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

[Plowboy]

I’m not saying that in Johns case blinders or no blinders would have made a difference. In general though you may be surprised what they will do for you and what they can see come and go without being startled. I wouldn’t have believed the difference if I hadn’t seen it myself. I could have trained these easy going colts without a problem with blinders and had a real good young team but with these two being open it seems way faster and easier. I would have to disagree and say the hardware does make a difference. To really see the benefits you would have to start with youngsters. A well broke team would probably not make much difference unless their new vision scared the hell out of them or may make backing easier. We are going to continue to try it on any new horses in the future to keep the experiment going. Horses have great periferal visionand letting them use it positively seems to work well. So Again I would have to say there may be more to the “Hardware” thing than you realize. If it makes training faster and easier and helps prevent shying and spooking it’s worth a hardware change. We did rides at a downtown tree lighting ceremony last week and Dixie saw a lot of dogs screaming kids and worst of all bicycles whizzing by. Without having to turn her head she watched all of it come and go without as much as a flinch!

[Scott G]

Late to weigh in…but I will. I like a lot of folks use blinders because that is what I have always used and it has worked for me as well as the horses (driving) I have worked with in the past. I also know some people swear by headstalls without them. I just have never been in a situation where I seriously considered running without them, although I am very open minded and the thought intrigues me.

I can say that having a horse that is a tourist while your trying to get a job done gets on my nerves and I do believe that blinders let the horse visually concentrate on the task at hand. Have you ever noticed that most horses follow most stimuli with their ears? They may never move their heads to face the action but their ears are constantly on the move keeping track of things.

Unless it is something they have never been exposed to or they’re being a tourist (while they’re working) they’ll seldom turn their heads. They’ve got great peripheral vision but you can still tell if they are visually cueing in on something.

My take is to expose your animals to every conceivable experience without an adversely negative outcome and you’ll have more bombproof horses…

[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!

[Carl Russell]

Quote:

In general though you may be surprised what they will do for you and what they can see come and go without being startled. I wouldn’t have believed the difference if I hadn’t seen it myself. I could have trained these easy going colts without a problem with blinders and had a real good young team but with these two being open it seems way faster and easier. I would have to disagree and say the hardware does make a difference.

Dennis my comment about hardware is not about how well your horses do without blinders. In fact I have every reason to believe that if I took the blinders off my bridles, my horses would have no problem at all. What I meant is that the blinder is merely a piece of hardware, and the effect it has on the working ability of the horse is negligible compared to the consistency of the teamster. I see no reason to remove my blinders. They are just hardware, and I don’t believe that they can negatively affecting my working relationship with any horse.

Quote:

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Russell
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Russell
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.

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?

My point about the flawed logic was not directed at you personally, but toward the discussion that was started by Wes, that seemed to indicate that horses with blinders are less able to assimilate to unpredictable situations, and therefore horses that have no blinders on, and can see more, are more able to deal with these situations. This is faulty logic. There is too much evidence to suggest that it is different for every teamster and team to make such a generalized statement. Many horses have worked calmly, even worked through extremely frightening situations, with blinders on.

This does not mean that a choice based on your own logical appraisal of your relationship with your horse should not lead you to work him without blinders. If that is your initiative, so be it. Just beware of reading too much into the difference in hardware design.

Quote:

You may not have the time or resources to deal with a horse that has some issues…I fortunately do.

????? 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 love ya too. Same goes for all you folks,
Carl

[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…

[Carl Russell]

Jen, I just don’t understand why this is so super charged. Perhaps I was too direct. I meant nothing insulting. I thought I was just responding to points that you were making. Sorry.

Carl

p.s. and by the way, did you not read my post #28. I have spent a lot of time working with horses with “issues”, and my basic philosophy is the same. I see all undesirable behavior as being equal, regardless of the “issues”.

