Charlotte Dujardin not competing in dressage after whipping video emerges

[tardigrade]

to be honest it was a broader point - the poster was deliberately antagonistic and trying to play clever dick with someone/others on the thread, while at the same time shuffling the goalposts and muddying the waters of the argument, which is exactly what they were claiming to take issue with.

but on this point, do I believe all 'training of animals for human benefit' should stop - no, I don't. of course I abhor any animal cruelty. but it's a misunderstanding of what's happening to suggest anyone who rides horses or trains a dog is participating in animal cruelty, which is the suggestion from the other poster.

That's not what I said and you know it. Sod off with your lies.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What proof do you have that early contact with horses was unwilling on their part?

Why would you think I would have proof of that?

My understanding is that the origins and original methods of horse domestication are disputed. It won't have been like those of cats and dogs, though.

In his book The nature of horses, Stephen Budiansky asks the question 'Eat or ride?' and does not come down firmly on either side, but suggests from the aging of tooth remains that they were originally hunted for food and then tamed to ride (page 48).

The nature of horses : Stephen Budiansky : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

But either way, in order to perform useful work, horses need to be trained, or 'broken'. Budiansky puts it like this (page 43):

The fact that in order to do useful work, horses need to be "broken" anew in each generation also implies that human innovation may have played a larger role in the domestication of the horse than in that of its domesticated predecessors.

 

[tardigrade]

and now the user is just 'haha'-ing at the posts but can't manage a reply. think I'll mark them down as a bellend, stick them on ignore and move on.

Ditto

 

[Epona]

Why would you think I would have proof of that?

My understanding is that the origins and original methods of horse domestication are disputed. It won't have been like those of cats and dogs, though.

In his book The nature of horses, Stephen Budiansky asks the question 'Eat or ride?' and does not come down firmly on either side, but suggests from the aging of tooth remains that they were originally hunted for food and tamed to ride (page 48).

The nature of horses : Stephen Budiansky : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

But either way, in order to perform useful work, horses need to be trained, or 'broken'. Budiansky puts it like this (page 43):

The use of the term "broken" is very emotive is it not? It describes breaking the spirit of a wild animal.
Which is not what happens when domesticated horses are trained to be ridden.
Some people watch too many Westerns where the feral Mustang is engaged in a long battle with a cowboy who eventually "breaks" it. (And then it loves that cowboy in a kind of weird Stockholm Syndrome type scenario).
That doesn't happen IRL.

 

[Santino]

It’s a completely normal part of Urban culture to hassle people with pictures of their own username.

Is it?

 

[two sheds]

I hope you're right. I'd much rather watch something exciting like skateboarding, rather that animals forced to perform unnatural behaviours. Get rid!

so the thread's not exclusively about horses

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The use of the term "broken" is very emotive is it not? It describes breaking the spirit of a wild animal.
Which is not what happens when domesticated horses are trained to be ridden.
Some people watch too many Westerns

Yes that's fair. However, we've had 10,000 years or so to selectively breed horses to be more suited in temperament to our wishes. Not sure the training of the first horses is likely to have been gentle.

 

[tardigrade]

so the thread's not exclusively about horses

Well done on going back through the thread, to find something you could have a go at me about. It was related to horses at the Olympics, if you read it properly. But don't let that stop you feeling smug.

 

[Spymaster]

"However, the truth is horses are trained for the benefit of human pleasure, and and making money. Whether it be racing, show jumping, riding, hunting, whatever."

Nothing wrong with that if they’re well cared for. And of course, most horses simply wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for their utility to humans. That raises the question; at what point is it better for a horse never to have lived at all, than to have lived a life of pampered servitude?

 

[two sheds]

Well done on going back through the thread, to find something you could have a go at me about. It was related to horses at the Olympics, if you read it properly. But don't let that stop you feeling smug.

hardly having a go - you wouldn't answer a perfectly valid question as to whether your view extended to dogs but you refused because you said the thread is about horses only. I did read your post properly and it was about 'animals'.

 

[Epona]

Yes that's fair. However, we've had 10,000 years or so to selectively breed horses to be more suited in temperament to our wishes. Not sure the training of the first horses is likely to have been gentle.

I don't hold with that at all.
Horses are naturally more tractable than other equines, ie. although they are nomadic, they aren't rampantly migratory - which is why horses were easily domesticated but zebras weren't.

 

[surreybrowncap]

Is it?

Thought hassle was a bit strong.........

 

[Santino]

Thought hassle was a bit strong.........

I mean, hassling newcomers IS a part of board culture. But that's not a defence of it.

 

[tardigrade]

hardly having a go - you wouldn't answer a perfectly valid question as to whether your view extended to dogs but you refused because you said the thread is about horses only. I did read your post properly and it was about 'animals'.

This is the quote:

"However, the truth is horses are trained for the benefit of human pleasure, and and making money. Whether it be racing, show jumping, riding, hunting, whatever."

 

[Aladdin]

Just sharing some photos of Connemara Ponies. They are quite small .. spirited.. and lovely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't hold with that at all.
Horses are naturally more tractable than other equines, ie. although they are nomadic, they aren't rampantly migratory - which is why horses were easily domesticated but zebras weren't.

Easily? Not sure it was easy, was it? 10,000 years is probabaly a bit long. But call it 5,000 years ago. Horses will have been selectively bred to be more tractable since at least 5,000 years ago. We can know that.

It's not easy to know with confidence what the first domesticated horses were like because there aren't wild modern examples to compare them to. I guess the Przewalski's horse is the closest we have? Not easy (although not impossible) to domesticate for work or riding, by all accounts.

https://www.equishop.com/en/blog/przewalskis-horse-wild-primitive-horse-n391

 

[Epona]

Easily? Not sure it was easy, was it? 10,000 years is probabaly a bit long. But call it 5,000 years ago. Horses will have been selectively bred to be more tractable since at least 5,000 years ago. We can know that.

