I think the mane question has been satisfactorily answered so I won't cover that one. Some of the answers to the check question, on the other hand, are really raising my eyebrows!
Katiean said:
... On trails the horse cant reach for a quick bite. I guess you could give them a bump with the bit. But why be that harsh on the mouth.
Um, I hate to be the one to point it out but the check is attached to the bit just like the reins are. Both methods thump them in the mouth, the check just hits the molars I'd imagine instead of the bars.
rabbitsfizz said:
Sorry, but a horse will learn nothing from having a check on except that his mouth hurts at times , and for reasons, he cannot ascertain. A horse will learn not to put his head down to eat if you check him verbally and give him a gentle pop with the whip .It is the difference between putting a halti on a dog to prevent it from pulling and teaching it to walk quietly - the halti will never, ever teach the dog not to pull, it will only ever prevent it from doing so, and the check will never teach the horse not to put it's head down to eat, only prevent it from doing so.
Only you can teach it.
Fizz, you know I love you. You know I agree with you on the subject of checks. I don't like the sort of frame they often produce, I don't think they are in any way "necessary," and I agree that horses are perfectly capable of learning not to graze without them. But I'm going to suck it up and tell you I think you're going a little bit overboard here.
The reason people use halti's and loose checks is because all they care about is that the animal NOT DO THE ANNOYING BEHAVIOR. Honestly who cares if they really learned not to put their head down or simply don't do it because they know they can't? The point is that horse is no longer snatching grass and that holy terror canine can now be safely taken for a walk by his elderly owner!
Try getting a harness horse who has spent its lifetime being told that even in the roundpen cantering is A Terrible Sin to break gait and see how easy it isn't to break through habituation!
I know horses who were initially trained in snug checks who still move like they have one on after years of dressage schooling and would not DREAM of flexing or reaching for grass. It simply doesn't occur to them it's possible, just like it doesn't occur to them to canter. I personally find that sort of invisible mental shackle to be rather sad but it is proof that the method is effective and there are many owners who are simply never going to develop the skill to properly train their dog or horse. It's a fact of life and many times they truly love their animal and otherwise provide a good home. Why not allow them a painless artificial aid to make life more pleasant for both partners instead of them constantly battling? Keep in mind I have no idea what a halti is so can't vouch for its harmlessness but in the case of checks, a loosely adjusted sidecheck literally does not affect the horse at all until and unless he does dive for grass. Then it snatches him in the mouth EXACTLY as hard as the horse dived, at the exact
moment he dived, and releases the instant he puts his head back up in a natural position. That is what the driver is attempting to do with the reins, only clearer and faster. If you combine that instant correction with the vocal reprimand and a pop of the whip then the horse truly does learn and often the whip and voice are all that's needed in the future. A kick strap works the same way for bucking- they hit it instantly, it prevents the horse from succeeding while you correct them, then later the correction is associated with stopping the action.
Like Marsha's horse, my Kody can be annoying on those first ground-drives of the year as he long ago figured out that he can prance ahead of me with his head bowed to his chest, get me to extend the reins and my elbows in an effort not to yank him in the mouth as he rushes forward then slam on the brakes and dive for a mouthful of green spring grass before I can get myself stopped and gather up the slack. It's a short distance to the ground so he usually succeeds! And then no amount of whipping, yelling or yanking on the reins from behind will get his head up until he's done. There's practically a neon sign above his ears saying he's decided it's worth the beating and he goes on eating until I go to his head and pull him up. What a fight, and it leaves a very bad impression with the neighbors as I'm out there flogging my horse on the roadside.
He does not do this in the cart as of course he stays equidistant ahead of me and he can't trick me into slackening the reins enough. A much simpler solution is to put a loose sidecheck on for a few workouts. The look of indignation and shock on his face when Mr. You-Can't-Stop-Me hits that check the first time is PRICELESS and very satisfying to my rein-sawed hands! He usually tries once more half-heartedly then gives it up and after a few drives the habit of obedience is reestablished and I can take the check off with no more problem.
So while it is my belief that overchecks in particular have no legitimate modern purpose and I don't like any sort of tight check, I cannot agree that checks in general are the devil and a lazy person's answer, etc. etc. Sometimes the smart person isn't the winner of a fight but the one who avoids the conflict altogether!
Katiean said:
Also, if you drive in the show ring with a check rein, I think you should drive the trails with a check rein.
