, and I
*have* had the ones that will try to kill you. Sure, you can
straighten them out by beating hell out of them (see my
response in this thread to Mary Healey) but it will not
always work, it is cruel, and it may leave a ticking time
bomb, that blows up in another owner's face years later. It
only takes the right trigger. I don't think the end you
described justifies the means.
Frankly, this sort of post makes me even more uncomfortable
with this "dominance" business. I've posted before about the
common useage of the word today, and it was that common
usage that made me and other people uncomfortable. It was
not because we thought you all beat your animals! However,
now I'm finding that many of the people who believe in
dominance also support Jane's method with that horse.
You are wrong, by the way. The stallion didn't *choose* to
attack Jane. The horse was acting only on its survival
instincts. That horse had been taught that any human being
was a threat. Jane, however, being in possession of a
rational mind CHOSE her method - beat. I did not get the
impression, reading *her* words, that she had "accidentally"
gotten into a life or death situation with that horse. It
was quite clear that she went into that pen of her *own*
choice, and with the intention of applying that whip.
I'm even more uncomfortable with your paragraph about
"ineffectual slapping." I hope it's just the way you worded
that, but reading in the context of the subject of whipping
a horse, it didn't come across quite right.
Roberta
>
> Susan Dangar
wkambic
> I'm replying from Deja, because Bill Kambic's posts to not come through on my
> regular server. Never figured out why. I would appreciate it Bill, if when
> replying to one of my posts you'd copy me by e-mail.
Can do.
> Bill, I suppose when you've gotta save a life, or two in your case, you would
> do what you have to do under the emergency conditions. That, however, is not
> a training situation. I do not agree that such items as Jane itemized or the
> items you used in an emergency, are "tools" that anyone should be using for
> "training."
Not even close and certainly no cigar. Fighter pilots have an old saying: You
fight like you train. I met a guy once who was an F-4 Phantom Phlyer. In the
F-4 you had to turn on the Master Arm switch to get the gun sight to work. In
training, you turned on the Master Arm, maneuvered until you got a firing
solution, turned of the Master Arm, pulled the trigger, and said "bang, you're
dead!" over the radio. Over North Vietnam he jumped a Mig (Master Arm on), got
his firing solution, turned off the the Master Arm, pulled the trigger, and said
"bank, you're dead" over the radio; and then realized his Radar Intercept Officer
was screaming "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" He then turned on the
Master Arm and smoked the Mig.
You fight like you train. You train in quiet circumstances such that you get
correct responses in times of stress. This is true for horses and humans.
Emergency training is best conducted when there is no emergency.
> > > Another post, on how Jane retrained the horse: "I carried my
> > > whip. As soon as he saw me, he instantly charged. I
> > > side-stepped him and wacked (sic) him very hard one time
> > > accross his cannon bones. He whirled and charged again. Same
> > > response from me. He must have done this a dozen times. Each
> > > time, he got my whip hard accross his cannons. Each time I
> > > spoke to him with my body language, giving him a chance to
> > > stand still. He charged, I whipped. An hour or so later, he
> > > stopped and stared at me. I said good boy and left."
> > >
> > > Where the heck was Sheila when this hour long beating was
> > > going on? This sounds to me more like someone throwing a
> > > temper tantrum over the horse's behavior than training,
> > > IMHO.
> >
> > What is the problem, here? When faced with an aggressive,
> > dangerous, 1000 pound beast it seems that you have two choices:
> > end the behavior or can him.
>
> There are other ways to end the behavior. This was not an emergency, Jane was
> in with the horse and whip voluntarily. IMHO, if she couldn't find a way
> other than beating the animal, she should have put him in another's hands.
Beg to differ. When you look at a stallion coming at you and all you can see is
fur, teeth, and eyeballs you have an EMERGENCY! And a training opportunity. She
used appropriate tools in the circumstances.
By the way, what would be the difference betwee Jane and the farmer from
Nolensville, other than the fact that Jane is alive and he is not?
> That doesn't explain how the horse got that way, Bill. It's usually caused by
> humans. Horses are not killers, they don't choose to attack and kill people
> out of the blue.
Sorry, this is not the Kobiashi Maru. You cannot change the terms of question
(or of the reality)This stud WAS choosing to kill. His reasons or motivation
became irrelevant when he commenced his attack run. Whether or not humans or the
tooth fairy made him that way, or whether he was mentally defective, or some
other reason we cannot fathom is supremely unimportant when you are trying to
avoid being stomped.
> You can speak of anything you like. Unfortunately, as I said above, I don't
> usually get to see your posts unless I go looking for them. And yes, I
> thought of Sheila and "The horse that kills you has warned you first."
> However, from her posts it does not appear that she advocates beating horses.
> I just hope that you don't either.
I do not advocate senseless violence. But I follow the philosophy that 'One Good
Correction is Worth 10,000 "BAD DOGs"' If you can get that One Good Correction
by non-contact means, then good on you. But there will be ordinary and routine
times when such will not be the case. IF you surrender your right to make the
correction you require then you set yourself or someone else for injury. Or
death.
Bill Kambic
Jackie
>Jane's solution was not one that I would have chosen but she may not have had a
>choice.
She did, she set it up like that on purpose.
Jackie
Mary Healey
> >> Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
> >> I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt
> >> with that and more. Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.
> >
> >"charging stallion", and what did you do to deal with it?
>
"I've dealt with that and more" is what Roberta wrote. Since she "dealt
with that and more", as previously (an appropriately) quoted from her
post, I merely asked the circumstances, techniques, and outcome.
>& you should NEVER have to do that!
> Read the original post.
I did, and *I* read what was written, and asked for more details. You
might try doing the same.
M.
wkambic
> No, you got to understand - Sheila can't stand any physical contact,
> but thinks it's OK to threaten a horse with whips, Jane likes to belt
> them accross the cannon bones - but only the malevolent, murderous
> ones; but they're both into domination of horses and newsgroups, so
> they 'overlook' each others discrepancies for the sake of cameraderie.
> Most of their acolytes are just intimidated as far as I can gather -
> it's a bit like the psychology of a street gang at times<g>!
Let's see, the last time I served as an acolyte was serving Mass aboard
USS INTREPID in 1972. I do not serve Sheila or Tom or Jane or anyone
else. No Gold Star here, kiddo.
Black leather looks good on Diana Rigg. But I still still prefer it on
saddles. Not into domination, thank you very much. I am into ensuring my
own safety and the safety of others when it comes to handling 1000 pound
animals that can (and have) killed humans intentionally.
I note that Jackie is uncharacteristically silent on my descriptions of
the killer mare and killer stallion. What would she have done?
Getting compliance with non-contact Good Corrections is wonderful. But
what if you can't?
Bill Kambic
BlueIris
>
> <<If anyone had bothered to read all of the thread they'd also know that the
> horse Jane worked with overcame his problems and is doing quite nicely now,
> so evidently something she did worked. Is this not better than having been
> the main course in a French restaurant?>>
>
> experience on some people's parts that enable them to take the derogatory
> stance. Until you have had the experience of standing where Jane was and
> looking down the barrel of the gun so to speak then you dont know what the hell
> you are talking about.
Oh, Bull**** Bill. I've been there a number of times. So,
I've had the experience, and I know exactly what I'm talking
about.
It is all hypothetical. When your anus puckers up so
> that you couldnt drive a ten penny nail with a sledgehammer and you have to do
> something, anything to save your butt, then we can talk ...... but until then
> I really doubt that you have a solution other than hypothetical rhetoric.
> Jane's solution was not one that I would have chosen but she may not have had a
> choice.
Of course she had a *choice.* Go back and read the posts.
She went in with him knowing full well what was going to
happen, and what she was going to do. She went in determined
to be "boss hoss." With a whip. Gentle dominance.
Working alone limits your options in some ways........... I
would have
> called someone like I did with that palomino colt. We used ropes and threw
> the horse and started from there. The point of all training is to be safe.
> Safe for the trainer and safe for the horse. With a horse that wont let you
> approach, unless you are on the lunch menu, is an ideal candidate IMHO for
> getting thrown, so we can discuss the problem, without the distraction of him
> chasing my ass around the pen. As for the rest of you unless you can come up
> with a viable alternative then consider a good canner.
I've come up with many viable alternatives. I've never had
to beat or throw a horse to bring it around.
>
> Bill
BlueIris
Isn't that exactly what is being done now? I do notice that
the dominance supporters are excusing the beating - "it was
a life or death situation," etc, overlooking the fact that
it had been planned that way from the start, as you say!
Strikes me that if it was "life or death," if she had gotten
into the pen by accident, then fending off the horse and
*getting out* of the pen would have been the answer - not to
stay and beat the animal for an HOUR!
Roberta
WB Dare Me
>> I do notice that
the dominance supporters are excusing the beating - "it was
a life or death situation," etc, overlooking the fact that
it had been planned that way from the start, as you say!<<
I consider myself somewhat a "dominance supporter", but don't agree with what
was done. No one is going to agree 100% on how to treat horses. Jane has
wonderful, wonderful horse handling advice that isn't like what's being hashed
over yet again here.
You just can't pigeonhole and label people and learn anything from it. Why
spend so much time and energy doing this, when you could be learning? Take what
you can from discussions, state your opinion then move ON.
Monika
Monika Delle, Seattle, WA, USA
**** Step Up To A Saddlebred! ****
Dare - W.B. Dare Me, western wonderhorse (beginning dressage)
Julie - Doubletree's Juliana, awesome hunt seat horse
and the Kitty Krew: Bean, Dora, Frango, Posie, Taz and Tickle
BlueIris
Perhaps. I do find it quite disturbing that the very people
who were willing to talk "dominance" as though it were a
Very Good Think are the same ones who are willing to excuse
and support beating a horse, hitting it with whatever may be
handy, rasp, rock, 2x4!
Yet many of these same people defended Sheila Green.
Anything I've read of her posts, she certainly seems to
emphasize that you *don't hit horses,* and has strongly
criticized and flamed people who so much as poked the horses
nose! While I may find her posts to be overbearing, I did
agree with her on that. There is *no* excuse for hitting a
horse with anything.
Roberta
>
> Jackie
AlaTmPnr
horse to bring it around.>>
Put up or shut up ........ describe the horse the conditions and your solution.
Im always happy to accept new information and approaches to a situation. You
have been happy to pooh pooh everyone else's solution ...... what is your
solution?? And please do not refer me to a post to someone else as I have been
keeping track and I havent seen anything that comes close to Jane's or my
situation from you. All I have seen from you(and I have commented) is your
refusal to list a solution as someone may get hurt. Yeah! I doubt that anyone
is going to use Jane's approach and too many use my approach so put up or shut
up.
Bill
WB Dare Me
>>I do not serve Sheila or Tom or Jane or anyone
else. No Gold Star here, kiddo.<<
Absolutely. Why is it that if someone doesn't agree with you folks (Roberta,
Jackie, Dar) that we are automatically one of *THEM*? You all have some great
ideas, but I'm starting to skip your posts because I'm tired of the
accusations. Isn't that one reason you're so vehemently opposed to *THEM*?
