It's disturbing how many people find this okay. I realize there are abuses in other disciplines too, but why does that always come up as an attempt to justify this one?
I just don't get it. Heaven forbid the natural gait be rewarded (and the big lick gait isn't natural for anything on this planet). How can putting all that crap on be good for a 2 year old?? And yes, I know 2 year old Thoroughbreds are raced, but that's another thread. The horse in the video that katarine posted is gorgeous, but I think he'd look even better without his freakshoes on.
Add me to the disgusted list.
Or today's GSD, that also have such an odd crawl behind as these horses do?
Right, we have the animals we have for our own reasons and some times, some of those animals are not "normal" and that is what some like and, well, who is to point fingers, as long as everyone that likes them is taking care of them well?
Now, when we have real abuse, then, that is what laws are for and we have plenty of those already.
I am repulsed by the posters justifying these practices because abuse happens in other disciplines or because someone has a corgi (honestly, wth Bluey).
It's just like saying that it is okay for me to hit my dog because other people are starving their dogs or beating them with chains and I just use my hand. Of course there are shades of abuse but it doesn't mean that any of it should be tolerated!!
That two year old is not physically mature and is moving around in a grotesque "trot" on jacked up pads with a full grown woman sitting on her loin. How is that okay with y'all?
I am not 'justifying' anything. I believe as I said- there are WORSE sins visited upon horses day in and day out- if you read that as justifying, then that's your perogative, but that's not how I mean it to sound or how I am trying to convey my feelings about padded horses.
I will believe until I'm proven wrong that if they nixed pads tomorrow- the soring will get worse rather than better.
I have three mutts from the shelter, no deformed looking Shepherds or miniature dogs-that-are-already miniature. Again, why do people throw other issues in as a way to deflect from this one?
I have to laugh at your "that's what laws are for", Bluey. Many times the laws are weak and not enforced, and people can be bought. What a way to brush off the issue. The horses seem normal enough, it's the pads and chains and possible soring that make them move like freaks.
My skills involve good horsemanship, and hard work. I still it do it old school-break them to ground drive, then to pull a ground sled or plow (ground sled currently as I don't have a plow anymore) and a lot of hill work and wet saddle pads. I don't give a rats ass if you think I have any credibility or not because you don't matter to me or anyone I know on any level but as a Christian not wishing ill on people.
I will be getting a prospect shortly-most likely right after Christmas-so let me offer you an invitation. You come watch me. You bring your self righteous self and I will show you how its done. Other than that, keep your opinions of my credibility to yourself. You think you are perfect and that if you don't like it then it is wrong. Not the case. Just because someone has associated with someone who has done something wrong, does not mean they are bad people. The horse world is small, and you will come across people that you may not agree with, but still have to deal with them.
Justification is required when you need a defense - when you need a reason to prove what you are doing is okay. You wouldn't a defense if what you see as acceptable were normal. People who fight birds and dogs enjoy what they do too and will also try and defend their past time...it doesn't make it right because the rest of the world "misunderstands" what they do. Most of us can't understand a defective mind.
Defending stacking pads on a horse by comparing it to other atrocities simply makes it more apparent that you are defective, and lack the ability to understand your own inhumanity.
But just 'cause it's legal doesn't mean I have to like it. Or that we ought to turn our collective backs on it. Or that I can't state that in my opinion and experience it's a serious, long term detriment to the horse.
If they get to show it, I get to thumb my nose at it.
Yes. And those that "like it" are used to doing so in dark corners and recesses of their inner circles. And it is not because other horse people do not understand or do not agree. Spectators with no knowledge of this "use" find it grotesque on its face - without having to see Jackie McConnell getting his championship.
I know there are plenty of back yard owners and such who feel a stacked horse is NEVER sored. ANd maybe they do not intentionally sore - but I am sure there is soreness they are not fully aware of. Like a poster here states they have a stacked horse who has been out of stacks for a while and they are not considering stacking them back up. If it is a good non-harmful thing to do, if it is a good balance point for the horse, why do you hesitate to re-stack him?
And I also wonder if someone would point me to the list of stacked horse World Grand Championship trainers who do not have HPA violations???? And does anyone dispute that the bulk of the HPA violations are with stacked horses?
These are the kind of questions people like to shout and deflect these discussions away from - for what ever reason.
All of us have to defend what we believe in, that is how we come to agreements about what is acceptable or not to the situation at hand.
Culture play an important role in what is acceptable also.
Some cultures accept human and animal abuses that others would not.
I expect I don't have to give you any examples of that, do I?;)
Yes, I was puzzled and didn't like it at all when I saw my first three/five gaited horses prancing around on those wooden shoes, tails in harnesses and learned the little I did about their uses and training.
Coming from a different culture without any such, well, it seemed very absurd.
It still does today, most those gaited horses still seem crippled to me, but I have learned there is much others do that I don't like, but it is not my place to tell them what to like.
If someone can show true abuse, not animal rights extremists driven propaganda to make any we do with our animals abuse, then that is grounds to call for stopping abuses.
If others can do that without real abuse, well, then I don't think it is my place to tell them what to do and don't like others coming to tell me I or anyone they don't agree with are "defective" because they don't agree with them.
That just shows me that person is after their personal agenda, going overboard and becoming insulting, with lack of common sense.
You are used to seeing dwarf dogs and coping with their handicaps, those way too short legs and way too long backs.
That is really not much different than horse with grotesque walks.
All that is extremes we like in our animals and that is fine, for each one that likes those extremes.
Look at the big picture, look at how those that don't like extremes see some dog breed characteristics, horse characteristics and understand why there is controversy and yes, a need to explain if not defend what we do and what we like and don't like and why.
There is no sensible person that can say with a straight face dwarfed dogs are not without consequences from their very important differences from the norm.
The same with putting stacks on a horse's feet to get certain grotesque actions and expect it not to have some consequences.
To try to deny that is useless, anyone can show you why that is not ideal.
Why not say, yes, there is no action without reaction, we like our little short legged, way too long backed dogs for optimal, heck, for normal dog function and can take the best care of them and think that is ok.
I think the same with those that put pads on those horses.
There are trade-offs to all we do in life and, just because someone else's trade-offs are not ours, that doesn't mean they are automatically bad, unless clearly so, like dog or rooster fighting and other such, that is clearly of no redeeming qualities, that is real abuse, as starving or beating them would be.
People like hairless cats and dogs, dwarfs, extremes of gaits in horses and whatever else they like that is different, they always have.
That is why we have those ongoing discussions about what is appropriate and what questionable and what clearly wrong.
We can breed our animals, especially dogs seem to be very genetically malleable, to be and look so many different ways and that is ok for many, questionable when taken to extremes by others.
The ones with those animals way different than the norm for their species are the ones that have to answer them for themselves and defend them from those that have questions.
I don't have any answers to all those questions, but will say if I want to keep my own rights to do as I see best, as long as I follow existing laws, I need to be sure I don't tramp on the rights of others to do just that when we disagree.
Bluey is making valid, calm statements that we all need to read and digest before replying.
For the record, the gaited horses, specifically TWH have been under fire for 40+ years. I repeat 40+years.
The problem is the US Government has been 'testing' and monitoring riders and trainers instead of the judges. As long as the judge places the "Big lick" horse, then everyone involved will do their best create the same with their horse.
Quick way to resolve, if the horses placed in a class can be proved to have soared, the judge and the rider/owner/trainer should be fined. After awhile, judges will either retire, not be hired or change their judging.
For the record, I know someone who grew up in the gaited world. Soaring it not done in her family's or in her current barn. SHE was amazed that I ride my horses across country jumping fences. She considers what I do to be insane and borderline abusive. Back to Bluey's statements. . . WHO decides what is right and good. And what criteria are will be used to make those decisions?