It's been a busy week!
A few people have wished me a happy birthday following one of my comments on a recent post, so I would like to say thank you! My birthday is actually on Leap Year day, so this year I'm celebrating on Feb. 28th AND March 1st, a tradition started by my mother many years ago when the Buster Brown shoe saleswoman told me how sad it was that I only had a birthday every four years.
My mom proceeded to inform her that I was indeed not sad but lucky because it is a very special birthday to have and after that, I had double birthdays on the off years. As you can surmise, my mother is pretty savvy!
Later today she'll visit to help us celebrate. Redford will be in on the action, but to be honest, I think the equines are more happy about the weather than they are anything else. There have been numerous sightings of equines laying flat out in the sunshine, on ground that is not muddy but has a lovely spring to it. Yesterday Keil Bay scared me to death when I went out through the back gate to see him lying flat in the barnyard. I've never seen him lie down in there, and I had to call out to him three times to get him to move! We've had a string of gorgeous days, although I now see there is MORE SNOW predicted on Wed.
In advance of that, I spent yesterday working on the back field, mulching leaves, adding to my compost piles, clearing fallen wood. Salina and the donkeys stood in the arena and monitored my every move. For some reason Salina kept calling out a warning whinny, with her keen eye pointed into the woods. There must have been some animal in there, and she wanted to make sure I wasn't taken by surprise.
It's a good feeling to be under the protection of the boss mare!
In other news, my novel, claire-obscure, made it through the first round of the Amazon 2010 Breakthrough Novel Award contest. This is the novel that has had two agents and much praise, but which never quite made it to the green light stage when it was shopped around to editors. I've always felt (along with most of the agents and editors who read it) that it deserves to be published, and in a sort of whimsical "I'm taking control of my writing life" move in 2010, I entered it in the Amazon contest.
If it makes it through round two, Amazon customers/readers will have the ability to read excerpts and offer comments, and in the final round, the ability to vote on the novel they feel should win. If I make it to that round, I hope you'll consider taking a look and voting if you feel thus moved.
This is probably as good a time as any to announce that I am starting a small press, which I've named November Hill Press. After 7 years trying to break into traditional publishing and coming close but not quite succeeding, I've decided that it's time to take matters into my own hands.
November Hill Press will be focusing on "books that transform" - and will release books in e-book format (Kindle, Nook, iPad, Sony Reader, as well as the free e-book software PC owners can install on their regular computers, with a Mac version supposedly coming soon) and as POD trade paper editions probably via Lightning Source, which will make it possible for bookstores to easily carry/order print editions.
As of now, I have three finished novels, a nonfiction book in the final stages, and a middle grade novel nearly complete. I'm not opposed to selling any of these to traditional publishing houses, but have stopped the exhausting, frustrating, querying for agents process in order to focus my energies on getting books in front of readers.
As most of you know, I love the process of writing, and will do it no matter what. But the sister to that process is when a reader engages with the characters and the story and is moved in some way, and it's past time for me to give some energy to that side of things.
All of this is a work in progress, and I'll announce things here as they move forward. With so much chaos going on in the traditional publishing world, it seems a good time to experiment with the possibilities afforded by technology.
As anyone who knows me well can vouch for, I have rarely done anything the "normal" way, so perhaps this option has been sitting and waiting for me to get to it for a longer time than I even realize. In any case, I'm excited. Between equines and books, I'm entering the second half of my life with lots to keep me busy!
billie hinton’s camera-obscura:
life and lessons on November Hill Farm
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
dr. robert cook's letter to veterinarians at the FEI round table meeting
From: Dr Robert Cook
To: The five veterinarians at the FEI Round Table Conference on Over Bending in Lausanne, Switzerland on February 9, 2010. (John McEwen, Dr Gerd Heuschmann, Dr Sue Dyson, Professor René van Weeren and Graeme Cooke
Date: February 12, 2010
As you will see from my attached response to the FEI press release of February 9th,
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest¬e_id=323837991133&id=51217564556#!/notes/horses-for-life-publications/low-deep-and-round-or-a-blow-deep-and-unkind-dr-robert-cook-frcvs-phd/301929516133
I was deeply disappointed with the conclusions of the Round Table on Rollkur. It seems to me that, as a body, the representatives in Lausanne remained unconvinced of the inhumanity of over bending. I presume Dr Gerd Heuschmann spoke in favour of banning over bending and was out-voted. HRH Princess Haya 'accepted' the petition from 41,000 signatories who deplored over bending but apparently was unmoved.