BlueIris
>
> Dar wrote:
> > Mary Healey wrote in message <364B2513...@iastate.edu>...
> > >BlueIris wrote:
> > >> Oh, before all the "dominance" crowd rushes in to claim that
> > >> I've never had to deal with a charging stallion, I've dealt
> > >> with that and more. Without whips and rasps and 2x4s.
> > >
> > >How? What were the circumstances leading up to your encounter with said
> > >"charging stallion", and what did you do to deal with it?
> >
> > It wasn't Roberta...
>
> "I've dealt with that and more" is what Roberta wrote. Since she "dealt
> with that and more", as previously (an appropriately) quoted from her
> post, I merely asked the circumstances, techniques, and outcome.
Thanks Mary. I saw Dar's post, and meant to correct her
wrong impression, then forgot!
Roberta
Joel B Levin
Mary Healey <mhhe...@iastate.edu> wrote:
:"I've dealt with that and more" is what Roberta wrote. Since she "dealt
:with that and more", as previously (an appropriately) quoted from her
:post, I merely asked the circumstances, techniques, and outcome.
:>& you should NEVER have to do that!
:> Read the original post.
:
:I did, and *I* read what was written, and asked for more details. You
:might try doing the same.
She provided them, too. She had a horse who would charge her after she
brought food in the stall.
The horse Jane worked with, which had been brought to her for retraining as a
last resort before the cannery, charged anyone who as much as stepped into
his corral, food or no.
But don't expect her to see the difference. She's reacting to the whole
"herd dynamics" thing as if it were a false religion and is viewing anything
posted on the topic through that prejudice.
--
Nets: levin/at/bbn.com | I wanna buy a ranch. With horsies.
or jbl/at/levin.mv.com| -- Sprint PCS commercial
or levinjb/at/gte.net |
ARS: KD1ON | http://home1.gte.net/levinjb/
Charlene Solomon
wkambic <wka...@vic.com> wrote in article <364C48DA...@vic.com>...
> blue...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > Where the heck was Sheila when this hour long beating was
> > > > going on? This sounds to me more like someone throwing a
> > > > temper tantrum over the horse's behavior than training,
> > > > IMHO.
> > >
> > > What is the problem, here? When faced with an aggressive,
> > > dangerous, 1000 pound beast it seems that you have two choices:
> > > end the behavior or can him.
> >
> > There are other ways to end the behavior. This was not an emergency,
Jane was
> > in with the horse and whip voluntarily. IMHO, if she couldn't find a
way
> > other than beating the animal, she should have put him in another's
hands.
>
> Beg to differ. When you look at a stallion coming at you and all you can
see is
> fur, teeth, and eyeballs you have an EMERGENCY! And a training
opportunity. She
> used appropriate tools in the circumstances.
If you choose to put yourself in a dangerous situation that you still have
the option of getting out of (i.e. getting out of the round pen) it is not
an emergency.
>
> By the way, what would be the difference betwee Jane and the farmer from
> Nolensville, other than the fact that Jane is alive and he is not?
The difference is that the farmer could not get out of the stallions way on
his own. Jane could have stepped out of the round pen.
Just for clarification I think there are circumstances in which serious
physical force (or defense) is in order. I do not know anything about the
stallion Jane was dealing with. Her method may well have been the best
method for that particular stallion. I think I would have tryed to find a
way not to beat the horse but than I never met the horse.
Charlie
Jane H. Kilberg
>AlaTmPnr wrote:
>>
>> <<If anyone had bothered to read all of the thread they'd also know that the
>> horse Jane worked with overcame his problems and is doing quite nicely now,
>> so evidently something she did worked. Is this not better than having been
>> the main course in a French restaurant?>>
>>
>> Hmmm You know the more I read this thread the more I see it is a lack of
>> experience on some people's parts that enable them to take the derogatory
>> stance. Until you have had the experience of standing where Jane was and
>> looking down the barrel of the gun so to speak then you dont know what
the hell
>> you are talking about.
>
>Oh, Bull**** Bill. I've been there a number of times. So,
>I've had the experience, and I know exactly what I'm talking
>about.
So exactly what was your situation (give one) and how did you handle it?
How did you establish your relationship with a horse you couldn't even be
within the same fencelines? How did you get that horse to change its
behavior?
> It is all hypothetical. When your anus puckers up so
>> that you couldnt drive a ten penny nail with a sledgehammer and you
have to do
>> something, anything to save your butt, then we can talk ...... but
until then
>> I really doubt that you have a solution other than hypothetical rhetoric.
>> Jane's solution was not one that I would have chosen but she may not
have had a
>> choice.
>
>Of course she had a *choice.*
Yup, I did have a choice. I could have refused to retrain the rogue
stallion. I chose what worked best for me, within my skills and knowledge
and ability to handle certain tools and my knowledge of the horse. And I
was successful and so was the stallion. There are many methods that could
have been used in that same situation. If my choice of technique was a
poor one, there wouldn't have been a change in the stallion's behavior.
>Go back and read the posts.
>She went in with him knowing full well what was going to
>happen, and what she was going to do. She went in determined
>to be "boss hoss."
Dang straight I was determined to help that stallion change its behavior.
Isn't that what training is all about? That stallion, in order to change
its behavior had to learn to view me as its leader, dominant, boss hoss,
head honcho. I certainly didn't want him to be boss over me and run me
down or push me over the fence. Would you? And any skilled horse person
should always know full well how a horse will react. If he or she doesn't,
then that person has no business training.
>With a whip. Gentle dominance.
I'm sure you work with tools too. Ever use a rope? And yes, I treated the
horse in kind and the results indicated it was as such.
>Working alone limits your options in some ways...........
Yes, it sure does, Bill! It makes for some keen thinking at times and lots
of flexibility.
>I
>would have
>> called someone like I did with that palomino colt. We used ropes and threw
>> the horse and started from there.
I thought of tripping or using a running W or even the choke down, but
this I quickly dismissed since I can't throw a rope and I couldn't get
close enough to set up the running W.
> The point of all training is to be safe.
>> Safe for the trainer and safe for the horse.
And my safety was more important than the horse's when you boil it all down.
>I've come up with many viable alternatives.
There are many viable techniques and methods. Which ones a person chooses
depends on their skills and knowledge of the horse.
>I've never had
>to beat or throw a horse to bring it around.
Neither have I, though I did use the running W once - decided it was too
risky for the horse.
down the spotted trails. . .
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
member: ApHC, Montgomery County Adult Horse Committee
editor/publisher: Appaloosa Network
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
>On 13 Nov 1998 14:13:43 GMT, alat...@aol.com (AlaTmPnr) wrote:
>
>>Jane's solution was not one that I would have chosen but she may not
have had a
>>choice.
>
>She did, she set it up like that on purpose.
Yup, I did. When one trains a horse, whether it is to teach leading or
riding cues, one always sets up the horse so it will learn to associate
the cue with the desired action. This way, the horse doesn't "fail."
Jane H. Kilberg
(snipped parts)
>But I have *never* resorted to such methods, and I
>*have* had the ones that will try to kill you.
What method you choose depends on your skills, knowledge of the nature of
the horse, the individual horse and the situation. Not everyone is skilled
in use of a whip and yes, there are other techniques one can choose.
>Sure, you can
>straighten them out by beating hell out of them (see my
>response in this thread to Mary Healey) but it will not
>always work, it is cruel, and it may leave a ticking time
>bomb, that blows up in another owner's face years later.
If you are inferring that I continually beat that stallion, you are
mistaken. Besides that the owner and the stallion, now a gelding are still
spending their time together very nicely. However, I do agree that abuse,
which I define as too much or too little pressure on a horse for the given
situation has no place in training. Always treat the horse in kind.
>Frankly, this sort of post makes me even more uncomfortable
>with this "dominance" business.
Such is the nature of horses and herd dynamics. This you cannot deny, or
perhaps you do.
>It was
>not because we thought you all beat your animals!
Glad you realize that and BTW, who is the "we" you are speaking for?
>However,
>now I'm finding that many of the people who believe in
>dominance also support Jane's method with that horse.
That is because my plan was to establish a relationship with the stallion
using herd dynamics which the stallion understood quite well as part of
his intinctual nature.
>You are wrong, by the way. The stallion didn't *choose* to
>attack Jane.
Oh? So I guess the stallion charging me was some unknown force telling him
to do it and forcing him to do it.
>The horse was acting only on its survival
>instincts.
I would say, self-preservation.
>That horse had been taught that any human being
>was a threat.
I would say more than a threat but probably he associated humans with very
uncomfortable feelings.
>Jane, however, being in possession of a
>rational mind CHOSE her method - beat.
Well, I did strike his cannon bones if you want to call that "I beat his
cannon bones." However, it was one strike which produced a sting for each
time he charged. The result was what I had expected. It helped him pay
attention to me. It wasn't a continuous beating. No matter what you think
you cannot make it so.
>It
>was quite clear that she went into that pen of her *own*
>choice, and with the intention of applying that whip.
Yup, glad you got that part right. It was my job to retrain that horse so
naturally, it was my choice. However, just to keep you straight, the whip
would only be applied when warranted. I had no intention of using the whip
just to use it without reason, nor to beat the horse into submission. When
you choose a method to work with any horse for any reason, one has an
objective in mind and a flexible game plan.
Of course, you may be the type of person who wings it all the time with
constant trial and error which tends to confuse horses. You may be the
type who decides you are going to teach a foal how to lead but aren't
clear about your choice of techniques or whether or not to use a halter or
lead rope or butt rope or not.
I prefer to know what I will be doing and the reaction of the horse prior
to applying any method or technique I choose to utilize.
Jane H. Kilberg
(snipped parts)
>I note that Jackie is uncharacteristically silent on my descriptions of
>the killer mare and killer stallion. What would she have done?
ROFL...oh dang it Bill. You +know+ what she would do.....wave her flag at
the horse!
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>The origin of the thread was a question
>about how to stop habitual nipping/biting, I quote the original
>'Biting Horse!!!!!' question:
>
>"My new horse bites, he has no other vices except this. Whenever he
>is brushed at the back of the rump , he swishes his tail , and puts
>his ears back, I tie him up when doing this, so he cant turn around
>and bite me. He does the same with his rugs being put on and the
>girth being put up on the saddle. He is 16.3 hh, TB gelding 7 years
>old. His trainer told me of this vice. I don't want to disipline him
>the wrong way. Does anyone have any ideas?"
>
>Several people, Catja, Laura B replied with advice about checking for
>pain etc. Someone said bite him back! I mentioned about letting the
>horse decide to quit for himself by 'accidentally' meeting with an
>uncomfortable object on the way.
Except she had already done something similar to this with no effect. My
post was in addition to first making sure it was a behavioral problem and
not a medical one.
>Jane's general training advice, posted in response to that SPECIFIC
>scenario was the 'whack 'em hard, on the hip, shoulder or cannons with
>the whip, rasp, rock etc; whatever was to hand, and make damn sure
>they knew it came from you - to assert dominance' quote. Jorene
>supported her.
