[jen judkins]

Hey Rod, I guess my friend Ned came out to look at your sleigh yesterday. He thought it was nice. My question is do you think it is appropriately sized for a 18 hand percheron. It looks, well, kind of delicate. Thanks. Jennifer.

[jen judkins]

Mink, I would check a selenium level before you consider adding selenium to your horses diet. Most commercial feeds and supplements contain some vit E and selenium, so check your labels also.’

Remember that Polo Pony team that died last spring? Selenium overdose. The compounding pharmacy made a decimal point error (5mg in stead of 0.5mg). Horses were dead in hours.

Here’s what I know about selenium. Its absorption is aided by adequate amounts of vit E, which is why most selenium supplements are a combination of both E and Se. Sulfur in the diet can inhibit its absorption. So if you have a horse on garlic or a joint supplement (some, not all contain MSM which is a sulfur compound) you could be creating a selenium deficiency over time.

You are right, the NE is considered a selenium deficient soil region. So its definately something to consider if your horses are having problems. Just follow label directions when feeding E-Se and don’t overdo it.

I feed a zinc-copper-manganese-selenium product made my Dynamite for 10 days three times a year. They have a teensy bit in their daily supplement (something like 4 ppm). I haven’t tested them for awhile, but they are all doing very well. Good luck. Jennifer

[jen judkins]

you too…my one eyed friend!

[jen judkins]

Now that I understand your perspective better, Carl, I wonder if I am making too much of Reno’s periodic anxiety. He comes back down when I ask. If I anticipate something might set him off, I say the word, ‘easy’ ahead of time and he pulls himself together. So it seems pretty clear that we have a working relationship. So maybe it will just take time and hours together for those little anxious moments to go away. OR maybe they never will?

I have always thought of tension and anxiety as a sign of worse things to come, but maybe I’m making too much of it? Perhaps if I just ignored those moments, I would bring more confidence to the working relationship?

For right now I am going to continue working him in an open bridle, as he is having trouble backing up (a mostly physical issue) without getting tense and fidgety, especially between shalves. For this particular exercise, I think the added visual field will help him gain confidence (in where his feet are going), though I think I will try harder not to concentrate too much on the anxiety and simple work on my own calm, assertive energy. In this case I agree the blinders issue has nothing to do with our working relationship, but I think going without them serves our purposes for right now.

[jen judkins]

I’ve gotta say, I love the long ears!

But I’ve been told by a bonafide mule man that ‘mules are like horses, only more so’ meaning you had better be good with horses before you try to train a mule. They are smarter and more sensitive than horses which makes them easy to screw up, lol!

[jen judkins]

Go for it Jean! I thought of you as soon as I saw them!

[jen judkins]

No worries, Missy…I’m not bearing any knives today:p

[jen judkins]

@Carl Russell 13507 wrote:

Brush-hogging this fall with my DR tow-behind mower, a six inch piece of wood shot up and bounced off my mare’s rear. She never saw it coming because of the blinders. She jumped, and high-stepped for about 20 feet. When I told her to take it easy, she calmed right down into working walk.

Oh my Gawd….I had a huge BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) on my ride into work today!

What you are saying (correct me please if I am once again wrong), is that I (we) are concentrating on the wrong ‘event’. There is the initial event…dogs nipping at the heels, anxiety about noise, a stick in the butt…and then the second event when your horse responds positively to your leadership and reassurance (or not). If your horse(s) respond by calming down when you assert yourself as the leader, things are probably working just fine and having blinders or not has nothing to do with that. And further, since you cannot always anticipate what will worry your horse, it doesn’t make sense to put alot of energy into ‘fixing’ that piece of the puzzle. That concept is certainly worthy of my consideration in regard to Reno.

This explains why BigLug was so successful with Dottie after the dog incident. She, while worried about the dog, trusts his leadership.

My apologies, Carl and everyone else. I am a total visual learner. Its a miracle, I made it through med school with honors. While all my classmates we’re scribbling words into notebooks, I had a sketch book and drew pictures. I’ve always thought of it as a handicap of sorts and have always had trouble with written words, as they have to describe something I can see visually for me to understand them. Carl, your words just did not create the visual I needed to understand your point…until your description of the brushhogging incident. So thanks for sticking with me on this…

[jen judkins]

@Carl Russell 13507 wrote:

I don’t want my horse trying to figure out all the things that might be going to happen (they can if they want to, but they will find it exhausting as it will distract them from the work at hand), I just want my horses to respond to me when I ask them to. This is no different with or without blinders. In my own little world, I do not worry about how a horse reacts to a stimulus, I worry about how they respond to my command when I give them guidance about how I expect them to react. This way I never have to worry (neither do they) about the infinite possibilities that might occur, and only concentrate on communication, so that when the unexpected happens, my calm “easy” can be heard and focused on through all the adrenalin, over all the barking, or loud motors, or whatever.

This is why my horses will be safe regardless of the tack they are wearing, or not wearing. This is why I made the comment that led to this discussion.

OK, I’ve had time to think about your comments and I’m pretty sure we are in agreement about tack. I guess I was feeling defensive because it felt like you were saying I was using a ‘tack adjustment’ to fix a training problem. When I think you know me well enough to know that is not true. I’m sorry I over reacted to your comments.

In truth, for the past 10 years I have spent a huge amount of time in the riding industry removing useless pieces of tack from my riding horses…tie downs, nosebands, martingales, etc., in order to do more with less. I managed somehow in my early 40’s to learn to ride all my riding horses bareback and bridleless…..a pointless endeavor for most folks, but for me it was about being a better leader and a better partner for my horses. Many riders add tack to have better control of their horse (or at least make them look better), in stead of acquiring the necessary leadership qualities or balance in the saddle, it takes to be successful and safe, riding a horse.

Its a different dynamic, driving, but my philosophy has not changed. I like a horse that can make decisions within the partnership and I don’t discourage it. I simply try to adjust my approach according to the feedback, much like you would consider changing a bit if your horse were constantly tossing its head in harness. It might address the problem, but it might not…still worth considering. I believe both horse and human have responsibilities within the working relationship. One of my responsibilitites is to make sure that my horse is better with every endeavor. If I see some behavior going south…I’m doing something wrong or providing the wrong feedback to the horse. If there is anything I can try, that will help me be better, I will do it. Its a decision tree for me….driven by feedback from the horse. I don’t think of taking blinders off as a distraction, but as a way of magnifying the feedback, so I can address it better. Truth is, Reno will do anything for me…he gives 150% all the time. But there is something troubling him and I’m determined to fix it for both of us, before it becomes a bigger problem.

[jen judkins]

Recently a teamster friend told me how inspired he was watching old footage of horses pulling firetrucks without blinders on. So I spent some time on youtube and found some cool footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRYQUplbhcY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWGZdMT2dI4&NR=1

Not a blinder to be seen anywhere. I would love to know why? Clearly a dangerous and distracting job…pulling a noisey firetruck in a busy city setting. Interesting and intriquing…

[jen judkins]

@Carl Russell 13447 wrote:

Jen, you have focused on changing the working gear on your horse to try to address a behavioral problem. What will be your next move if it doesn’t work, or he develops another problem. How many pieces of tack can you change? At what point do you just address the behavior and not the tack? When do you accept that the positive improvement of the horse in reaction to the distraction has to do with your leadership?

????? I am not distracted by a horse with issues, yes, but not deal with it?? I deal with issues by being an effective leader, not by going into the bushes looking for the saber toothed tiger. A horse that is demonstrating misbehavior needs to understand that it is not an effective way to take responsibility for their role in the working relationship, because they find that it works to their disadvantage, and they are rewarded when they demonstrate the desired behavior. They also need to know that my initiative should be as important to them as it is to me, and by not letting them lead me astray I demonstrate that.

I know I should just let this go….. but what the %$*#, Carl. That’s just insulting and unfair…

[jen judkins]

OK, I’m up and now have the benefit of coffee, not a martini:rolleyes:. To clarify my position….

@Carl Russell 13400 wrote:

As always I respect your choices, but I just have to say your logic is flawed. Otherwise horses with blinders would always be un-nerved by noises behind them.

No. My logic is working fine. I did not say or mean to imply that every horse needs to see what’s behind them, to feel confident in harness. I simply feel that MY horse in MY situation seems to be better when he can. I meant to imply that horses, like people, are individuals…with different experience and agendas.

@Carl Russell 13400 wrote:

This is truthfully another case of the teamster focusing on tack instead of the animal.

I respectfully disagree. The fact is, I don’t need another bridle in my tack room. It has been careful observation of this horse while working with him that has brought the issue to my attention.

@Carl Russell 13400 wrote:

I appreciate the interest of a teamster to try something different, as an exercise, a challenge, but I don’t agree that these changes can actually have significant benefit over any other design or habit choice.

Here I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

@Carl Russell 13400 wrote:

I, however still believe that the limited vision is in fact superior. Being animals that are incredibly aware of all of their surroundings, the blinders help the horses narrow their view shed, requiring them to be more dependent on the guidance of the teamster. When the teamster encounters a horse that is uncomfortable with that, I don’t think the answer is to give them an alternative. All of that extra information gained from increased vision is unnecessary for the task at hand. The challenge is to rise to the requirement of providing the desired guidance.

At least it is for me.

I get what you are saying, I really do…and I don’t even disagree. We are just coming from two sooo totally different places. You make a living working your horses…I don’t. You have been working horses is harness for decades…I haven’t. You may not have the time or resources to deal with a horse that has some issues…I fortunately do. That doesn’t make me illogical or unreasonable, it just makes my approach different from yours. And let face it, my friend, that’s what makes the world go round…

@Carl Russell 13400 wrote:

It is too simple to say that horses work better this way or that. Working with animals is an art.

I love ya, man!

[jen judkins]

@TBigLug 13427 wrote:

I think Carl’s original point was the hardware doesn’t make the horse, the relationship between the teamster and the horse, makes the horse.

My point exactly. You could not have said it better.

[jen judkins]

@Carl Russell 13423 wrote:

I seem to be misinterpreted. I am not dismissing working horses without blinders.

What I am saying is that just because horses work fine, or even better in some eyes, without them, does not explain why so many other horses work excellently with them.

OK, now we are on the same playing field. Blinders offer a very real benefit for MOST horses. They offer focus primarily. That benefit is not always the primary goal when rehabilatiating a horse from an injury. You can’t apply the same logic.

[jen judkins]

@Carl Russell 13419 wrote:

I actually didn’t say your approach was flawed. I said the logic was flawed. That which assumed that if the horse could not see a distraction then they would be unnerved by it.

You haven’t rehabbed a horse from an injury…that much is clear. It is an art to re-teach trust to an animal who has been injured and has issues with its work. This is not about convenience or about an agenda….its about restoring dignity and trust.

[Author]

Posts