Monday, 20 August 2007

A Blog About Things That Are Wrong..

Like wrong with a capital WRONG...

Whats sparked todays blog, well it was another blog, coo how often do we blog about someone elses blog.

Todays blog is brought to you by:

A horse
A tree
A trainer
A owner
No water
No food
A rope.


Oh, and 21 hours.

If thats not making sense to you, I can put it a little more clearly.

A trainer (without the owners prior permission), tied a horse to a tree for 21 hours, without food or water. (I'll add here before some one leaps in, the horse was offered water, we do not know how often this happened though, and we've all heard the adage about taking a horse to water (or in this case taking the water to the horse)).

This was intended, I gather, to teach the horse to accept patiently, other horses coming and going around her without fuss.

Can I remind people, that this is a young mare, 4 years old, green and new to all such things as other horses milling around and being removed and handled and ridden etc, and indeed the previous weeks of her life have been jam packed full of new things.

This act, and in case we arent getting it here, its one I personally deem abhorrent, its vile, repulsive it is one of the most HORRIFIC things one can do to a horse, to trap it, tied by the head and leave it to force down its own panic, was all in the name of Natural Horsemanship (we think, Ill get to that bit in a moment).

Natural Horsemanship, Parelli, Intelligent Horsemanship, Hippy Horse Lovers United (ok I made that one up)....

They all profess to do to horses that which we have done to horses for many centuries.....

But to do it in a nicer, kinder, more natural, friendlier, less forceful way.

Yet these methods see horses forced into situations they arent happy with.

Monty Roberts uses 'join up' and yet the principal of join up is...... Force Away. The horse has a choice between 'be with me' or 'be alone' and for a horse, a herd animal 'alone' is akin to 'dead'.

That aint much of a choice now is it, on balance, well thats like cake or death aint it? No?

Parelli uses the Seven Games.... ive yet to see a horse completeing these seven games look like its having any kind of fun. The Seven Games appear to be about bullying your horse, showing you are dominant.

Did we read my previous blog about being dominant to our dogs? No, slap wrists go read.....

Just because you do not touch, or hit an animal, or even use your voice, let alone raise it, does NOT MEAN that the method is in itself 'kind' or 'none forceful'.

You CAN thoroughly and completely dominate an animal with body language alone.

I am as of now, 100% OFF natural hippy parelli intelligent horsemanship, because everywhere I see it portrayed as nicer and kinder and funner.....

And whenever I look closer I see it as nasty, devious, forceful, domineering, cruel, bullying methods, with a pretty label on the tin.

Its bullshit my friend, and anyone who thinks tying a HORSE to a TREE for 21 HOURS..... is kind, or useful, or non forceful or non dominant.....

Is either braindead or the biggest wanker thats ever lived.

Get away from my eyes and ears you people, go and trade your dogs and horses for pet rocks, you dont deserve to own anything more sentient than that!

Here endeth the rant. Maybe.

4 comments:

FatBloater said...

There are just not words to describe the vitriol really...

I read on the same persons blog that she wasnt meant to see it, cos she 'wasn't ready to see it' and that she is honoured cos the trainer doesnt normally allow people to watch.

No fucking wonder!!!!

Fuckwits.

Helen said...

echo the unfortunately named fatbloater!

Quite apart from the technique itself, what also really bugged me was the fact this was done without even the slightest prior consultation with the owner (who had been there on the premises all day so not exactly out of touch) had gone home and she only found out about it because the horse was still there when she arrived the next day... and would stay there "until it worked" I think the phrase was... oh and that this was all ok because the NH practitioner is such an excellent horseman and so by implication his techniques weren't to be questioned.

I accept that if you employ someone for their expert skills it is wise to use those skills, but the day I stop questioning anything I don't agree with or understand the reasoning behind until I actually understand at least the theory well enough to say whether it is a good or bad idea will be the day I die.

Maybe it's just me, but if it were my horse that someone else were "starting" I'd want to know any move made and watch as much of it as possible, even if only to enlarge my understanding of horses and my youngster in particular, and know how they reacted to all they see.

I know this isn't practical for EVERY single second, but I would certainly want to know about and have discussed thoroughly ANYTHING as momentous and extreme as tying a horse up on it's own for 21 hours... and there would need to be unbelievably compelling pre-existing and otherwise insoluble problems for it even to be acceptable for my trainer to even MENTION it as the vaguest possibility...

*and breathe* I must remember it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse, it isn't my horse...

cheesygrin said...

You know, I don't think I could hope to say anything as eloquently as you or the previous two posters have but I have been thinking about this for a few days and yet I still can't fathom why this could be considered a viable method to train an animal. So we "weren't given the full facts" initially - the "facts" still appear as abhorrent - and not much different - as the initial posting did.

This is in danger of sounding like the 'slippery slope' arguments I personally can't stand, but if it were a child?

Regards

Ems said...

Yep. I've tried to steer clear of the 'if it was a child' argument but I come back to it time and time again.

If it was a child, no it wouldn't be acceptable.

If it was a dog, no it wouldn't be acceptable, in fact if it was ANY animal... its not acceptable.

I'd love to know what exactly has been misinterpreted here, as the owner of horse claims, but I'm at a loss as to what that can be.

Either the horse was tied to a tree for 21 hours..... or it wasn't.

Did the horse have ad lib access to food and water, we are not told, and so despite being told that we are 'wrong' and that the conclusions we have drawn are based on 'untruths', without correcting us and stating that the horse did have ad lib access to food and water, that she wasnt left unattended in that time.. what else are we supposed to think.

Grr.