This was a case of a severe biting problem. Treat the horse in kind. The
horse needed to learn that it was unacceptable behavior, but it doesn't
mean abusing the horse. Too much or too little pressure on the horse in a
given situation is abuse. The pressure of a bite is not something one
wishes to sweet talk a horse out of doing, nor attempt to "sneak attack"
which was your offering. Horses are upfront and honest, so why can't you
be with the horse?
If a horse feels free to take a chunk out of a person whenever it pleases,
the behavior indicates how that horse views that person.
>This scenario was offered to disprove my contention
>that there is never a circumstance in horse training where it is
>necessary to whip horses into compliance - certainly no excuse to plan
>your 'training strategy' on that basis.
Definitely, but then I didn't whip that stallion into submission, despite
you so wanting to make it so.
Mary Healey
>...(see my response in this thread to Mary Healey)
Something Mary Healey intends to do, if the *#()&!)($#*^ing newsreader
ever decides to send it her way... probably sometime next week.
>...It
> was quite clear that she went into that pen of her *own*
> choice, and with the intention of applying that whip.
Question - if there was electric fence between the charging horse and
the human, would you also consider it abuse when the horse got zapped?
M.
Mary Healey
>... fending off the horse and
> *getting out* of the pen would have been the answer - not to
> stay and beat the animal for an HOUR!
Beat the horse for an hour? Interesting interpretation. If I'm laying
down, dozing, and wake up six or seven times in the course of an hour -
I don't consider that "being awake". If I dismount several times while
riding my horse for an hour, I don't call that "on foot". Why should
six or seven interactions over the course of an hour be mistaken for a
continuous and uninterupted series of such interactions?
M.
Susan Dangar
BlueIris wrote in
snip the methods you disapprove;
OK, so we know what you won't do, please describe in detail a true
experience you've had with a horse with a similar desire to cause bodily
harm and tell how YOU would deal with it.
The horse being grabby over feed was much like comparing a gekko to
Godzilla.
>Oh, Bull**** Bill. I've been there a number of times. So,
>I've had the experience, and I know exactly what I'm talking
>about.
And you would rather criticize than educate?
>Of course she had a *choice.*
Yep, she had a choice that day, but if one is going to resolve a problem one
must at some point elect to approach the problem. One can sit outside and
ponder indefinitely.
>I've come up with many viable alternatives. I've never had
>to beat or throw a horse to bring it around.
Many? Describe 3 in detail, please.
Susan Dangar
Jane H. Kilberg
(snipped parts)
>Yet many of these same people defended Sheila Green.
>Anything I've read of her posts, she certainly seems to
>emphasize that you *don't hit horses,* and has strongly
>criticized and flamed people who so much as poked the horses
>nose! While I may find her posts to be overbearing, I did
>agree with her on that. There is *no* excuse for hitting a
>horse with anything.
The vast majority of the time you don't need to hit a horse. Even Tom
Dorrance smashed a horse with the butt of his cane when the horse
attempted to bite him. The horse didn't attempt to bite him after that.
AlaTmPnr
<<<>On 13 Nov 1998 14:13:43 GMT, alat...@aol.com (AlaTmPnr) wrote:
>
>>Jane's solution was not one that I would have chosen but she may not have had
a
choice. >>>
>
[[Jane wrote: Yup, I did. When one trains a horse, whether it is to teach
leading or
riding cues, one always sets up the horse so it will learn to associate the cue
with the desired action. This way, the horse doesn't "fail."]]
Well what I really meant was not that that wasnt your selected course of action
but that you didnt have a choice in how to proceed because of the way you
work(alone being one of your limiting factors).
I still find it amazing that people who claim to have worked with "damaged"
horses are very quick to point up your deficiencies but have nothing to offer
as an alternative solution. It seems to me if they had a better solution they
would offer it up in a heartbeat but Im afraid their solution is really no
better and probably involves a backhoe and a .357.
Bill
kirsti_s...@remove.hp.com
wrote:
>If you choose to put yourself in a dangerous situation that you still have
>the option of getting out of (i.e. getting out of the round pen) it is not
>an emergency.
I can see that you've never been in a *situation* before. Emergency to
me means "right this very second" react NOW, don't stop to open no
stinkin' gate.
>The difference is that the farmer could not get out of the stallions way on
>his own. Jane could have stepped out of the round pen.
And the rogue would still be pulling his antics today (if someone
hadn't taken the initiative and shot the sonofab).
>Just for clarification I think there are circumstances in which serious
>physical force (or defense) is in order.
agreed.
> I do not know anything about the
>stallion Jane was dealing with.
You should, she spent quite a bit of time letting us know what is
behaviour was like.
> Her method may well have been the best
>method for that particular stallion. I think I would have tryed to find a
>way not to beat the horse but than I never met the horse.
So, if a horse runs up your backside do you think the *beating* the
horse gave you is worse than what you could do to it? IMO, Jane
handled the situation (win-win if you ask me) very professionally. She
kept herself focused. Didn't let herself get flustered or loose her
temper. Her goal was to create a safe environment around herself. The
horse came through the lesson uninjured and *learned* who was boss.
Get over the word "beating"
Kirsti
Samantha
Jackie wrote in message <364c4709...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
<snip>
> The origin of the thread was a question about how to stop habitual
nipping/biting . . .
<snip>
>I mentioned about letting the horse decide to quit for himself by
'accidentally' meeting >with an uncomfortable object on the way.
The way I understood Jane's actions in this particular situation (rogue
stallion) is similar to your suggestion about the nipper. Jane, please
correct me if I've misinterpreted your post. I didn't picture Jane
'beating' the stallion. It seemed to me that Jane, never in anger at the
horse, put the horse in a situation where it would perceive charging as
uncomfortable-stinging cannons- and not charging as pleasant. She removed
herself from the charging stallion by side-stepping. This does not seem to
be different than your own suggestion Jackie, except in scale.
I am not condoning any particular approach because I was not there and
do not have the experience to comment on the actions. However, you seem to
be contradicting yourself. Putting a horse in a position to cause itself
pain does not seem to coincide with your contention that you should never
use physical force/violence in horse training, it is just sneakier. How do
these two things make sense to you?
Samantha
Jane H. Kilberg
BlueIris <blue...@totalnetnh.net> posted Thu, 12 Nov 1998 15:58:58 -0500
in message <364B4C12...@totalnetnh.net>
> First
>warning label: there is no *one way* to handle the rogue. I
>can't emphasize that enough.
Glad you recognize that fact. . . that is except when you disagree with a
particular viable technique because it doesnÄ…t suit your thinking.
>The principles I use in handling *any* horse are simple. We
>all agree that the horse is a herd animal, a grazing animal,
>and they are prey animals.
And so it follows you subscribe to the nature of the horse and being a
prey type herd animal has herd dynamics.
>A horse charging, threatening to bite or kick a human often
>appears to be angry, or enraged.
True but not in every case. Even you say there are exceptions to the rule.
It all depends on the situation at hand. An alpha mare disciplining a
malcontent doesnÄ…t display anger. A horse refusing to lead will do evasive
techniques including biting or kicking, yet they are not enraged. A horse
can be uncomfortable or surprised and kick out at a human, too, not
necessarily displaying enraged anger.
>The horse's appearance and
>demeanor certainly give rise to that "read," as their
>countenance and expression is similar to the angry human
>threatening to hit.
Well, I guess some humans when angry at someone will bite and kick them.
>We have all seen the countenance and
>expression of a horse facing the strange, and we recognize
>fear in that.
Is anger in humans always an expression of fear, so hence you assume
horses are always fearful if Å‚angryË› like a human gets angry? Remember,
anger isnÄ…t an instinct, it is not even an emotion but rather a construct
even though humans generally refer to anger as an emotion. Anger requires
a higher thinking power and analytical reasoning ability to evoke that
anger. Of course, you know horses do not have analytical thinking
abilities.
>I think that nature has actually provided two
>different emotions or urges in the horse which satisfy the
>survival instinct, one being fear, which triggers the horse
>to flight, and another, which perhaps does not replace, but
>overlays the fear, when the horse must defend.
You must be speaking about self-preservation which is an instinct and does
not necessarily show itself with fear. Neither is the survival instinct
always connected to fear. Otherwise the horse would always be in a
constant state of fear and that isnÄ…t true.
>I also believe that in many of the animals mankind has
>domesticated, there is an innate but latent capacity to
>learn behaviours that are not normal in the wild or feral
>state
The horse cannot learn any behavior that is not within its capabilities. I
think what you really mean is that humans can teach a horse to control its
own behaviors. This is true. If you donÄ…t think so, what particular
behavior is indicative to a horse you have raised but not evident in a
feral horse?
> we play on
>that learning capacity in teaching the horse new behaviours.
Horses learn by association and consistent repetition. As to Å‚newË›
behaviors, my question still stands. You can only teach the horse to
control its own behaviors within its capability, you cannot teach the
horse Å‚newË› behaviors.
> Why then, should they adopt us?
>And not only adopt us, but "view us as the alpha mare?" I
>don't believe they do. They adapt to us, they learn, they
>obey, but just beneath the surface are their instincts, and
>if we do something they *perceive* as a threat, their fear
>and their defensive mechanisms will come into play.
You can only help the horse control its defensive mechanisms because it
pays attention to you. And a horse will only pay attention to you if you
are worthy. To a horse a worthy anything is the alpha/dominant. You
certainly donÄ…t see an alpha take Å‚ordersË› from an omega horse unless that
alpha agrees in kind, but it is the alpha who directs the omega not the
other way around.
>When I deal with a horse such as the charging, striking
>stallion, I first try to avoid *anything* that may increase
>the fear to the point of defense.
So, if your mere presence increases that fear to the point of defense,
what do you do? Leave?
>I'll spend hours, because
>I care enough, observing the horse's behaviour.
I should hope you do as it can give you a clue as to your approach. This
is true for anything, not just the rogue.
> I want to
>alleviate the horse's fear and gain the beginnings of trust.
A horse will only trust one it accepts as its leader.
>I saw that he was eager when there was food in the offing,
>grain or hay, and would allow you to put it in his stall. As
>soon as the food was down, he threatened, and you got out
>fast, because he would follow up.
This is only a horse who has no manners, who is simply spoiled and use to
having its way. He didnÄ…t respect human space as he didnÄ…t consider that
person worthy. This type behavior is very common among horses whose owners
allow the horse to get pushy. I definitely wouldnÄ…t call this a rogue
horse at all, just one that needs to learn some basic manners. This type
of horse isnÄ…t fearful at all.
>So I got through the chink
>by not putting his food down, but by causing him to eat
>while the bucket was in my hands. It was a bit tricky on the
>first try, as he wanted his grain, and was confused when I
>didn't put it in the feeder. He would not come close enough
>to eat, and I did not approach him with my body, I simply
>held out the bucket so he could see and smell the feed, and
>talked to him quietly. He started to become defensive, his
>ears went back. So I walked out of the stall, taking the
>feed with me.
You use the food reward method which then you still have to translate into
him standing aside while you put the food in his feeder.
>Warning: THIS WILL NOT NECESSARILY WORK WITH EVERY HORSE! It
ThatÄ…s for sure.
