HOME | DD

lantairvlea In reply to Julvenzor [2015-10-16 23:00:33 +0000 UTC]

In my experience the reason for blinders is to be sure that the horse is responding to the driver's actual whip aids rather than anticipating the movement of the whip. This is especially important when working with teams and hitches where your more forward/sensitive horse might react to the movement of the whip and the duller/slower horse ignores everything but the direct touch. That said horse should be introduced to everything without blinders/blinkers/winkers. I tend to drive with blinders, but leave them set very wide, basically to block the visual stimulus of the whip. I hate seeing the blinders close to the eye. Mr. Bowers was also predominantly doing agricultural work, in which the horses are trained a bit differently as they are not asked for the same type of collection or balance as a pleasure driving horse so use of the whip to move a shoulder or hip, or ask for the horse to give the ribcage, etc. is not necessary and therefore negates the practical (and to me the only real logical) use of the blinders.

I'm not a fan of check reins either. The one excuse that makes sense is when cutting a field and you don't want the horses chowing down before you get a chance to mow it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Julvenzor In reply to lantairvlea [2015-10-17 04:54:12 +0000 UTC]

Hi Lantarivlea,

Thank you for your precise answer and excuse my English. I understand your explanation. However, I think that a properly training can always solve all problems, and blinders are just an easy method invented in a age in which the knowledge about animal etology was minimal. Horses, like many animals (us incluided), learn gradually by associating stimulus and response. At first, the associaton is confused; then it's clearer to the animal. Vision is the horses' main sense and what they use for associating an aparenting harmful stimulus with its real magnitude. When horses wear blinders, they are denied to differenciate bewteen a harmful stimulus and a non-harmful one. Accordingly, they are in a state of permanent alert (over the media). On the other hand, this forced blindness induces that they have less equlibrium (just like you blinded). It seems a bit sadistic when talking about horses running in obstacle courses.

Now, changing of subject, I would like to tell a short story/personal comment to think over:

Since I was little, I have felt an enormous interest in relation to horses. Due to this, I studied biology as a first degree. However, I couldn't imagine that, a couple of years later, certain circumstances would drive me to doing a volunteering with 'mistreated' horses. There, I knew some young people from Germany, Austria and other Central European countries that said me they were vegans. I searched what it means and, after the event, I decided to study Law, and the bases and the ethical
reasons postulated by the doctor Gary Francione. Veganism is, in brief, a extension of Human Rights for all animal beings because of we all are  able to feel and have individual interest; we're subjects, not objects.  Our society established a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals based on continuous variables, like intelligence. This is arbitrary and unfair in the same way it would be unfair if a person with IQ 180 would have more rights than one with IQ 80 only. You will find much information in English on the internet, of course.

We humans (mentally competent) are moral agents, we're responsible for our actions. In contrast, non-human animals and children are amoral (not responsible). Only moral agents can give their consent to serve to others' purposes (exploitation). When we do an animal carry out an action, we commit two faults (one and its consequence): 1) We grant ourselves the legitimacy of govern over the lives of others that cannot give their consent. 2) Weare inmoral.

In ethics, it's said someone is inmoral when one advocates for others something that oneself never would like to do or to suffer. It's true an animal, like a horse, can enjoy with humans and have fun with certain activities. That's not the question. The question is: why do  we see "normal" actions that we would never acept for a human entity?  Almost all humanity is speciesist, it means that one discriminates not  according to the actions, but according to the recipients of the action in case that such recipient is not human. Ethics only judge the actions  carried out by a moral agent toward a moral subject (all animals), not  the how, the why or the who.

We vegans reject the condition of non-human as legal objects (slaves) in the same way no human would desire to be a slave of another human. We don't have any legitimacy to assign an animal for human purposes, in the same way a human doesn't have any legitimacy to assigning another human for purposes of other humans.If you think animals aren't simple things, you will be able to understand it. We don't refer to animal exploitation as "abuse" or "mistreat", both terms imply that the erroneous one is in the way in which they are exploited, not in the own action. They are welfarist terms.

Believe or not, years ago I thought in the same way than you. We all are taught other animals are in the Earth just for serving us, that we are superior. That horses are livestock and essentially "sports equipment", etc.That's a moral prejudice, like racism or sexism.

Cheers!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lantairvlea In reply to Julvenzor [2015-10-26 01:39:28 +0000 UTC]

Your English is actually quite good.

In my experience I have often found the reverse: the horse is more relaxed. Tense horses don't drop their head, blow, relax their ears or lick and chew. Neurologically sound horses do not rely on vision for balance (orientation within space and avoidance of obstacles, certainly, balance, no), which is why a complete blindfold is often used to determine minor cases of neurological disease. The article you linked noted that horses have trouble discriminating objects in their extreme peripheral vision (the area we are most concerned with in regards to use of the whip aid), which means they naturally have a hard time discriminating between harmful and non-harmful stimulus in this area and perhaps the saying "out of sight, out of mind" applies quite well to the driving horse. One still has to build trust with the horse and blinders are not much of a shortcut and the majority of people misunderstand the purpose.