To me there is a difference. The show ring is flat, the horse is usually pulling a light load and only being asked to do simple work (walk, trot, back, pivot) on good footing. He's unlikely to trip terribly or hit a difficult patch of ground. The real world is much different with hills and ditches and rough terrain, and the horse needs to be able to get his head down to pull properly as well as to attempt to recover if he should trip.
Katiean said:
We used the overcheck in standardbred race horses so the horse pulls and balances on the bit.
Exactly. Checks, especially overchecks, work great for creating a steady, predictable horse that requires little thought to drive in the desired frame. It was normal equipment in early America for the same reason automatic transmission cars are so popular- most people only wanted to get from Point A to Point B and didn't care how the "vehicle" worked! Checks allowed them to do so without actually knowing a thing about driving. Click to go forwards, pull back to stop, pull left or right to turn. Easy. Except for when it was taken to Black Beauty extremes for fashion, the whole thing worked fairly well.
The use of
tight checks from my reading was partially uncaring ignorance and an obsession with fashion (wanting to make the horses look "fancy" by prancing and tossing their heads) and partially that regrettable human tendency to add more and more straps to control misbehavior rather than inquiring as to the root of the problem. That book by Mr. Flower mentions many times how horses who were considered "unmanageable" were put in more and more severe bits, tighter checks, etc., in an effort to control them but often went perfectly well once bitted with a simple snaffle and no check rein at all because they'd been reacting to pain and being so constrained. We still do that today with our riding horses! Have a horse who pulls? Use a harsher bit! Humans never learn.
Now that horses are used mostly for recreation by those who actually like them, want to learn to handle them properly and (theoretically) have an eye towards their comfort, I see no reason to check them up. The legitimate historical reasons have not applied for many years and improvements in our equipment have resolved the safety concerns checks used to address. The only non-show use I see left is to help a hardcore grazer or an animal driven by a handicapped individual break the habit of trying to dive for food.
Marsha Cassada said:
I hope newbies are reading this advice. The "long ago" is the critical part. It is well-nigh impossible to break if you ever allow it in hand.
Like anything else it's a matter of laying down the law. I'm sure the animal would be confused when the rules changed but if you were consistent about it they'd learn. Sort of like what happens when the Super Nanny visits or having Caesar Milan show up to work with your dog!
There's always rebellion then they settle into the new routine.
I'm sure many people would be horrified to see me leading my boys down the street as they walk/run along grazing, but they know that A) they are only allowed to do that if I've said so, B) the lead lines must never tighten or pull on me as I continue to walk steadily along, and C) any horse who violates the rules will be summarily pulled from grass and denied the privilege until further notice. They've learned to jog up to the end of the lead ahead of me, stop to eat, then move on again just before the lead gets tight.
And yet I can park either one of these horses on grass at liberty, put them on a Whoa Stand and they will keep their heads up and watch me until I tell them otherwise. They know the rules! That walk-and-graze routine is only allowed on our evening walks and only after I've said so.
Okay, I know I've written a book but one last thing:
rabbitsfizz said:
The "bridle space" has just got out of control, and I refuse to buy into it. I have never been marked down or had any prejudice against me for not hogging 3/4 of my horses mane (and the AMHA specifically bans hogging. btw) ... I have actually had a Judge remark that it is nice to see an intact mane for a change, so it certainly is not the Judges who want all this done, any more than they want the gross out put of a gloop factory smeared on the horse- Judges are actually capable of judging that is what they are there for, and whilst I agree with presenting a clean, well behaved horse in the ring, I also show in full coat, not clipping to the skin for me, and I win.
To me that says that BRITISH judges have common sense and think Americans are nuts. Well duh, we are! Over here you will not win an AMHA/R halter class without the horse at least
looking as short-coated as a clipped horse, face shaved (not necessarily razored but shaved), and the mane thinned down considerably. Some of those bridle paths are more than ridiculous and I don't think the judges are dumb enough to believe that makes for a longer neck, but they DO tell me that the mane needs to be thinned or they "can't see the horse properly." Have I mentioned how much I prefer the British way of doing things??
I undercut my manes a bit because it truly does make for a more proportional picture, but I refuse to thin them enough for U.S. halter standards. I have to be able to live with what I see in the pasture when they AREN'T turned out for show!
Each horse gets a bridlepath long enough to make them look their best whatever that may be; it depends completely on the shape of their individual neck.
Leia