>is risky to do this, and requires quick judgment of what the
>horse will do next, and quick reflexes to avoid injury to
>yourself!
Sure enough is. You put yourself at risk for a kick. I assume you left the
stall door open for an escape. Although this is a technique that worked
for you and yes, some folks do utilize the food reward training system,
the bigger issue here is respect for your space instead of pushing you
away to get at his food.
If your story is not of space/pushiness problem, but rather a very
frightened horse, one can simply work a horse directing it in the round
pen or corral, allowing time for the horse to adjust accordingly as it
accepts you as its leader. Once a horse does that, there is no fear of the
human. Treat the horse in kind. Bribery works to some degree but also
demands transference. This makes for extra steps. I prefer direct methods,
honest and to the point, short and simple instead of a round about way.
>You can overcome the horse's fear by beating it, and wearing
>it down.
Actually you cannot. Constantly beating a horse will only increase fear
and evasive behaviors. You can wear a horse down but the horse still
doesnÄ…t look at the person as worthy.
>If I could not find the "chink" to get through to the horse,
>I would resort to help from the vet, and tranquilize the
>animal in whatever way we could, and give him a good
>experience while calmed, with human touch and voice.
A horse under a tranquilizer will not be totally aware of that Å‚good
experience.Ë› The nature of a tranq is to dull the senses sufficiently
enough to handle the horse. However, your example is not of a rogue, just
a horse who needed some good treatment, to view you as worthy enough to
accept that good treatment from you.
TrinityApp
You regressed again, stand up and get your knuckles off the floor. MR is
not my hero, JL is and I love his horse too. The kind people at the vet labs
have made all kinds off substance for subduing horses, use them. Knock the
bastard out, put him in a stock and as he wakes up go touchy feely all over
his non moving ass. I handled a out of this world nut case Arab stallion
like this.( this horse was so bad he would chase his owners from the pen and
bite himself in rage) Gave him ace in his feed and then got him to the
stock, as he came around I'd touch him all over, hose him down and rub him
dry. Took about 4 times and he decided that me being in his space was ok and
pleasant and we went from there. Never put a mark on him and only cost me
about 10 dollars in ace. I never broke a sweat and was never in any danger.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
AlaTmPnr wrote in message <19981113003333...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
> <<While i can concede that desperate times call for desperate measures.
>Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery it's
>stupidity. And adding abuse to an already abused animal isn't fixing the
>problem. A SMART trainer would have left the stall after the first charge
>and reassessed the situation from a safe stand point. You haven't proved a
>damn thing to the horse except that you're tough while carrying a stick,
and
>he's going to wait for when you don't have one.>>
>
>Hmmmmm yes .......... I agree with the reassessing idea. IMHO a horse that
>charges like that is in pain. But the problem is....... you have to get
the
>horse to let you fix the problem. And that aint going to happen while the
>horse is resistant to new ideas. It is already proven that walking into
the
>stall is dangerous to your health. MR(your hero)found ou, when he was in
New
>Jersey, that retreat is the better part of valor when a horse, he was
working,
>charged him and damn near counted coup on him. His solution was to get
>additional help and force the horse. I didnt see the training value of
this
>and my friend didnt either but.........
>
>I prefer the lets wear them down with kindness but if the owner isnt
willing to
>spend money and you want to save the horse then desparate times call for
>desparate measures. The kindness approach is like using food to get a
horse to
>load in a trailer, it only works sometimes. You want the horse to load
all
>the time and with little discussion of the matter. To tell you the truth I
>never know how Im going to handle a horse until I see him/her and can make
a
>spot assessment. I have never put one in a can but I have been sorely
tempted
>hehehe.
>
>Bill
TrinityApp
I repeat yet again, the horse should have been gelded before he ever
left the client's place, that would have been half the battle right there.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
Susan Dangar wrote in message <72h409$p49$1...@supernews.com>...
>
>TrinityApp wrote in message <72g6ct$c...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>>Mariah,
>>
>> While i can concede that desperate times call for desperate measures.
>>Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery it's
>>stupidity.
>
>Where on Earth did you get the idea the horse was in a stall? This is
>exactly the problem with taking snippets out of a discussion that went on
>for months. The horse Jane was dealing with was in a large pen it had the
>option of getting away from Jane. It was not on a rope. The horse chose
to
>attack.
>
>It is a sad point this horse had reached the level of aggression that he
>did, Jane would be the first to agree that his problems were caused by a
>human, but she was not that human. But that does not alter the fact, that
>this was a cure or kill situation. The horse had to learn that stomping
>people was not an acceptable behavior.
>
>I agree that normally horses are not agressive critters, but the fact
>remains that there are the rare few that are. Roberta listed several causes
>in another post. I've seen 3 in my life that fit into the category of the
>horse that Jane was dealing with. Frankly, none of them were within my
>skill level to deal with.
>
>If anyone had bothered to read all of the thread they'd also know that the
>horse Jane worked with overcame his problems and is doing quite nicely now,
>so evidently something she did worked. Is this not better than having been
>the main course in a French restaurant?
>
>For those that find this inconsistant with telling folks not to slap their
>horses, well, kiddies, ineffectual slapping and not letting a horse know
>that you are a responsible, consistent, effective leader is one of the ways
>that horses start down the path to this sort of behavior in the first
place.
>
>Whether one agrees with Jane's fix or not, those that can't or won't learn
>to heed Horse 101 are generally the folks that end up bringing a "bad"
horse
>to some trainer to fix.
>
>Susan Dangar
>
>
>
TrinityApp
The horse should have been gelded first and repeatedly striking a horse
hard in the cannons can cause serious damage to the bone sheath, it was not
a wise maneuver.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
wkambic wrote in message <364C48DA...@vic.com>...
>blue...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> I'm replying from Deja, because Bill Kambic's posts to not come through
on my
>> regular server. Never figured out why. I would appreciate it Bill, if
when
>> replying to one of my posts you'd copy me by e-mail.
>
>Can do.
>
>> Bill, I suppose when you've gotta save a life, or two in your case, you
would
>> do what you have to do under the emergency conditions. That, however, is
not
>> a training situation. I do not agree that such items as Jane itemized or
the
>> items you used in an emergency, are "tools" that anyone should be using
for
>> "training."
>
>Not even close and certainly no cigar. Fighter pilots have an old saying:
You
>fight like you train. I met a guy once who was an F-4 Phantom Phlyer. In
the
>F-4 you had to turn on the Master Arm switch to get the gun sight to work.
In
>training, you turned on the Master Arm, maneuvered until you got a firing
>solution, turned of the Master Arm, pulled the trigger, and said "bang,
you're
>dead!" over the radio. Over North Vietnam he jumped a Mig (Master Arm on),
got
>his firing solution, turned off the the Master Arm, pulled the trigger, and
said
>"bank, you're dead" over the radio; and then realized his Radar Intercept
Officer
>was screaming "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" He then turned
on the
>Master Arm and smoked the Mig.
>
>You fight like you train. You train in quiet circumstances such that you
get
>correct responses in times of stress. This is true for horses and humans.
>Emergency training is best conducted when there is no emergency.
>
>> > > Another post, on how Jane retrained the horse: "I carried my
>> > > whip. As soon as he saw me, he instantly charged. I
>> > > side-stepped him and wacked (sic) him very hard one time
>> > > accross his cannon bones. He whirled and charged again. Same
>> > > response from me. He must have done this a dozen times. Each
>> > > time, he got my whip hard accross his cannons. Each time I
>> > > spoke to him with my body language, giving him a chance to
>> > > stand still. He charged, I whipped. An hour or so later, he
>> > > stopped and stared at me. I said good boy and left."
>> > >
>> > > Where the heck was Sheila when this hour long beating was
>> > > going on? This sounds to me more like someone throwing a
>> > > temper tantrum over the horse's behavior than training,
>> > > IMHO.
>> >
>> > What is the problem, here? When faced with an aggressive,
>> > dangerous, 1000 pound beast it seems that you have two choices:
>> > end the behavior or can him.
>>
>> There are other ways to end the behavior. This was not an emergency, Jane
was
>> in with the horse and whip voluntarily. IMHO, if she couldn't find a way
>> other than beating the animal, she should have put him in another's
hands.
>
>Beg to differ. When you look at a stallion coming at you and all you can
see is
>fur, teeth, and eyeballs you have an EMERGENCY! And a training
opportunity. She
>used appropriate tools in the circumstances.
>
>By the way, what would be the difference betwee Jane and the farmer from
>Nolensville, other than the fact that Jane is alive and he is not?
>
>> That doesn't explain how the horse got that way, Bill. It's usually
caused by
>> humans. Horses are not killers, they don't choose to attack and kill
people
>> out of the blue.
>
>Sorry, this is not the Kobiashi Maru. You cannot change the terms of
question
>(or of the reality)This stud WAS choosing to kill. His reasons or
motivation
>became irrelevant when he commenced his attack run. Whether or not humans
or the
>tooth fairy made him that way, or whether he was mentally defective, or
some
>other reason we cannot fathom is supremely unimportant when you are trying
to
>avoid being stomped.
>
>> You can speak of anything you like. Unfortunately, as I said above, I
don't
>> usually get to see your posts unless I go looking for them. And yes, I
>> thought of Sheila and "The horse that kills you has warned you first."
>> However, from her posts it does not appear that she advocates beating
horses.
>> I just hope that you don't either.
>
>I do not advocate senseless violence. But I follow the philosophy that
'One Good
>Correction is Worth 10,000 "BAD DOGs"' If you can get that One Good
Correction
>by non-contact means, then good on you. But there will be ordinary and
routine
>times when such will not be the case. IF you surrender your right to make
the
>correction you require then you set yourself or someone else for injury.
Or
>death.
>
>Bill Kambic
>
Jane H. Kilberg
<spell...@texoma.net> wrote:
(snipped)
> I repeat yet again, the horse should have been gelded before he ever
>left the client's place, that would have been half the battle right there.
ROFL...it definitely wasn't a hormonal problem and wouldn't have made any
difference. Besides that, the family wouldn't have been able to give the
horse followup care.
Mariah Walker
> OK Mary, you are basically asking me to back up my words,
> and that is good. However, I have to post with warning
> labels all over the place. We both know that describing a
> way of handling a rogue horse is dangerous, because the
> inexperienced may think they can use the method. First
> warning label: there is no *one way* to handle the rogue. I
> can't emphasize that enough. Any people reading this post
> who do not have vast experience with horses SHOULD NOT EVER
> try to deal with a rogue.
Jane said the very same thing about the way she handled her stallion.
> They *do not* attack other
> species except in defense of themselves or their young.
Of course. But then I don't recall anyone saying they did. A rogue stallion
that attacks a human is doing so only to defend himself from what his
history has told him will happen if he doesn't.
> survival instinct, one being fear, which triggers the horse
> to flight, and another, which perhaps does not replace, but
> overlays the fear, when the horse must defend. That emotion
> could be actually similar to what we know as anger, in the
> sense of the anger we feel if we are attacked.