I am wondering what your views were and whether you feel that the scientific evidence against Rollkur was really understood by the non-veterinarians at the meeting? The press release speaks of a consensus opinion. Does this mean that there was a vote and if so what was the vote? I would like to be reassured that there were dissenting opinions around the table and would hope that, at the very least, these included all of the five veterinarians.
From an outsiders perspective, it appears that the FEI's collective view on Rollkur has not changed since the 2007 workshop. It almost seems as though the views of the trainer, Sjef Janssen, once again gained ascendance on February 9th and were used as the basis of the meeting's recommendation. I am copying below, my comments on para 2.4 of the FEI's report on the Scientific session in 2007. These comments were part of the monograph I submitted to the FEI Veterinary Committee after that workshop.
2.4: THE TRAINER’S VIEW ON OVER-BENDING (“ROLLKUR”) AS A TRAINING AID FOR DRESSAGE COMPETITION.
Mr. Sjef Janssen made a distinction between what he regarded as acceptable short periods of low deep and round (LDR) and unacceptable prolonged periods of “Rollkur.” He conceded, however, that the copying of LDR by unskilled riders might involve “disadvantages.” With all due respect, I disagree most strongly with the suggestion that a training aid contraindicated on welfare grounds and, therefore, fundamentally wrong, can in some way become harmless when applied by an experienced rider. Apart from the fact that it is not harmless to that particular rider’s horse, experienced riders who use the technique are taken as role models and are setting a bad example.
The FEI is an organization that speaks for the welfare of the horse, worldwide, and must be seen to be worthy of this responsibility. As part of this commitment it is necessary for its deliberations to be transparent and open. I hope that you do not feel under any oath of secrecy as to what went on at the Feb 9th meeting and are able to share your views without divulging confidences and being disloyal to the FEI. I can understand that you may have a certain reluctance to be seen as a whistleblower but, as a veterinarian, I am sure you will agree that you have an over-riding responsibility to safeguard the welfare of the horse.
It is instructive but also sobering and immensely disappointing to look back at the recommendations and conclusions made by Professor Leo Jeffcott, chairman of the 2007 Workshop. Listed below are the summary points he made at the end of the workshop, followed by my comment on the lack of progress in the last three years.
1. The need for a definition of over-bending:
There was no need for a definition of over bending, as the FEI rule book already contained a definition of the required head position which makes such a definition unnecessary... " ... the head should remain in a steady position, as a rule slightly in front of the vertical ... " All that is needed is for the FEI to acknowledge, abide by and enforce its own rule. The call for a definition of over bending has, nevertheless, not been addressed. No one in the FEI has pointed out the irrelevance of such a requirement.
2. Horses must not be seen to be put under pressure
For three years since the workshop, horses have continued to be seen under pressure by over bending in the warm-up ring. The evidence has been documented many times on video, yet nothing has been done to prevent it. The recent most egregious example of this was the flagrant cyanotic tongue episode. The FEI's press release on February 9th, 2009 even admitted in so many words that this was why the Round Table was convened, to wit," . The issue came up for discussion after an Internet video circulated of Swedish Olympian Patrik Kittel warming up at October's CDI Odense, Denmark, using a method some call inhumane." Disappointingly, the FEI Round table did not think it appropriate to agree that the 'method' (i.e. over bending) was indeed inhumane.
As over bending can be seen in the warm-up ring, in full public view and without any sign of remorse on the part of the perpetrators, undoubtedly this and worse occurs during training. Once again, this transgresses the FEI's Code of Conduct. Item #10, for example, states; The national and international Rules and Regulations in equestrian sport regarding the health and welfare of the horse must be adhered to not only during national and international events, BUT ALSO IN TRAINING [emphasis added]. Competition Rules and Regulations shall be continually reviewed to ensure such welfare."