[TBigLug]

Not to detract form the blinders issue but I just wanted to give an update. I never got to take Dottie back over to the tree farm this year. Weather was too bad on the one day I wasn’t working and I just couldn’t pull it together. I think Dottie will be fine and the owner of the farm reiterated to me today that if I wanted to bring her out anytime for training purposes to feel free. Thanks again everybody for the best wishes and advice.

[LostFarmer]

I too am late to the party but…

I like to start horses without blinders. I want them to know what is going on and what they are hearing. BUT, after a certain time I find it is easier to drive them with blinders. Not so they don’t know but so they don’t anticipate the next command. It is hard to drive a tourist in a straight line. But I do like to start them open to know what they are doing. When they start to clue in on our body language it is time to put on blinders. LF

[Plowboy]

Carl, I don’t mean that blinders detract from any working relationship with any horse. I’m just saying that out of the 100 or more young horses we’ve trained these two that we trained open seemed like they almost were trained from the get go. They had been handled alot and nothing bothered them as we worked around them and hitched them. They were able to see us and were comfortable with everything that was asked of them. From our observations removing this “Hardware” {blinders} does have benefits as far as speeding up training. We are very busy with other indeavors and while we don’t want to rush lessons It saves us alot of time if they move along with there training demonstrating that they are ready. There has been no nonsense at all with these two and they have been handled the same as all that we have raised.
As far as retraining I’ll let you know when the snow gets deeper and we give old Buddy a try at seeing whats going on. I’m not saying that this is all the rage or it’s for every horse but to dismiss it as flawed logic is very narrow minded in my opinion. Until you try it and see for yourself if you experience any difference in your next team it seems that it shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly by someone that works with animals every day. Not trying to keep scratching at this I just can’t figure out why you take such a negative position against something you haven’t tried yet. We never would have tried it but by pure accident and everything goes so smooth like they were partially trained before we slid the harness on the first time. I guess I try to take a different approach and soak up all I can using what I want and cataloging the rest in my memory for future reference unless I dismiss it as far fetched or BS.

[CharlyBonifaz]

over here it is blinders when they pull a coach f.e., no blinders when working agriculturally or in the woods
there will always be exceptions to this rule 😉

[Carl Russell]

This is a general post to all of you. I am not against using bridles without blinders. The logic I referred to from the start had nothing to do with either using, or not using blinders.

I stated that the logic that somehow suggested that horses without blinders were more able to handle threatening situations was flawed because there have been many instances, mine included, where horses with blinders could overcome all kinds of issues.

(This is a quote of the stated logic I was reacting to) 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.

Quote:

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.

Somehow several people took personal offense (I mention no names) at this. Reading that I was suggesting that working without blinders makes no sense. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. My entire tirade here has been trying to clarify that point.

It has also turned into me trying to defend a stance that hardware changes are not the same as training to address behavior.

I have no problem with how any of you work your animals. I however adhere to my own standards. My defensive stance has only been to try to illustrate that by not changing hardware I have been able to address many of the same issues that folks have addressed by removing, or working horses without, blinders.

This is not to say that my horses are perfectly well behaved. In fact I have many frustrating experiences with them, from time to time. I just have a few basic rules that I try to stick with. This is my own approach. My mantras.

When I describe them, and use examples of what I don’t do, I don’t mean that any of you are doing those things. I realize that Jen took offense, as if I was suggesting that she was doing what I would never do. I am sorry for that. That was not my intention.

I just don’t understand why there is so much defensiveness around this. My original post was misinterpreted, causing unexpected responses, and the more I tried to allay those concerns the deeper the hole was dug. I was trying to be general in my statements so that they would not be taken personally, and yet there seems to be a sense that I was attacking people.
I am sorry for that as well.

My issue has never been about whether or not to use blinders, but whether there is some magic bullet to training behavior. Bridles without blinders seem to work for some, but that in no way defines the outcome for those who use bridles with blinders. So in my mind the issue is not about different hardware, but about how the teamster approaches the working relationship with the horse.

Seems simple enough to me. Sorry for the confusion. I’m done, Carl

[Gabe Ayers]

Donn Hewes from Ridgewind Farm! (Jason’s computer) It is like spring down here. Don’t tell Maryrose but I think I will be home about May. My mother told me when I was still little – no fighting online. I agree with everyone. Horses and mules are incredibly adaptable to what we ask of them. Working with out blinders is interesting if you think it is interesting. As far as the horse is concerned blinders on or off both prove the same thing – these guys can take anything we throw at them.

I agree with Carl ( correct me if I am wrong ) that when we seek to understand a horse or mules reaction or response to a situation or stimulus (baring the obvious pain, injury or illness ) we need to look at the foundations of our relationship. While I have changed lots of bits and bridles over the years, they can be a distraction from the the basic point. What did I contribute or not at the moment, or before hand, That would have enabled that horse to reach its’ full potential to adapt to challenging situations that we know it can.

I hope you are all well, and I will report on how we drop tree down her once I am safely back in NY! Mulemandonn

[Hoss]

Hey Donn, Be careful or you will be talking like the rest of us mountain folk, no one will not be able to understand your new accent once you get back home.:eek: Just kidding! You will take home some great knowledge!

[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…

[Wes Gustafson]

The situation that prompted my post was one where a dog was behind the horse and began to attack the horse’s hind leg. In that situation, the horse is ‘blind’ to the whereabouts of the dog’s teeth during the attack. Using his ears, the horse could make a guess as to where the dog might be before it actually bites, but it would be just a guess. In your viewpoint, the horse must stand in a disciplined manner while the dog attacks its foot. In my viewpoint, the horse without blinders in the same situation, could monitor the dog during the same attack, and make a decision when to apply his hoof to the dog’s face with a bit of force if things got out of hand, which they did in the case we’re talking about. Remind yourself that there were 20 people in the wagon who were trusting the teamster to work it out. Thus, I say we have a safer horse, not because it had more training, or better training, but because the teamster gave the horse the latitude to use its eyes for self-protection. Or you could say that the teamster trusted the horse to allow for self-defense.

Here are some more examples that come to mind:

1. Let’s say that a team is being driven, with blinders, on some type of wagon at a teamster’s get together, or even a parade. This team is very well trained and has a responsible, thoughtful and experienced driver, and have developed a good trust in the teamster through consistency and good handling Let’s also say that both horses that make up this team have always been driven with blinders. All is well until a leather piece on a bridle breaks, and the horse shucks the bridle. Having never actually seen the wagon following them, step for step, the horse moves away from this strange thing a little faster, and the wagon picks up speed in turn. Now the horse has to deal with two unknowns at the same time, and process them in its brain. My contention is that the horse trained without blinders would have already dealt with the scary experience of having a wagon chase after it.
2. Let’s say that you are logging in the woods and you are backing your team up to a log. One of your horses steps on a 3 to 4 foot loose branch or stick laying flat on the ground. The stick is stepped on in such a way that it pokes the horse in the belly. In the horses’ mind, what is it? Was it a bobcat, ready to tear out it’s belly, or a stick? Without blinders, the horse already had it figured out, and dismissed it.
3. Let’s say that you are driving your team down a public county road, and cars and trucks are coming up from behind you at various speeds and loudness levels. A truckful of young teenage boys drives by, and one of them tosses some projectile out at your team as they come from behind. Before the projectile ever hits the ground, the team without blinders is already aware that something is about to hit, and is prepared for something.

My understanding, having talked with a number of other teamsters, is that blinders were used primarily as a training tool to allow horses in harness to become accustomed to having an implement following them around. It probably does take longer, in the beginning, to train a horse to pull an implement without blinders, but I think that that is a problem that is easily overcome in a round pen or similar enclosed area. Some horses might not ever accept being driven without blinders, but maybe those aren’t the horses that we should use anyway.

Hopefully, this type of forum would be one that promotes a give and take on different viewpoints and ideas.

Carl, when you said: “I’m done”, does that mean that the discussion is over?

Wes

[Author]

Posts