It's no mystery, it's called the "fight or flight" reflex. The "fight" part
of that is not some strange emotion that you try to compare to anger, it is
the release of many neurotransmitters and hormones, such as adrenaline for
one, which cause the body physically and mentally to prepare for battle.
Most animals have this reflex, the extent to which "fight" replaces
"flight" may vary with species. I do agree with you though that the "fight"
response in many way models human anger and our anger my very well be a
more complex evolvement of the basic fight response.
> I also believe that in many of the animals mankind has
> domesticated, there is an innate but latent capacity to
> learn behaviours that are not normal in the wild or feral
> state, perhaps because the animal is not exposed in its own
> environment to things that go beyond simply its instincts.
> It may be that latent learning capacity that has insured the
> survival of various species through changes in the earth
> itself, as well as changes due to natural disaster, and the
> evolution of other animals, particularly predators.
You are right on the money here Roberta. Any animal that cannot "learn" ie.
adapt it's responses to changing environmental influences, will never
survive. I disagree with you that in the wild or feral state they don't
have an opportunity to learn. Your last sentence is not "may be", it is
true.
And on that subject, horses are amazing learners. In animal behaviour one
way to measure learning capacity is the ability to associate cues with
responses. Kind of like the Pavlov's dog thing. Some animals take longer
than others to make the connection. Relatively, horses are fantastic
learners. This can actually be a problem say, when you are training in
dressage, because you may be giving a subtle clue that you are not even
aware of that teaches the horse to respond in a certain way to that cue and
then you wonder why the horse keeps "volunteering" this unwanted response!
I guess what I'm trying to say is, yes, horses learn, that is how we train
them to do things, and they are very good at it.
> My own belief is that it is that latent learning capacity
> that has enabled horses to adapt to living in the
> environment the human creates for it, and that we play on
> that learning capacity in teaching the horse new behaviours.
Exactly.
Mariah
--
remove "eat_this!" to reply...
needless to say the spam mafia saw through
my pathetic asterisks
Jane H. Kilberg
<spell...@texoma.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
> The horse should have been gelded first
In this situation it wouldn't have made a difference and besides that the
family would not have been able to give followup care.
>and repeatedly striking a horse
>hard in the cannons can cause serious damage to the bone sheath, it was not
>a wise maneuver.
Well, if I had used a pig poker, I probably could have broken the leg if I
wanted to. Instead I used a flexible whip with just enough pressure to
produce a sting. Besides, I did not repeatedly strike the stallion. He
received one strike for each charge. It was his choice to charge or not. I
just made sure it was unpleasant enough for him to decide not to charge.
In the use of any tool, one must be skilled in its use which means one
needs to be able to control it in accordance with the situation and the
individual horse. A tool is only an extension of the human body, not a
substitute for it. I can take a whip and take an eye out of a horse or
break skin or use it to cause a non-damaging sting or use it to augment my
leg pressure when riding or use it to tickle a horse or scratch it or
desensitize it to touch or guide direction. There are many ways to use a
whip. It's a nice tool to have around. The whip isn't to be feared.
AlaTmPnr
pleasant and we went from there. Never put a mark on him and only cost me
about 10 dollars in ace. I never broke a sweat and was never in any danger.>>
Funny I have a friend that is and has used Ace and other drugs as a substitute
for training and somehow his horses never pick up the training administered
under the influence of drugs.
If you will reread my post I did state this was one of my first training jobs
and my knuckles did drag the ground a bit. But I have since come out of the
trees ....... but I dont use drugs for training....... regardless of the
horse's state.
Bill
Mariah Walker
> Horses are social animals, but in the wild, they live in
> company of other *horses,* and do not customarily adopt
> other species into the herd. Why then, should they adopt us?
> And not only adopt us, but "view us as the alpha mare?" I
> don't believe they do. They adapt to us, they learn, they
> obey, but just beneath the surface are their instincts, and
> if we do something they *perceive* as a threat, their fear
> and their defensive mechanisms will come into play.
Not if you're alpha.
Okay, here you've hit on the real difference and the real point we're
trying to make here. Horses can be taught easily that action "x" means
response "y" is desired. Anybody can teach a horse to do tricks like that.
BUT, this is not training the horse down to it's instinctual level. What do
I mean by that? Here's an example of why a horse must view you as herd
leader in your training.
You want to train your horse to cross streams. You beat the crap out of it
every time it gets to a stream and force it through. Well, 99% of the time
the horse will probably cross that stream out of sheer fear of what will
happen if it doesn't. You have succeeded in teaching the horse, by
association, to cross that stream. The horse has adapted to your presence
and established a pattern of response.
But it doesn't do so out of viewing you as a herd leader and trusting you
that crossing the stream is safe. It only obeys you out of fear of being
beaten. This fatal flaw will reveal itself in the following: you and your
poor horse are out hacking in a large field and approaching a stream. Out
of the bushes comes a big huge nasty mountain lion. You are terrified and
know that you must cross the stream and get out of this field you're in,
safety lies just beyond the stream because you know there's a gate there.
But now you see, your horse's instincts have taken over. He sees the cougar
too and his gut instinct tells him to turn tail and run like hell in the
other direction. He no longers cares that you will beat him for not
crossing the stream. Your influence has gone out the window because you
were never a herd leader to him and ONLY THAT can outweigh his deep
instinct to flee. Horses will follow their leader in dire life-threatening
situations but everything else falls second to the instinct to survive. You
are not a leader and no threat of you beating him will outweigh his
instinct to get away from the bear. He won't cross that stream.
Now do you understand the importance of being a leader to your horse? His
instinct to follow you MUST be stronger than any other instinct. It is
simply a matter of weighing the issues. Anybody can teach a horse to adapt
to their presence and do stuff but if that isn't because you have tapped
into that wonderful nature-given ability of the horse to attach itself mind
and soul to a leader such that NO OTHER INSTINCT will outweight it, then
you have a horse you can trust, who trusts you. Ask any policemen why their
mounts will willingly run headlong into pandemonium - they weren't "taught"
to do so by any other means than trusting that human as if that human were
it's herd leader.
Have you ever seen someone leading their horse down the road and the horse
is being all good and obedient and keeping it's distance etc. then
something spooks it and the horse shies right into the handler, knocking
her over, as if she weren't even there? She is NOT a leader to this horse.
This horse has learnt her tricks (and I'm not implying that any force is
necessary for it to do so; she might be a very kind person) but when push
comes to shove and the horse is frightened it doesn't care about what it's
learned it pushes her over. A horse, in the wild or in a herd in captivity,
will *never* invade the lead horse's space. NO MATTER WHAT. That instinct
is so deeply carved into it's brain. As a trainer you want to reach that
level with your horse so that you can lead it around and it will follow and
it won't ignore eveything you've taught it when the boogie man jumps out on
the path and it will trust you when you lead it somewhere new. That is why
we strive to establish ourselves as leaders to our horses. And it need
never involve physical contact. It all depends.
<snip story of how to handle rogue stallion>
> Sure that this post will start a whole new argument,
Actually I really enjoyed that post. I think you handled the situation
wonderfully. Your method worked for you and Jane's method worked for her. I
should say that I am nowhere near being able to handle such a situation for
myself so I cannot say what technique I would employ. And as you yourself
said, each situation is different and you deal with it as an expert in your
own way. By your own admission this method you used on this horse might not
have worked on Jane's horse. And as I generally agree with her posts on
horsemanship I would say that she had the expertise to know that and so
chose a different approach.
TrinityApp
Probably not, the horse would only zap himself once and not associate it
with the person. Teaching a horse that you're in charge while you have a
whip in your hand is like negotiating with terrorists while you hold an
AK47, once you don't have it you're back to square one.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
Mary Healey wrote in message <364C6861...@iastate.edu>...
Jane H. Kilberg
<sama...@dontspam.home.com> wrote:
(snipped parts)
> The way I understood Jane's actions in this particular situation (rogue
>stallion) is similar to your suggestion about the nipper. Jane, please
>correct me if I've misinterpreted your post. I didn't picture Jane
>'beating' the stallion.
No, I never beat that stallion or any horse.
> It seemed to me that Jane, never in anger at the
>horse, put the horse in a situation where it would perceive charging as
>uncomfortable-stinging cannons- and not charging as pleasant.
That's correct. I definitely wasn't angry at all. It was a fascinating
challenge for me and that stallion did teach me quite a lot.
>She removed
>herself from the charging stallion by side-stepping.
Yes, at the last possible second which took lots of dexterity and timing
on my part as well as intense focus on the horse. I had all sorts of
scenerios playing in my head which also including the drop and roll. What
I did each time depended on how that stallion reacted and my knowledge of
horse movement ability along with the observations of this particular
horse's abilities to dodge, turn and maneuver.
>This does not seem to
>be different than your own suggestion Jackie, except in scale.
> I am not condoning any particular approach because I was not there and
>do not have the experience to comment on the actions. However, you seem to
>be contradicting yourself. Putting a horse in a position to cause itself
>pain does not seem to coincide with your contention that you should never
>use physical force/violence in horse training, it is just sneakier. How do
>these two things make sense to you?
As for myself, I do not like sneak attack techniques simply because horses
don't sneak attack. They are honest and open in all their behaviors. I
prefer to treat a horse in kind rather than play sneak attack.
AlaTmPnr
<< The horse should have been gelded first and repeatedly striking a horse
hard in the cannons can cause serious damage to the bone sheath, it was not a
wise maneuver.>>
Hehehe and Im sure that worried Jane to no end when that poor little horsey was
trying to push her out of the arena with his teeth and hooves.
The click clack of teeth snapping is not my favorite sound. Especially coming
from a horse Im trying to train.
Bill
Mariah Walker
> Probably not, the horse would only zap himself once and not associate
it
> with the person. Teaching a horse that you're in charge while you have a
> whip in your hand is like negotiating with terrorists while you hold an
> AK47, once you don't have it you're back to square one.
Tracy, good point. It does require great skill to be able to use a whip to
discipline without getting that animal to fear the whip (and might I add
that IMO the *only* excuse for discipline is kicking and biting in a
threat-to-injure type of way). It must be as an extension of your body,
seen by the horse as a gesture from you, not an item to be feared. That is
why I like the "surprise" methods. For example, a horse who bites might
convince himself it's not a good idea if it "runs into" an object you are
casually holding in your hand and perceives no threatening body language
from you. (and i don't mean a pin!). Your point is well received - they
must respect you, not what you hold in your hand
Mariah.
Jane H. Kilberg
<spell...@texoma.net> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>I handled a out of this world nut case Arab stallion
>like this.( this horse was so bad he would chase his owners from the pen and
>bite himself in rage) Gave him ace in his feed and then got him to the
>stock, as he came around I'd touch him all over, hose him down and rub him
>dry. Took about 4 times and he decided that me being in his space was ok and
>pleasant and we went from there. Never put a mark on him and only cost me
>about 10 dollars in ace. I never broke a sweat and was never in any danger.
I don't like using shortcuts like a tranq. Putting a horse in a stock such
as you did forces the horse to submit as he doesn't submit freely. I have
seen horses injured in stocks. However, I do know people who use
tranquilizers to get the horse over the intial hump. Sometimes it works,
sometimes not. To work a horse with a space problem issue, I prefer using
a corral or nice size paddock. Some people like round pens for that
purpose.