3. Evidence is needed to guide the Stewards in preventing abuse
Once again, I submit that a perfect guideline for stewards was already present in the FEI's own definition of 'on the bit.' " ... the head should remain in a steady position, as a rule slightly in front of the vertical ... " This was all that was needed in 2007 and it is all that is needed now. Any call by the FEI for further evidence is unjustified procrastination. There is no need for further evidence and any further delay in implementing their own rule is inexcusable.
In fact, additional evidence was submitted after the 2007 workshop. My own 51 page monograph, already cited, was received by the FEI Dressage Committee and, for all I know, there may well have been others who responded to the call for evidence.
4. The Dressage Committee would consider the findings of the Workshop
The Dressage Committee may or may not have considered these findings but they have not to my knowledge issued any public report or recommendation.
5. The Veterinary and Welfare Sub-committees should identify what research was required to answer the question of whether or not Over-bending was a welfare issue
If, prior to the 2007 workshop, there was any doubt in the minds of the members of the above committees as to whether over bending was a welfare issue (an unlikely possibility), there could have been no such doubt after reading my monograph. Over bending inflicts unnecessary pain and this alone is quite sufficient to answer the welfare question. But, once again, the FEI committees have issued no public statement by way of follow-up. For reasons unknown, the Welfare sub-committee has even been disbanded. Why this should have occurred at the very time when welfare considerations were of critical importance remains a mystery.
6. A draft proposal would be presented to the Dressage Committee for consideration prior to submission to the FEI.
Was such a proposal submitted to members of the Dressage Committee and did they, in turn, make any sort of recommendation to the FEI Board of Directors? Once again, even if they did, nothing has been issued by way of a public announcement.
To sum up, of the six recommendations by the chairman of the 2007 workshop,
• three were unnecessary in the first instance, there being appropriate rules and guidelines already in place, but they were still not acted on (as in #s1, 3 and 5)
•
• and three were necessary but not acted on (as in #2, 4 and 6).
•
This does not add up as a particularly stellar performance by the FEI in this matter of over bending. Additionally, the press release on February 9th fails to assure riders that anything has change for the better. The FEI, in relation to overbending, are non-compliant with nine of the ten items in their own Code of Conduct.
As veterinarians, we are under oath to protect the welfare of animals. Do you feel that the FEI are listening to the advice they must surely have received from their veterinary representatives?
I would very much appreciate your comments on the above observations.
To: The five veterinarians at the FEI Round Table Conference on Over Bending in Lausanne, Switzerland on February 9, 2010. (John McEwen, Dr Gerd Heuschmann, Dr Sue Dyson, Professor René van Weeren and Graeme Cooke
Date: February 12, 2010
As you will see from my attached response to the FEI press release of February 9th,
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest¬e_id=323837991133&id=51217564556#!/notes/horses-for-life-publications/low-deep-and-round-or-a-blow-deep-and-unkind-dr-robert-cook-frcvs-phd/301929516133
I was deeply disappointed with the conclusions of the Round Table on Rollkur. It seems to me that, as a body, the representatives in Lausanne remained unconvinced of the inhumanity of over bending. I presume Dr Gerd Heuschmann spoke in favour of banning over bending and was out-voted. HRH Princess Haya 'accepted' the petition from 41,000 signatories who deplored over bending but apparently was unmoved.
I am wondering what your views were and whether you feel that the scientific evidence against Rollkur was really understood by the non-veterinarians at the meeting? The press release speaks of a consensus opinion. Does this mean that there was a vote and if so what was the vote? I would like to be reassured that there were dissenting opinions around the table and would hope that, at the very least, these included all of the five veterinarians.
From an outsiders perspective, it appears that the FEI's collective view on Rollkur has not changed since the 2007 workshop. It almost seems as though the views of the trainer, Sjef Janssen, once again gained ascendance on February 9th and were used as the basis of the meeting's recommendation. I am copying below, my comments on para 2.4 of the FEI's report on the Scientific session in 2007. These comments were part of the monograph I submitted to the FEI Veterinary Committee after that workshop.