It's not easy to know with confidence what the first domesticated horses were like because there aren't wild modern examples to compare them to. I guess the Przewalski's horse is the closest we have? Not easy (although not impossible) to domesticate for work or riding, by all accounts.

https://www.equishop.com/en/blog/przewalskis-horse-wild-primitive-horse-n391

Why would anyone spend a lot of time or difficultly chasing horses around with no idea of whether it might be beneficial or even feasible?
I reckon if a lot of effort was involved, people quite simply would not have bothered - especially when they had no idea at that point about the potential usefulness of horses that we view with the benefit of hindsight.

So I reckon, horses started to hang around because humans collected grain. Very similar reasons to why other animals - especially mice, rats and cats started to hang around. Humans possibly realised by putting out food they could easily hunt them and other animals for food.
I don't think anyone put a lot of effort into going out and catching horses with no idea about them.

 

[two sheds]

This is the quote:

"However, the truth is horses are trained for the benefit of human pleasure, and and making money. Whether it be racing, show jumping, riding, hunting, whatever."

no, that is a quote, this is the quote I was referring to:

I hope you're right. I'd much rather watch something exciting like skateboarding, rather that animals forced to perform unnatural behaviours. Get rid!

it's fine if you don't want to answer about dogs, but I think it's fair enough to point out if you're giving inconsistent reasons for it.

 

[JimW]

Nothing wrong with that if they’re well cared for. And of course, most horses simply wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for their utility to humans. That raises the question; at what point is it better for a horse never to have lived at all, than to have lived a life of pampered servitude?

Live free or die!

 

[Saul Goodman]

Nothing wrong with that if they’re well cared for. And of course, most horses simply wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for their utility to humans. That raises the question; at what point is it better for a horse never to have lived at all, than to have lived a life of pampered servitude?

It's all about give and take. If I owned a horse I'd have to go out to work to feed it and look after it. I don't think it's asking too much to expect the horse to get off its arse and do a bit of work occasionally. That's why I taught my cats to climb through windows and take car keys.

 

[tardigrade]

no, that is a quote, this is the quote I was referring to:


it's fine if you don't want to answer about dogs, but I think it's fair enough to point out if you're giving inconsistent reasons for it.

Apologies, i referred to the wrong comment. I didn't answer about dogs because it isn't in keeping with the thread's subject. However, it seems I'm being pressed for an answer for whatever reason. So to clarify:
I'm against any form of using dogs for any sport.
Dog breeding should be banned.

With regards to having dogs as companion animals (I hate the word 'pet'), I don't have a problem with it, given that there are so many dogs needing homes. I myself have had rescue cats.

 

[tardigrade]

Live free or die!
View attachment 434983

That's a lovely photo! You can see the joy on their faces at being free to roam.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Apologies, i referred to the wrong comment. I didn't answer about dogs because it isn't in keeping with the thread's subject. However, it seems I'm being pressed for an answer for whatever reason. So to clarify:
I'm against any form of using dogs for any sport.
Dog breeding should be banned.

With regards to having dogs as companion animals (I hate the word 'pet'), I don't have a problem with it, given that there are so many dogs needing homes. I myself have had rescue cats.

What about using animals to make our lives easier?

 

[tardigrade]

What about using animals to make our lives easier?

In what way?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why would anyone spend a lot of time or difficultly chasing horses around with no idea of whether it might be beneficial or even feasible?
I reckon if a lot of effort was involved, people quite simply would not have bothered - especially when they had no idea at that point about the potential usefulness of horses that we view with the benefit of hindsight.

So I reckon, horses started to hang around because humans collected grain. Very similar reasons to why other animals - especially mice, rats and cats started to hang around. Humans possibly realised by putting out food they could easily hunt them and other animals for food.
I don't think anyone put a lot of effort into going out and catching horses with no idea about them.

Going back to Budiansky again, he suggests that people initially started keeping foals as pets, sometimes no doubt having killed their parents for meat, so familiarity with horses and appreciation of their uses may have built from there.

I think that idea is quite likely from what we know about the propensity for all kinds of human societies to keep pets, taking in sick or orphaned animals to live with them, even from species that they usually hunt or farm. For example, various peoples in the Amazon keep a wide range of animals as pets, from tapirs to monkeys to parrots, often not for any particular utilitarian reason, merely for the pleasure of having the animal around.

 

[story]

Is it?

Well maybe hassle is the wrong word but I’m sure I’ve always seen posts of stuff that shows some kind of picture of the poster ‘s name.

 

[two sheds]

Can we stop talking about dogs and cats, people, this thread is about horses

 

[Epona]

Going back to Budiansky again, he suggests that people initially started keeping foals as pets, sometimes no doubt having killed their parents for meat, so familiarity with horses and appreciation of their uses may have built from there.

I think that idea is quite likely from what we know about the propensity for all kinds of human societies to keep pets, taking in sick or orphaned animals to live with them, even from species that they usually hunt or farm. For example, various peoples in the Amazon keep a wide range of animals as pets, from tapirs to monkeys to parrots, often not for any particular utilitarian reason, merely for the pleasure of having the animal around.

Aye, but the reason that happened with horses and not zebras, all other things being equal, is that horses were more suited to being domesticated, being non-migratory.

 

[Saul Goodman]

In what way?

In a making them work to make our lives easier kinda way. or are there degrees of exploitation you're OK with?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Aye, but the reason that happened with horses and not zebras, all other things being equal, is that horses were more suited to being domesticated, being non-migratory.

Sure. I agree with that! That made it possible, but not necessarily easy.