Mary Healey
> BlueIris <blue...@totalnetnh.net> wrote
> > OK Mary, you are basically asking me to back up my words,
I hate my newsreader. It's inanimate, it doesn't care, and hating it
lets me vent frustrations without damaging anything other than my
dignity. I *still* haven't seen the actual reply ...
> > ...We both know that describing a
> > way of handling a rogue horse is dangerous, because the
> > inexperienced may think they can use the method.
Inexperienced and stupid are two entirely separate, uncorrelated
entities. A sensible, inexperienced person (such as myself) wouldn't be
mucking around with rogues. A stupid, inexperienced person won't pay
any attention to warnings - since they figure that those conditions and
warnings don't apply to them. The other categories (sensible x
experienced, stupid x experienced) will most likely evidence other
reactions. I limit my guesses to the inexperienced (both sensible and
stupid) because I've been both sensible AND ignorant (a state that
mimics stupid until altered by experience) often enough to recognize the
difference, but cannot compare experienced and inexperienced because
I've only got mileage out of one of 'em. Onward...
> > survival instinct, one being fear, which triggers the horse
> > to flight, and another, which perhaps does not replace, but
> > overlays the fear, when the horse must defend. That emotion
> > could be actually similar to what we know as anger, in the
> > sense of the anger we feel if we are attacked.
>
> It's no mystery, it's called the "fight or flight" reflex....
> Most animals have this reflex, the extent to which "fight" replaces
> "flight" may vary with species.
And apparently with the experiences of an individual. Jane's example is
of an animal that chose "fight" when "flight" was still a viable option,
and one that a member of its species would normally choose under those
conditions. It's the availability of "flight" that makes Jane's
response to "fight" work.
> I do agree with you though that the "fight"
> response in many way models human anger and our anger my very well be a
> more complex evolvement of the basic fight response.
People, too, often forget that flight is an option.
> > I also believe that in many of the animals mankind has
> > domesticated, there is an innate but latent capacity to
> > learn behaviours that are not normal in the wild or feral
> > state, perhaps because the animal is not exposed in its own
> > environment to things that go beyond simply its instincts.
Which goes in large measure toward explaining your question about why an
open plains animal like a horse can feel safety in an enclosure like a
stall...
Mary Healey
> The horse should have been gelded first ...
<snip>
And if the horse had been a mare?
M.
Jackie
<sama...@dontspam.home.com> wrote:
> The way I understood Jane's actions in this particular situation (rogue
>stallion) is similar to your suggestion about the nipper.
Not really. Her suggestion for the nipper was to whack it hard with
whatever tool came to hand as well. This is overkill, and ineffective
and damaging in many cases.
> It seemed to me that Jane, never in anger at the
>horse, put the horse in a situation where it would perceive charging as
>uncomfortable-stinging cannons- and not charging as pleasant. She removed
>herself from the charging stallion by side-stepping. This does not seem to
>be different than your own suggestion Jackie, except in scale.
It was very different, although the difference in scale alone is
enough! Jane's own defnition of abuse is 'using more pressure than
necessary', and letting a calm horse bump into something blocking you
from a nip is hardly in the same league as whacking a fearful horse
across the cannons as hard as you can with a whip when you have
already stepped out of the way!!
Jane had also made no attempt to rectify what she knew was the root of
the horses problem - fear. I am sure you will find elsewhere that she
will specifically deny ever hitting a horse acting in fear, and she
made no attempt to allay this, or to reassure the horse in any way.
Quite the opposite.
And the side-stepping was a deception to the horse. She yielded her
feet, communicated submission, and struck out with the whip just the
same - setting the horse up for at least 12 repeat performances on day
one, 6 or 7 on day two. She set him up to fail, and then whipped him
for doing so. This is not good horsemanship.
She also did so with an attitude that the horse was 'wrong'. Having at
first admitted that it had "such a fear and mistrust of humans" it
could do nothing but immediately attack, she then went on re-classify
the horse as "spoiled and disrespectful" when I challenged her action:
> Sometimes, ya gotta "punish" or "correct" when the situation calls for
> it...............
> Sometimes you don't have that luxery on a spoiled horse that has no respect
> and is dangerous. The ideal is what you post, but the ideal isn't always
> there....................
And then that submission must be attained before any allaying of fear:
> Before you can work it out, you must establish yourself with that horse.
> Once the horse realizes that behavior isn't acceptable, then and only then
> can you begin to work with him.
And when i suggested that the root cause be addressed:
> Sorry, but attempting to figure out why as the horse is charging ain't
> gonna do nothin' but get me killed.
But in fact she knew - she had stated he was fearful, and she chose to
go in and whip. This is the alternative scenario I suggested at the
time - if you cannot see the difference in attitude and approach, I
cannot really help more.
"Start at the beginning - why is the horse doing it? Work that out and
change it - but if you work it out from normal perspective it will
lead you no-where - if the horse is the one in the wrong he needs,
ever more correction, ever more punishment...
Buck might say that if you have been foolish enough to put yourself in
the situation where the horse is charging at you, then stay alive. But
don't blame him. Go back to the beginning before you set him up to
fail again. Don't put him in the position where charging you is the
easiest option he can see. For if he is trying to do what is "right",
then from where he was standing that WAS his best option. WE must
change it.
What would I do if I couldn't get a rope halter on? Assume that the
horse wanted to let me, but was afraid. First, for a time, I have to
STOP doing anything that frightens him. So I would have to convince
him I was no danger - that might take a while, might take some advance
and retreat. It might take no more than a few soothing words and a
scratch along his neck. It might take standing in the box for an hour
and just letting him choose to come to you instead of going to get
him. It will also take an attitude change - they can read us well
enough to know if we have aggressive intentions or not, and that may
be the hardest part to change.
So now I have him, and he wants to bite me. Why? Because he is afraid
of what I might do? Show him I will do him no harm by doing some nice
things, easy things I can praise and reward him for. Because someone
has let him believe he is alpha? Show him he is not in horse language
by beginning to move his feet, get him to yield to me. One step back?
Good! One step sideway? Good! Three steps forward? Good! Now he's
beginning to see that he is in no danger, and I am actually the boss,
so he wants to bite me less; but he still has a habit? By now a few
bumps on the chin on the way are enough to persuade him that he'd
really rather not do that any more; 'cos he didn't really need to
defend himself anymore, 'cos the human wasn't after him anymore, or
trying to force him to do anything.
The beginnings of trust start to form, and the more he trusts you, the
more you can ask without threatening him. It snowballs. And because
the horse is a creature who actually wants to do as he is asked (even
if only because he is a natural follower) he becomes more and more
willing."
The biggest battles for 'dominance' occur with fearful horses - they
are avoidable.
Jackie
Jackie
>I note that Jackie is uncharacteristically silent on my descriptions of
>the killer mare and killer stallion. What would she have done?
Sorry, I deleted that post - I cannot remember the scenario. As I
reacll it was all way to late by then, not a case of training, like
Jane's, but of surviving.
But I stated that many times, the first over a year ago - if you screw
up, if there is no way out, you do what you have to to survive.
But you don't set horses up to fail, whip them for doing so, and then
call it good horsemanship.
Jackie
Jackie
>I still find it amazing that people who claim to have worked with "damaged"
>horses are very quick to point up your deficiencies but have nothing to offer
>as an alternative solution.
If you are talking about me, I offered many. Go read Dejanews. In all
cases I started with allaying fear - the root cause.
Jackie
Samantha
Samantha
Mariah Walker wrote in message
<01be0f3f$18222600$884e...@RSD-Notran1.UBCpharm>...
Mariah Walker
> letting a calm horse bump into something blocking you
> from a nip is hardly in the same league as whacking a fearful horse...
Time for me to stand up fer ya Jackie! ;-)
For what it's worth, as much as Jackie was slagged, maligned, and insulted
for her suggestion about the clip and biting, she is not the first person
who has made this suggestion. I have heard this suggestion myself from a
couple of trainers whose techniques I greatly admire and one of whom, in
particular, is rather known and respected by most on this NG. It is, of
course, a method to be used when all other possible causes of biting have
been addressed and it's simply an issue of the horse trying to be
aggressive because he hasn't been taught manners.
John T. Klausner
SueK
In <jkilberg-131...@ts2p35.mcia.com> jkil...@mcia.com (Jane
H. Kilberg) writes:
>
>In article <364C4B3D...@vic.com>, wkambic <wka...@vic.com>
wrote:
>
>(snipped parts)
>
>>I note that Jackie is uncharacteristically silent on my descriptions
of
>>the killer mare and killer stallion. What would she have done?
>
>ROFL...oh dang it Bill. You +know+ what she would do.....wave her flag
at
>the horse!
TrinityApp
Just how do you know that his disposition and territoriality weren't
partly based on his hormones? Did you ask him? Many stallions cease being so
concerned about who's in their space after being gelded. I've seen it many
many times in dealing with the vet. You could have saved yourself a lot of
work and him some sore cannons. If the clients couldn't care for him then
there was nothing to stop you from having him gelded at your place and
attending him, it almost sounds like you had to prove you could dominate a
stallion and not just a little ol gelded beast.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
Jane H. Kilberg wrote in message ...
>In article <72htkc$i...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "TrinityApp"
><spell...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
>(snipped)
>
>> I repeat yet again, the horse should have been gelded before he ever
>>left the client's place, that would have been half the battle right there.
>
>ROFL...it definitely wasn't a hormonal problem and wouldn't have made any
>difference. Besides that, the family wouldn't have been able to give the
>horse followup care.
WB Dare Me
>>Jane could have stepped out of the round pen.<<
Thus reinforcing the stallion's belief that he is dominant, and he would've
been correct.
Monika
Monika Delle, Seattle, WA, USA
**** Step Up To A Saddlebred! ****
Dare - W.B. Dare Me, western wonderhorse (beginning dressage)
Julie - Doubletree's Juliana, awesome hunt seat horse
and the Kitty Krew: Bean, Dora, Frango, Posie, Taz and Tickle
BlueIris
>
> In article <364C4D15...@totalnetnh.net>, blue...@totalnetnh.net wrote:
>
> >AlaTmPnr wrote:
> >>
> >> <<If anyone had bothered to read all of the thread they'd also know that the
> >> horse Jane worked with overcame his problems and is doing quite nicely now,
> >> so evidently something she did worked. Is this not better than having been
> >> the main course in a French restaurant?>>
> >>
> >> experience on some people's parts that enable them to take the derogatory
> >> stance. Until you have had the experience of standing where Jane was and
> >> looking down the barrel of the gun so to speak then you dont know what
> the hell
> >> you are talking about.
> >
> >Oh, Bull**** Bill. I've been there a number of times. So,
> >I've had the experience, and I know exactly what I'm talking
> >about.
>
> So exactly what was your situation (give one) and how did you handle it?
> How did you establish your relationship with a horse you couldn't even be
> within the same fencelines? How did you get that horse to change its
> behavior?