2.4: THE TRAINER’S VIEW ON OVER-BENDING (“ROLLKUR”) AS A TRAINING AID FOR DRESSAGE COMPETITION.
Mr. Sjef Janssen made a distinction between what he regarded as acceptable short periods of low deep and round (LDR) and unacceptable prolonged periods of “Rollkur.” He conceded, however, that the copying of LDR by unskilled riders might involve “disadvantages.” With all due respect, I disagree most strongly with the suggestion that a training aid contraindicated on welfare grounds and, therefore, fundamentally wrong, can in some way become harmless when applied by an experienced rider. Apart from the fact that it is not harmless to that particular rider’s horse, experienced riders who use the technique are taken as role models and are setting a bad example.
The FEI is an organization that speaks for the welfare of the horse, worldwide, and must be seen to be worthy of this responsibility. As part of this commitment it is necessary for its deliberations to be transparent and open. I hope that you do not feel under any oath of secrecy as to what went on at the Feb 9th meeting and are able to share your views without divulging confidences and being disloyal to the FEI. I can understand that you may have a certain reluctance to be seen as a whistleblower but, as a veterinarian, I am sure you will agree that you have an over-riding responsibility to safeguard the welfare of the horse.
It is instructive but also sobering and immensely disappointing to look back at the recommendations and conclusions made by Professor Leo Jeffcott, chairman of the 2007 Workshop. Listed below are the summary points he made at the end of the workshop, followed by my comment on the lack of progress in the last three years.
1. The need for a definition of over-bending:
There was no need for a definition of over bending, as the FEI rule book already contained a definition of the required head position which makes such a definition unnecessary... " ... the head should remain in a steady position, as a rule slightly in front of the vertical ... " All that is needed is for the FEI to acknowledge, abide by and enforce its own rule. The call for a definition of over bending has, nevertheless, not been addressed. No one in the FEI has pointed out the irrelevance of such a requirement.
2. Horses must not be seen to be put under pressure
For three years since the workshop, horses have continued to be seen under pressure by over bending in the warm-up ring. The evidence has been documented many times on video, yet nothing has been done to prevent it. The recent most egregious example of this was the flagrant cyanotic tongue episode. The FEI's press release on February 9th, 2009 even admitted in so many words that this was why the Round Table was convened, to wit," . The issue came up for discussion after an Internet video circulated of Swedish Olympian Patrik Kittel warming up at October's CDI Odense, Denmark, using a method some call inhumane." Disappointingly, the FEI Round table did not think it appropriate to agree that the 'method' (i.e. over bending) was indeed inhumane.
As over bending can be seen in the warm-up ring, in full public view and without any sign of remorse on the part of the perpetrators, undoubtedly this and worse occurs during training. Once again, this transgresses the FEI's Code of Conduct. Item #10, for example, states; The national and international Rules and Regulations in equestrian sport regarding the health and welfare of the horse must be adhered to not only during national and international events, BUT ALSO IN TRAINING [emphasis added]. Competition Rules and Regulations shall be continually reviewed to ensure such welfare."
3. Evidence is needed to guide the Stewards in preventing abuse
Once again, I submit that a perfect guideline for stewards was already present in the FEI's own definition of 'on the bit.' " ... the head should remain in a steady position, as a rule slightly in front of the vertical ... " This was all that was needed in 2007 and it is all that is needed now. Any call by the FEI for further evidence is unjustified procrastination. There is no need for further evidence and any further delay in implementing their own rule is inexcusable.
In fact, additional evidence was submitted after the 2007 workshop. My own 51 page monograph, already cited, was received by the FEI Dressage Committee and, for all I know, there may well have been others who responded to the call for evidence.
4. The Dressage Committee would consider the findings of the Workshop
The Dressage Committee may or may not have considered these findings but they have not to my knowledge issued any public report or recommendation.
5. The Veterinary and Welfare Sub-committees should identify what research was required to answer the question of whether or not Over-bending was a welfare issue
If, prior to the 2007 workshop, there was any doubt in the minds of the members of the above committees as to whether over bending was a welfare issue (an unlikely possibility), there could have been no such doubt after reading my monograph. Over bending inflicts unnecessary pain and this alone is quite sufficient to answer the welfare question. But, once again, the FEI committees have issued no public statement by way of follow-up. For reasons unknown, the Welfare sub-committee has even been disbanded. Why this should have occurred at the very time when welfare considerations were of critical importance remains a mystery.