I think in regards to domesticated animals we have to consider that our species created them to an extent and have modified their base species to a point in which they are no longer well-adapted to survive in the wild. Because of this we are certainly responsible for their welfare and keeping them healthy and sound. In the case of horses this often means exercise as not everyone has access to acres and acres (and really horses were designed to cover miles) of pasture to ensure good health, particularly digestive health. Most people are not fit enough to keep up with a horse so walking them as one might a dog is not enough. You might also appreciate that agricultural horsepower is better for the environment, encourages smaller-scale farming, discourages monoculture, and gives a job and purpose to these animals to whom we are surely indebted.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Julvenzor In reply to lantairvlea [2015-10-29 00:33:19 +0000 UTC]

I have tried to correct some grammar mistakes. There is an info error. I mean: "On the another hand, al least in Spain, blinders are not used in trotter races and whips don't cause a big problem for stimulating horses".

Sorry for my long dissertation. Thank you so much your attention.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Julvenzor In reply to lantairvlea [2015-10-28 22:41:50 +0000 UTC]

Hi again Lantairvlea,

In my impression, we tend to underestimate the horses' learning capacity. Not only respect to horses, but for all animals. From my point of view, the majority of people use blinders for everything related to "pull" because they think that, if not, their horses will get scared by "the thing that is behind". I don't doubt, as you have brighly explained, blinders may server for a specific purpose; however, most blinders that I can see block practically all the peripheral vision, not just the area of the whip. This seems unnecesary to me, considering they can suffer stress or accidents because of, for example, the whistle of a bicycle or natural/artificial obstacules. I think that, in case of double harness, both horses would have more coordination if they can see eath other. On the another hand, al least in Spain, trotter races don't use blinders or whips for stimulating horses. I'm convinced that a true "trust relation" cannot pass by restricting the natural senses of one of its members.

Out of this interesting subject, I'm happy of being capable of mention veganism with you. Many times, I received insults as soon as I try to explain the basis of animals rights. Most people aren't able to defend a simple argument without making ad hominem attacks. Given that you're a cultivated person, I would like to respond to your approach (ethics and biology).

A pair of years ago, I came to the conclusion that we humans must change our actions to the rest of animals, not only (in many cases), the "way" in which they are carried out. I started to wonder why we do things that we never need for living. There is not a real problem when talking about actions that don't affect others; but it is when our actions do affect others. Thus, I though: what does "others" means? It means just "humans". Why?

In the same way that we know other humans feel and have their own interests, we now know (science) that other animals also feel and have their own interests. Inteligence or cognition are continous variables and, thence, they mustn't be used like a "moral barrier". If we go down from "our species" to "the first discrete variable originating the individuality sense", that variable is "sentience" (the capacity of feeling) as a result of the development of a nervous system (nerve cells).

Nowadays, this ethical principle is expanding throughout the internet thanks to its horizontal comunication. We vegans aren't more "extravagant" than the supporters of black people rights a century ago. As an example, Dexter Scott King (Martin Luther King's son), is vegan too and expresses his reason saying: "the next step of my father's work".

There is an animation short video about the main moral changes occured in two last centuries: www.youtube.com/watch?v=baIW97…

We, till the date, haven't create any species. An animal is considered "domesticated" or not according to its endogamy rate. Horse and many other animals are domesticated ones, but, unlike many people think, experiments have demostrated that domesticated animals are able to survive in the wild with probabilities near to savage (not domesticated) species. Here, we tend to overestimate the effects of domestication. For example, there is the study of Wistar rats in Oxford. We have altered their phenotype toward our requirements (obedience, meekness...), but their behaviour in the wild (instincs) is almot the same, previous to the domestication process.

As you said, agricultural horsepower is better for the environment; but, in fact, also it would better for the enviroment having hundred "blacks" farming than ten tractors (not?) or the aboliton of animal breeding (responsible of most CO2 and methane emitions). Justifing an action for its good consequences is, in ethics (based on the identity principle), an ad consequentiam falacy. If one demand his right to not being a slave of another subject, one cannot advocate the others' slavery. Nobody should be assigned a purpose for others. The benefit or profit don't matter. This a logical reasoning. Therefore, we vegans reject all animal exploitation (rupture of the identity principle) as a moral duty. It's not easy to evaluate how to recover contaminated lands or how to be righteous toward other animals, but I desire you (and other people) to understand that the other animals don't exist in the Earth in order to satisfy us and that the majority of our beliefs about them are prejuces by a speciesist adoctrination (a mere consequence of anthropocentrism moral). That's our first step.

Despite of my past aspirations, I don't want to exploit a horse or any animal anymore in the same way I would never exploit a human. If it's possible to me, I will maybe adopt a "mistreated" horse from a local sanctuary in a near future; just with the purpose of looking after him/her, not using them for my own needs or wishes. Ethically, in a relationship is necessary a mutual consent. Other animals cannot express if they want or not to help us.

If I can ask you a little favour, I encourage you to watch Earthlings, a very shocking and painful documentary about animal exploitation (it's was awarded): www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuQ-J…

Sincerely yours,

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sketcherjak In reply to Zuci90 [2013-02-28 00:35:52 +0000 UTC]

You're not the only one. Here's another, step-by-step harness tutorial. [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0