>
> > It is all hypothetical. When your anus puckers up so
> >> that you couldnt drive a ten penny nail with a sledgehammer and you
> have to do
> >> something, anything to save your butt, then we can talk ...... but
> until then
> >> I really doubt that you have a solution other than hypothetical rhetoric.
> >> Jane's solution was not one that I would have chosen but she may not
> have had a
> >> choice.
> >
> >Of course she had a *choice.*
>
> Yup, I did have a choice. I could have refused to retrain the rogue
> stallion. I chose what worked best for me, within my skills and knowledge
> and ability to handle certain tools and my knowledge of the horse. And I
> was successful and so was the stallion. There are many methods that could
> have been used in that same situation. If my choice of technique was a
> poor one, there wouldn't have been a change in the stallion's behavior.
>
> >Go back and read the posts.
> >She went in with him knowing full well what was going to
> >happen, and what she was going to do. She went in determined
> >to be "boss hoss."
>
> Dang straight I was determined to help that stallion change its behavior.
> Isn't that what training is all about? That stallion, in order to change
> its behavior had to learn to view me as its leader, dominant, boss hoss,
> head honcho. I certainly didn't want him to be boss over me and run me
> down or push me over the fence. Would you? And any skilled horse person
> should always know full well how a horse will react. If he or she doesn't,
> then that person has no business training.
Help? Jane, you disgust me.
Roberta
>
> >With a whip. Gentle dominance.
>
> I'm sure you work with tools too. Ever use a rope? And yes, I treated the
> horse in kind and the results indicated it was as such.
>
> >Working alone limits your options in some ways...........
>
> Yes, it sure does, Bill! It makes for some keen thinking at times and lots
> of flexibility.
>
> >I
> >would have
> >> called someone like I did with that palomino colt. We used ropes and threw
> >> the horse and started from there.
>
> I thought of tripping or using a running W or even the choke down, but
> this I quickly dismissed since I can't throw a rope and I couldn't get
> close enough to set up the running W.
>
> > The point of all training is to be safe.
> >> Safe for the trainer and safe for the horse.
>
> And my safety was more important than the horse's when you boil it all down.
>
> >I've come up with many viable alternatives.
>
> There are many viable techniques and methods. Which ones a person chooses
> depends on their skills and knowledge of the horse.
>
> >I've never had
> >to beat or throw a horse to bring it around.
>
> Neither have I, though I did use the running W once - decided it was too
> risky for the horse.
BlueIris
>
> In article <364C4A7D...@totalnetnh.net>, blue...@totalnetnh.net wrote:
>
> (snipped parts)
>
> >But I have *never* resorted to such methods, and I
> >*have* had the ones that will try to kill you.
>
> What method you choose depends on your skills, knowledge of the nature of
> the horse, the individual horse and the situation. Not everyone is skilled
> in use of a whip and yes, there are other techniques one can choose.
You're getting the idea! I'm not "skilled" in the use of a
whip because *I will not* whip a horse in that manner.
Roberta
BlueIris
>
> In <364C4BB9...@iastate.edu>,
> Mary Healey <mhhe...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> :"I've dealt with that and more" is what Roberta wrote. Since she "dealt
> :with that and more", as previously (an appropriately) quoted from her
> :post, I merely asked the circumstances, techniques, and outcome.
> :
> :>& you should NEVER have to do that!
> :> Read the original post.
> :
> :I did, and *I* read what was written, and asked for more details. You
> :might try doing the same.
>
> She provided them, too. She had a horse who would charge her after she
> brought food in the stall.
Wrong dear. The horse would charge anybody, at any time,
except when food was brought, and you better be able to get
out quick once the food was down. He had previously done
severe injury to two other people. When you've handled as
many horses like that as I have, your comments will be
welcome.
Roberta
>
> The horse Jane worked with, which had been brought to her for retraining as a
> last resort before the cannery, charged anyone who as much as stepped into
> his corral, food or no.
>
> But don't expect her to see the difference. She's reacting to the whole
> "herd dynamics" thing as if it were a false religion and is viewing anything
> posted on the topic through that prejudice.
>
> --
> Nets: levin/at/bbn.com | I wanna buy a ranch. With horsies.
> or jbl/at/levin.mv.com| -- Sprint PCS commercial
> or levinjb/at/gte.net |
> ARS: KD1ON | http://home1.gte.net/levinjb/
BlueIris
>
> In article <364c4709...@news.dial.pipex.com>, JJ...@dial.pipex.com
> (Jackie) wrote:
>
> (snipped parts)
> >The origin of the thread was a question
> >about how to stop habitual nipping/biting, I quote the original
> >'Biting Horse!!!!!' question:
> >
> >"My new horse bites, he has no other vices except this. Whenever he
> >is brushed at the back of the rump , he swishes his tail , and puts
> >his ears back, I tie him up when doing this, so he cant turn around
> >and bite me. He does the same with his rugs being put on and the
> >girth being put up on the saddle. He is 16.3 hh, TB gelding 7 years
> >old. His trainer told me of this vice. I don't want to disipline him
> >the wrong way. Does anyone have any ideas?"
> >
> >Several people, Catja, Laura B replied with advice about checking for
> >pain etc. Someone said bite him back! I mentioned about letting the
> >horse decide to quit for himself by 'accidentally' meeting with an
> >uncomfortable object on the way.
>
> Except she had already done something similar to this with no effect. My
> post was in addition to first making sure it was a behavioral problem and
> not a medical one.
>
> >Jane's general training advice, posted in response to that SPECIFIC
> >scenario was the 'whack 'em hard, on the hip, shoulder or cannons with
> >the whip, rasp, rock etc; whatever was to hand, and make damn sure
> >they knew it came from you - to assert dominance' quote. Jorene
> >supported her.
>
> This was a case of a severe biting problem. Treat the horse in kind. The
> horse needed to learn that it was unacceptable behavior, but it doesn't
> mean abusing the horse. Too much or too little pressure on the horse in a
> given situation is abuse. The pressure of a bite is not something one
> wishes to sweet talk a horse out of doing, nor attempt to "sneak attack"
> which was your offering. Horses are upfront and honest, so why can't you
> be with the horse?
>
> If a horse feels free to take a chunk out of a person whenever it pleases,
> the behavior indicates how that horse views that person.
Subordinate, obviously. Thus you teach it that you are
dominant by whacking it "hard" with whatever "tool" is
handy, "rasp, rock." This is the way you treat and "honest"
animal.
Roberta
>
BlueIris
>
> BlueIris wrote:
> >... fending off the horse and
> > *getting out* of the pen would have been the answer - not to
> > stay and beat the animal for an HOUR!
>
> Beat the horse for an hour? Interesting interpretation. If I'm laying
> down, dozing, and wake up six or seven times in the course of an hour -
> I don't consider that "being awake". If I dismount several times while
> riding my horse for an hour, I don't call that "on foot". Why should
> six or seven interactions over the course of an hour be mistaken for a
> continuous and uninterupted series of such interactions?
This is silly, Mary. Does waking from a nap cause you
*pain?* There is a difference between waking up, or
dismounting from your horse, and having someone inflicting
pain on you.
Roberta
>
> M.
WB Dare Me
> The horse should have been gelded first
Jane has repeatedly said this horse's problem was not hormonal. Even if it
were, it still takes a few months for the hormones to quit raging. What to do
during that time? Can't work with him immediately because if he charged, he
could hurt himself at the injury site. So...what?
BlueIris
>
> BlueIris wrote:
>
> Something Mary Healey intends to do, if the *#()&!)($#*^ing newsreader
> ever decides to send it her way... probably sometime next week.
Oh, no, you too? Happens to me. Frustrating. I'll e-mail it
if you want.
>
> >...It
> > was quite clear that she went into that pen of her *own*
> > choice, and with the intention of applying that whip.
>
> Question - if there was electric fence between the charging horse and
> the human, would you also consider it abuse when the horse got zapped?
Considering that I have been zapped on my cow fence any
number of times, and considering that I've seen horses go
right through electric, zapped or not, no, I don't think a
zap from a fence is abuse. Have you ever been hit with a
whip? Much different sensation, IMO, especially when it's
done repeatedly. A horse can escape another zap, and they
are usually smart enough to do that. They can't escape
another whipping.
Roberta
>
> M.
Jim & Laura Behning
>Have you ever seen someone leading their horse down the road and the horse
>is being all good and obedient and keeping it's distance etc. then
>something spooks it and the horse shies right into the handler, knocking
>her over, as if she weren't even there? She is NOT a leader to this horse.
>This horse has learnt her tricks (and I'm not implying that any force is
>necessary for it to do so; she might be a very kind person) but when push
>comes to shove and the horse is frightened it doesn't care about what it's
>learned it pushes her over. A horse, in the wild or in a herd in captivity,
>will *never* invade the lead horse's space. NO MATTER WHAT. That instinct
>is so deeply carved into it's brain.
Obviously, not carved deep enough into mine ;-). They do indeed
bump/run into the herd leader on occasion; she tolerates this from a
few (one very submissive gelding in particular), but others she will
discipline, unless they all turn tail and run from whatever it was
that provoked the "spook" into her space in the first place. And
frightened foals bump into their mothers all the time and are rarely
if ever disciplined for it.
IOW, given sufficient fear, horses have been known to run into, onto,
over or through anything in their path.
Laura Behning
morgans at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~morgans/Laura.htm
Dar
Jackie wrote in message <364c4709...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>
>
>On 13 Nov 1998 02:26:52 GMT, "Mariah Walker"
><mariawa@eat_this!unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>
snip
>The origin of the thread was a question
>about how to stop habitual nipping/biting, I quote the original
>'Biting Horse!!!!!' question:
>
>"My new horse bites, he has no other vices except this. Whenever he
>is brushed at the back of the rump , he swishes his tail , and puts
>his ears back, I tie him up when doing this, so he cant turn around
>and bite me. He does the same with his rugs being put on and the
>girth being put up on the saddle. He is 16.3 hh, TB gelding 7 years
>old. His trainer told me of this vice. I don't want to disipline him
>the wrong way. Does anyone have any ideas?"
>
>Several people, Catja, Laura B replied with advice about checking for
>pain etc. Someone said bite him back! I mentioned about letting the
>horse decide to quit for himself by 'accidentally' meeting with an
>uncomfortable object on the way.
>
Snip
Jackie...did your horse stop biting? :)
Dar
>I stand by my position - I don't care if it 'worked', it was
>unecessary, and as a deliberate act it is plain wrong.
>
>Jackie
BlueIris
>
> Bill,
>
> You regressed again, stand up and get your knuckles off the floor. MR is
> not my hero, JL is and I love his horse too. The kind people at the vet labs
> have made all kinds off substance for subduing horses, use them. Knock the
> bastard out, put him in a stock and as he wakes up go touchy feely all over
> his non moving ass. I handled a out of this world nut case Arab stallion
> like this.( this horse was so bad he would chase his owners from the pen and
> bite himself in rage) Gave him ace in his feed and then got him to the
> stock, as he came around I'd touch him all over, hose him down and rub him
> dry. Took about 4 times and he decided that me being in his space was ok and
> pleasant and we went from there. Never put a mark on him and only cost me
> about 10 dollars in ace. I never broke a sweat and was never in any danger.