6. A draft proposal would be presented to the Dressage Committee for consideration prior to submission to the FEI.
Was such a proposal submitted to members of the Dressage Committee and did they, in turn, make any sort of recommendation to the FEI Board of Directors? Once again, even if they did, nothing has been issued by way of a public announcement.
To sum up, of the six recommendations by the chairman of the 2007 workshop,
• three were unnecessary in the first instance, there being appropriate rules and guidelines already in place, but they were still not acted on (as in #s1, 3 and 5)
•
• and three were necessary but not acted on (as in #2, 4 and 6).
•
This does not add up as a particularly stellar performance by the FEI in this matter of over bending. Additionally, the press release on February 9th fails to assure riders that anything has change for the better. The FEI, in relation to overbending, are non-compliant with nine of the ten items in their own Code of Conduct.
As veterinarians, we are under oath to protect the welfare of animals. Do you feel that the FEI are listening to the advice they must surely have received from their veterinary representatives?
I would very much appreciate your comments on the above observations.
Friday, February 26, 2010
wrapping up this week's discussion
Summary of the three things question from yesterday:
Lynda offered:
1. Double bridles are not permitted at levels below Grand Prix. (Harder to get hyperflexion in a snaffle!)
2. Horses that do not track up fully in trot exercises will be severely penalised.
3. The horse's poll must ALWAYS be the highest point of the neck.
I wrote:
1. Institute a review for all judges and stewards as to the existing standards, the new distinctions, with visual examples of what is okay and what is not. Sad to say this but I think some of the upper level judges need to see what a horse whose nose is slightly in front of the vertical looks like!
2. A strengthening of the process so that stewards are not intimidated or argued with - a rider can appeal a warning, etc. but must cease what he/she is doing until the judge reviews the call. Intimidation or argument with stewards is grounds for immediate disqualification. (there is no reason to argue with the stewards if there is an appeal process in place and especially if there are cameras so that looking at the infraction is simply done by the judge)
3. Include long-time classically trained dressage riders/trainers in the working group, the round-tables, committees, etc. IMO, Sjef Janssen being included as the "dressage representative" is counterproductive. According to Janssen, he invented rollkur. It seems unlikely that he will now denounce it as abusive. We need a balance of perspectives discussing these issues. He is not representative of the discipline and sport of dressage as many of us know and cherish it.
and Maire added:
Absolutely, stewards must be protected from intimidation. I am absolutely stuck on how to define aggressive force. Do they look at the rider's position, the horse's position or both? This is crucial as it is how they have distinguished Rolllkur from LDR. I wish they had not made this distinction but it is a given for now at any rate.
They could have a clear length of time that a LDR frame is held for.
I think we've covered some good things here. Thank you to everyone who came by to read and most especially to those of you who took the extra time and thought to comment.
Don't hesitate to continue adding comments if you've had a busy week and want to jump in. People come to these posts all day and all night long, and your words will continue provoking thought!
*******
This morning when in between sleep and wakefulness, I found myself thinking of the spectrum of thought on the issue of competition.
On one end is Nevzerov and his Haute Ecole, who I read just now have put up a petition calling for a complete ban to equine competition.
On the other end are riders and trainers who seem to feel that whatever they need to do to get the horses into the winners' circle is warranted, and if necessary they will invent a name for it and say it's better than classical dressage, in order to make the ends justify the means.
Most of us probably fall somewhere in the middle. Here at our little farm, my daughter enjoys competing at the local level, so we do occasionally go to shows. I've never taken Keil Bay to one, although he would probably be fine as long as he had plenty of hay and attention. Cody, our QH with PSSM issues, doesn't trailer well right now and wouldn't do well being stalled overnight, so his comfort dictates what we do with him. The pony seems to enjoy the "specialness" of being loaded and groomed and ridden in front of people, and although he's encountered some scary things (applause, a judge in a box, giant dressage markers, etc.) with some care he has overcome those fears. And we have never hesitated to scratch due to extreme temps or other last-minute factors that we feel will adversely affect his experience.
I noticed yesterday that Redford followed me out to the horse trailer where I am keeping hay. I went into the trailer and Redford came halfway in behind me, and suddenly Salina came charging out of the barn, whinnying her most concerned whinny. She does this any time either of the donkeys go near the trailer or practice loading.
For Salina, who was a fancy brood mare for years, babies and trailers mean one thing: mare and foal inspections. It is not a good memory for her.
I promise her repeatedly that those days are over, but she comes right out to the trailer and insists that the donkeys get out.
As I have wondered before about cross country courses, I wonder about competition: would any horse choose the trailer and a show stall and the loudness of music and announcers on speakers over home? I suspect most wouldn't, although obviously many seem to do okay while there. Others do not, and we see ulcers, stall vices, difficult to manage behavior, etc. as a result.
I think my final point is that if we choose to put horses into competition as our partners, or in my case, to join in as a spectator, we must do everything we can to make the experience a positive one. In my mind, doing no harm is an absolute, but I think going beyond that is a better goal.
The first thing I notice when I go to dressage shows is the horse's head, the frame, the noseband, the bit(s), and how the rider is impacting these. I think the fact that this part of the horse and rider stands out so blatantly is a huge red flag.
I notice too the busy legs of the rider, and the spurring forward.
Often I wander back to the stabling area, and see horses in tiny, dark stalls with no turn-out. In my mind I see them missing freedom, but the worse thing is that probably many of the horses don't even get that at home. They might have bigger stalls with more windows, but it's likely they don't have turn-out to the degree I feel they deserve.
The FEI cannot manage all of the above, nor is it their duty. But I do believe they play an important part in setting and adhering to standards that protect the horses in show stabling, in warm-up arenas, and in the actual competition rides.
We have to start with that, and move outward.
I think we've experienced here, this week, that it is far easier to complain than to engage in meaningful dialogue and to actually grapple with some of what the FEI committees and working groups experience each time they meet.
Back in my public mental health therapist days, I ended up as coordinator and then director of outpatient services for children and families. There was long-standing difficulty between the mental health clinics and the social services agencies. We had very different mandates, and yet we were all supposedly there to help children. And it was clear that more children would be helped if we worked well together than if we didn't.
In an effort to bridge the troubled waters between, I instituted a monthly luncheon and invited all the mental health child and family staff, as well as the social services staff. The first month there were two people in attendance. Me and one worker from social services. Eventually more people came, and we ate lunches together and to some degree realized that we were all trying to help children and families. And that it was harder to complain about each other after we had shared lunch together.
We did several years' worth of work trying to find ways to support one another. That work involved lots of meetings, lots of administrative and structural change, and sometimes negotiating that felt a little bit ridiculous, but got us the next step further that day, that meeting.
Still, when it came to individual cases and children at risk of harm, we did what we had to do. I threatened numerous times to involve the national media and the governor's office when children were being left at risk. I stopped being polite in open court when testifying as an expert witness. If I had seen mistakes made and incompetence allowed, I said that. I was not popular, but often in private, I was thanked for what I was doing.
It was difficult - trying to maintain working relationships with people and agencies I would disagree with the next week when a new case landed on my desk.
I think this is what we have to do here though - create relationships with the organizations who govern, such as the FEI, while at the same time serving as active advocates for the horses.
Talk and discuss, as we've done here. Try when we can to leave the role of complaint behind and take on the role of change-maker.
And when we go to the shows, take our video cameras to the warm-up arenas. Keep watching, reporting, speaking out when we see things that are not right. And let the FEI know about it.
Again, thank you to Malina and all who participated this week. Hopefully we can do this again after the working group completes its current tasks.
Lynda offered:
1. Double bridles are not permitted at levels below Grand Prix. (Harder to get hyperflexion in a snaffle!)
2. Horses that do not track up fully in trot exercises will be severely penalised.
3. The horse's poll must ALWAYS be the highest point of the neck.
I wrote:
1. Institute a review for all judges and stewards as to the existing standards, the new distinctions, with visual examples of what is okay and what is not. