Tragedy!!!Includes discussion of dramatic experiences, and blinders vs. open bridles

[Vand]

TBigLug,

That’s fantastic that your mare has no apparent lasting effects from the incident. I’m always amazed at how resilient animals are. Usually, we’re more traumatized than they are!

[TBigLug]

@Vand 13241 wrote:

Usually, we’re more traumatized than they are!

Ain’t that the truth!

DD- She did great on the stone boat. I believe she’ll be just fine. I’m hoping to get a break in the weather to get her out again this week.

[Wes Gustafson]

Big John,

Here’s a perfect example of why I took the blinders off of my horses bridles. It’s a testament to the amazing amount of trust that your horse has in you to come back from that dog attack and still trust that you are watching out for them.
If your team had been in that same situation, but without blinders, your horse would have been able to anticipate that stupid dog’s attack before it happened, and launched the dog into the next county. As it was, your horse was ‘blind’ to the dog’s approach, and had no chance to react in time.

A horse, or team, trained to work without blinders, is a far safer horse, and you are doing your horses a favor by giving them every advantage to respond to the unknown occurrence.

Some years back, I was driving my team down our county road, and a yellow lab came racing out from the neighbor’s house, barking it’s head off. The dog got between my team (under the tongue) and proceeded to snap and try to bite the horses’ legs. The horses (without blinders) were monitoring the situation and continued walking at the same pace down the road without a faltering step. Apparently, the dog’s teeth got a little too close to the horses’ feet, because I heard a yelp, and the dog took off.

The dog’s owner’s had come out from the house and were yelling out their apologies. I waved to them and we kept going down the road. The funny thing was, the horses never changed their stride or even shied to one side during the whole time. I attribute that completely to my team, who, without those stupid blinders cutting off 75% of their vision, had been monitoring the dog attack the whole time.

Blinders are just a tradition here in the U.S. Most of the European countries use their working horses without blinders, and seem to do just fine.

Wes

[jen judkins]

I enjoyed reading your perspective on blinders, Wes. Its always an interesting discussion about blinders or not…

Recently I took the blinders off Reno. I can’t exactly explain how I came to the decision, except to say that it felt like he needed more information. He was having trouble with noises behind him sporadically…nothing major…just some jumpy behavior when an unanticipated noise would occur. Since he is rehabbing from a hind end injury, it makes sense to me that he might have some negative memory patterns regarding the injured leg, so I thought being able to see what was going on behind him would help. So far he seems fine without the blinders…maybe better in some ways. I haven’t hooked him to a cart yet, but he is skidding wood and dragging tires without blinders without any trouble at all and is less reactive to noise.

Anyway, its nice to hear from teamsters who don’t use blinders…I’ve gotten some flack from mentors who don’t see the point of going without them.

[OldKat]

I am having some headstalls made now w/o blinders, just for the reason Jen quoted. My Maggie gets antsy when there are noises behind her, but as soon as she can see what the source of the noise is she calms right down.

I got to thinking about this when I was ground driving them through a neighborhood near my property last Spring and some dogs, still in their yards and well hidden by shrubbery, started yapping. Both mares got to fidgeting and wanting to GO. Not 5 minutes after we got out of that area an older couple with a dog on a leash came walking the opposite direction. Their little yapper started raising all kinds of heck, but after giving him the once over neither mare even took further notice of him. Talking about an eye opener!

I am going to give the open bridles a try and just see if I can tell any difference in their behavior when noises are generated around them, especially from behind.

[Carl Russell]

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. I have had horses that (with blinders on) would stand for dogs yapping and nipping at their bellies. Sure they’d put their ears back, and raise a foot, but they didn’t need to see what was going on to know what I expected of them.

This is truthfully another case of the teamster focusing on tack instead of the animal. If you want blinders, or none, or even a blue nylon harness, those things are fine, but they don’t have nearly as much affect on the working ability of the horse as consistent guidance from the teamster. Sometimes making these changes are exactly what the teamster needs to make them feel more comfortable, and therefore better leaders.

I realize that my choice to use blinders is entirely because that is what I have always known. 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.

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.

It is too simple to say that horses work better this way or that. Working with animals is an art. If working without blinders enhances the way you practice your art, awesome. Even though we need cooperation from the animals, it is not the animal’s art, it is the teamster’s art. The gain in effectiveness comes from the teamster not from the animal. Methods that try to inform the animal about the enterprise may have some effectiveness, but in my mind they are mostly distractions from the task at hand.

Carl

[jen judkins]

@Carl Russell 13400 wrote:

As always I respect your choices, but I just have to say your logic is flawed.

You had to use that word…flawed! Its just not accurate, Carl:(.

I agree that the teamsters choice of tack reflects their personal style and teaching method more than anything else. In fact, my own style has always been more about letting the horse participate in the partnership, in whatever way they can. Its not a flawed approach….its just different from yours.

In addition, I would add that, there are some instances where working ‘outside the box’ makes excellent sense, particularly when working with a horse that is having trouble in one way, shape or form. There is one thing I know about horses, unequivocally, is that there is no one way to train them. If you can’t approach a horse with some versatility, you will only own one kind of horse.

[Carl Russell]

jenjudkins;13417 wrote:

You had to use that word…flawed! Its just not accurate, Carl:(.

…. Its not a flawed approach….its just different from yours.

….

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. My experience with horses with blinders suggests that they offer no impediment to the horses ability to work calmly, and to overcome frightening situations.

My point was that blinders are just a piece of leather attached to the harness that is on the horse. They are not the reason a horse does or doesn’t do something. It is the teamster that is the reason the horse does or doesn’t do a certain thing.

I absolutely agree with working outside the box. I work by the seat of my pants all the time, on behavior modification etc., but I guarantee you that even if you never changed a thing on your harness you could still modify the behavior.

My comments are directed at the motivation to look to some external item, or some other distraction, geraniums blowing in the wind, as the cause for the difficulty in effective guidance. When changing those external items,ie. removing the blinders, seems to work, I contend that it has less to do with the removal of the item, and more to do with the change in the comfort level demonstrated by the teamster because they now believe that they have solved a perceived problem. The horse picks up on the renewed confidence, and responds positively. It is really not the change in the item, but the change in the presentation of the teamster.

When teamsters allow themselve to get distracted by those extrenal items they, in the long term, are letting the horse lead them. My choice is to disregard the distractive behavior, and reiterate my intention that they follow the lead I have given to them.

That’s the way I see it. I have no problem with anybody wanting to try something different than I. I just think that it is important to point out that there is a tendancy to misread, or read too much into some things, and the mentoring I got was to “Drive the horse”, not the other way around.

Carl

[Plowboy]

Carl, While I agree with some of your logic as far as changing things to make the teamster feel better and working through problems well blinders seem to be a different story. I too thought it was a fad or some passing whim when I first heard of working horses without.
Four years ago we were blessed with a little black filly out of a stout grey mare. Her mother and grandmother both had small heads and hers was no different maybe smaller. When we wanted to start playing with her in harness at 14 months or so the little saddlehorse size harness we use to mess around with youngsters fit fine but no bridle we had came close to fitting. Then we remembered the open bridle I bought at an auction because it was cheap and in good shape. It took up enough and we were in business. Since day one this filly has had no shy or spook in her that most colts have a little of. Maybe by broadening the focus they don’t focus on what comes into their limited focus and startles them with blinders on. Since then we have started her younger team mate the same way with no shy or spook. I once put blinders on the filly when fitting a good Stitch and Hitch harness I got from a friend for $150. I lead her out to show my dad how it fit and the whole time she rolled her eyes and looked all around turning her head with her limited vision. So far this is the quickest learning best standing and none shying team we have ever worked with. We not only have worked our own teams but many for our friends so we have a hundred or more horses under our belts to draw experience from.
While the jury is still out and we are in experimental stages I am not going to hack the blinders off the other 12 bridles but when we start another team of our own we will try it again based on our experience with Dixie and Dan. We also have our token Belgian that sometimes jumps when something comes from behind, while nothing serious it is annoying so he will probably take a trip on the breaking sled this winter with an open bridle just to see if it makes a difference. He’ll be 14 in the spring and he’s been great except for getting startled once in a while. Being aware of their surroundings and themselves with natural vision seems to make them calmer from the get go. I don’t believe every horse would benefit from open bridles but alot of them probably could. My dads father claimed a horse would back up better in the woods if he could see where he was headed with an open bridle. He logged a lot with horses in the 50’s so I guess it’s not a new thing just wasn’t real popular.

[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.

[Carl Russell]

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.

I embrace anybodies notion that they want to train or work their horses a certain way, but the jump in logic is bothersome to me.

I know from experience that there are many things about the training and working process that animals can react negatively to. To somehow ascertain that there is some correlation between the behavior and the equipment is a mistake.

In the case of the original post here by John, the dog attacking the horse, it was entirely natural for the horse to react with some anxiety. It was also extremely appropriate for John not to continue to work her in the public setting. However if he had been in a safer surrounding, especially as he found out later, he could have continued to work her an she would have overcome the fear and focused on his positive guidance, without removing the blinders.

These are two different issues. Work the horse, and train them to encounter uncertain conditions and follow the lead of the teamster is one, and what hardware you want to use on your harness is a different issue.

All I was reacting to was the assumption that with blinders on there is a higher incident of fearful uncertainty in working horses. All I said was that it is a faulty assumption.

Carl

[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.

[Carl Russell]

jenjudkins;13422 wrote:

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.

And somehow you have a bead on what my experience has been like? Like the horse I bought in 1987!!! That had been driven into the brook on a sap sled that she couldn’t move, so they cut a two-hander and laid it to her till she fell over lathered in the stream? She who I brought home and tried to skid a stick of wood that I could drag, and she let both feet fly when the traces were tightened?? The mare that would lather up and hover with all four feet apparently off the ground?? Who I broke two colts with? Who was led by my daughter as a six year old? The mare I worked for 21 years? WITH BLINDERS!!??

I know about dignity and trust. These things don’t have to do with hardware.

Carl

[TBigLug]

While I have a much more limited knowledge base to draw from than most of the people here, I’d like to interject my two cents on the blinder vs. no blinder discussion. I prefer to use blinders for the same reason I do alot of things. That’s how my grand dad did it, how his dad did it and how his dad before him did it. Now, does that mean it’s the only way. No, as a matter of fact, all of the horses we ride ride in open bridles. I’ve never noticed a difference in how the horses reacted in either getup. I htink Carl is right on the point that if you train your team to follow your lead and trust you unconditionally it won’t matter whether they have no blinders, blinders or their eyes closed. Now, I do want to pick up a blinderless bridle for using in the woods. Not so much for the ability for them to see what’s behind them but we have alot of small twig branches in our woods and it would help a little bit in keeping the twigs from being deflected toward their eyes by the blinders. 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. Once again, the two cents of a young 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.

[Author]

Posts