And the horse, I would bet, finally learned to *trust* and
*accept* humans, without it being further impressed on him
that humans equal pain.
Roberta
>
> --
> Tracy Meisenbach
> www.trinityapp.com
> Trinity Appaloosa Farm
> Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
> Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
> then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
> Lloyd Jones
> AlaTmPnr wrote in message <19981113003333...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
> > <<While i can concede that desperate times call for desperate measures.
> >Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery it's
> >stupidity. And adding abuse to an already abused animal isn't fixing the
> >problem. A SMART trainer would have left the stall after the first charge
> >and reassessed the situation from a safe stand point. You haven't proved a
> >damn thing to the horse except that you're tough while carrying a stick,
> and
> >he's going to wait for when you don't have one.>>
> >
> >Hmmmmm yes .......... I agree with the reassessing idea. IMHO a horse that
> >charges like that is in pain. But the problem is....... you have to get
> the
> >horse to let you fix the problem. And that aint going to happen while the
> >horse is resistant to new ideas. It is already proven that walking into
> the
> >stall is dangerous to your health. MR(your hero)found ou, when he was in
> New
> >Jersey, that retreat is the better part of valor when a horse, he was
> working,
> >charged him and damn near counted coup on him. His solution was to get
> >additional help and force the horse. I didnt see the training value of
> this
> >and my friend didnt either but.........
> >
> >I prefer the lets wear them down with kindness but if the owner isnt
> willing to
> >spend money and you want to save the horse then desparate times call for
> >desparate measures. The kindness approach is like using food to get a
> horse to
> >load in a trailer, it only works sometimes. You want the horse to load
> all
> >the time and with little discussion of the matter. To tell you the truth I
> >never know how Im going to handle a horse until I see him/her and can make
> a
> >spot assessment. I have never put one in a can but I have been sorely
> tempted
> >hehehe.
> >
> >Bill
BlueIris
>
> Mary
> Probably not, the horse would only zap himself once and not associate it
> with the person. Teaching a horse that you're in charge while you have a
> whip in your hand is like negotiating with terrorists while you hold an
> AK47, once you don't have it you're back to square one.
That is definitely one of the dangers of whip training. If
you don't have the whip, you may not get the response you're
expecting, and the response you do get can hurt.
Roberta
>
> --
> Tracy Meisenbach
> www.trinityapp.com
> Trinity Appaloosa Farm
> Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
> Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
> then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
> Lloyd Jones
> Mary Healey wrote in message <364C6861...@iastate.edu>...
> >BlueIris wrote:
> >>...(see my response in this thread to Mary Healey)
> >
> >Something Mary Healey intends to do, if the *#()&!)($#*^ing newsreader
> >ever decides to send it her way... probably sometime next week.
> >
> >>...It
> >> was quite clear that she went into that pen of her *own*
> >> choice, and with the intention of applying that whip.
> >
> >Question - if there was electric fence between the charging horse and
> >the human, would you also consider it abuse when the horse got zapped?
> >
> >M.
BlueIris
>
> TrinityApp wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> And if the horse had been a mare?
That's a very good point. The sex of the horse really
doesn't matter, on either side! Any human can turn any horse
into a rogue. I think it happens more often with stallions
simply because people fear them more than they do geldings
or mares, and are quicker to use abusive methods such as
whipping, or downright cruelty. My stallion's sire was not a
difficult horse to handle, but he bore an indentation in the
bone between his eyes. The trainer that did that to him,
yes, with a board, bragged about how he "taught that SOB who
was boss." Boss Hoss?
Roberta
>
> M.
BlueIris
> >the killer mare and killer stallion. What would she have done?
>
> reacll it was all way to late by then, not a case of training, like
> Jane's, but of surviving.
>
> But I stated that many times, the first over a year ago - if you screw
> up, if there is no way out, you do what you have to to survive.
That is exactly why people trying to retrain the rogue horse
*must* spend a great deal of time observing the animal
before taking any action whatsoever. If you put yourself in
a position where you must "beat off" the horse, then you are
losing the battle to bring him back before you even start.
The object is to alleviate the fear, and give the horse a
chance to trust, at first, the human working with him. You
lose a great deal if you *must* act against the horse to
save yourself.
Roberta
TrinityApp
You don't train them while drugged, how silly. I said you drug them to
get them in the stock, after they wake up you work with them. And it stuck
on this horse and several of the nasty argentine TB i worked with.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
AlaTmPnr wrote in message <19981113145441...@ng150.aol.com>...
><<Took about 4 times and he decided that me being in his space was ok and
>pleasant and we went from there. Never put a mark on him and only cost me
>about 10 dollars in ace. I never broke a sweat and was never in any
danger.>>
>
>Funny I have a friend that is and has used Ace and other drugs as a
substitute
>for training and somehow his horses never pick up the training administered
>under the influence of drugs.
>If you will reread my post I did state this was one of my first training
jobs
>and my knuckles did drag the ground a bit. But I have since come out of
the
>trees ....... but I dont use drugs for training....... regardless of the
>horse's state.
>
>
>Bill
TrinityApp
And by ducking out of the horses space as he charges you in a round pen
you are in essence yielding to him, because a tease, I'll back away but I'll
beat you for it. In a stock the horse must yield to you. It works and works
well.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
Jane H. Kilberg wrote in message ...
>In article <72hugr$j...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "TrinityApp"
><spell...@texoma.net> wrote:
>(snipped parts)
>
>>I handled a out of this world nut case Arab stallion
>>like this.( this horse was so bad he would chase his owners from the pen
and
>>bite himself in rage) Gave him ace in his feed and then got him to the
>>stock, as he came around I'd touch him all over, hose him down and rub him
>>dry. Took about 4 times and he decided that me being in his space was ok
and
>>pleasant and we went from there. Never put a mark on him and only cost me
>>about 10 dollars in ace. I never broke a sweat and was never in any
danger.
>
>I don't like using shortcuts like a tranq. Putting a horse in a stock such
>as you did forces the horse to submit as he doesn't submit freely. I have
>seen horses injured in stocks. However, I do know people who use
>tranquilizers to get the horse over the intial hump. Sometimes it works,
>sometimes not. To work a horse with a space problem issue, I prefer using
>a corral or nice size paddock. Some people like round pens for that
>purpose.
>
TrinityApp
Never caused him a moments pain. He would wake up to being petted and
rubbed and gnash his teeth to no avail and finally realized it was pleasant,
learned to tolerate water too. I did several hell hound polo mares like this
too and it worked fine. In fact you could relax them with rubbing, like i
did in the stock, while they were under stress.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
BlueIris wrote in message <364CC7F0...@totalnetnh.net>...
>TrinityApp wrote:
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> You regressed again, stand up and get your knuckles off the floor. MR
is
>> not my hero, JL is and I love his horse too. The kind people at the vet
labs
>> have made all kinds off substance for subduing horses, use them. Knock
the
>> bastard out, put him in a stock and as he wakes up go touchy feely all
over
>> his non moving ass. I handled a out of this world nut case Arab stallion
>> like this.( this horse was so bad he would chase his owners from the pen
and
>> bite himself in rage) Gave him ace in his feed and then got him to the
>> stock, as he came around I'd touch him all over, hose him down and rub
him
>> dry. Took about 4 times and he decided that me being in his space was ok
and
>> pleasant and we went from there. Never put a mark on him and only cost me
>> about 10 dollars in ace. I never broke a sweat and was never in any
danger.
>
>And the horse, I would bet, finally learned to *trust* and
>*accept* humans, without it being further impressed on him
>that humans equal pain.
>
>Roberta
>>
>> --
>> Tracy Meisenbach
>> www.trinityapp.com
>> Trinity Appaloosa Farm
>> Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
>> Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
>> then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
>> Lloyd Jones
>> AlaTmPnr wrote in message
<19981113003333...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
>> > <<While i can concede that desperate times call for desperate measures.
>> >Standing for an hour in a stall with a pissed off horse isn't bravery
it's
>> >stupidity. And adding abuse to an already abused animal isn't fixing
the
>> >problem. A SMART trainer would have left the stall after the first
charge
>> >and reassessed the situation from a safe stand point. You haven't proved
a
>> >damn thing to the horse except that you're tough while carrying a stick,
>> and
>> >he's going to wait for when you don't have one.>>
>> >
>> >Hmmmmm yes .......... I agree with the reassessing idea. IMHO a horse
that
>> >charges like that is in pain. But the problem is....... you have to get
>> the
>> >horse to let you fix the problem. And that aint going to happen while
the
>> >horse is resistant to new ideas. It is already proven that walking into
>> the
TrinityApp
My Aunt's terrorist horse would wait for the moment when she was unarmed
and nail her. If she had a crop in her back pocket he was fine, but if he
didn't see that thin black stick he was a bastard. And he knew! It was a
shame he was such a shit of a horse, no one had abused him, he was just big
and pushy, and he could jump the moon. Real talent just so untrustworthy.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Previously Spellbound Performance Horses
Men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better
then those who try to do nothing and succeed.
Lloyd Jones
Mariah Walker wrote in message
<01be0f43$22f416c0$884e...@RSD-Notran1.UBCpharm>...
>TrinityApp <spell...@texoma.net> wrote
>
>> Probably not, the horse would only zap himself once and not associate
>it
>> with the person. Teaching a horse that you're in charge while you have a
>> whip in your hand is like negotiating with terrorists while you hold an
>> AK47, once you don't have it you're back to square one.
>
>Tracy, good point. It does require great skill to be able to use a whip to
>discipline without getting that animal to fear the whip (and might I add
>that IMO the *only* excuse for discipline is kicking and biting in a
>threat-to-injure type of way). It must be as an extension of your body,
>seen by the horse as a gesture from you, not an item to be feared. That is
>why I like the "surprise" methods. For example, a horse who bites might
>convince himself it's not a good idea if it "runs into" an object you are
>casually holding in your hand and perceives no threatening body language
>from you. (and i don't mean a pin!). Your point is well received - they
>must respect you, not what you hold in your hand
>
>Mariah.
BlueIris
>
> wkambic wrote:
>
> >>I do not serve Sheila or Tom or Jane or anyone
> else. No Gold Star here, kiddo.<<
>
> Absolutely. Why is it that if someone doesn't agree with you folks (Roberta,
> Jackie, Dar) that we are automatically one of *THEM*? You all have some great
> ideas, but I'm starting to skip your posts because I'm tired of the
> accusations. Isn't that one reason you're so vehemently opposed to *THEM*?
Monika, I think the shoe fits both feet. I've seen some
heavy flame wars on this ng that were over nothing more than
a difference of opinion. I've been ridiculed for expressing
my opinion. I'm not one of "*THEM*" or one of "you folks."
We (the people you named) are not always in agreement
either. I have my own opinions, and if it seems to you that
I'm lumping all the "dominance" crowd together, I probably
am. I don't see a whole lot of disagreement amongst them, so
I think its OK to consider them as a group.
Roberta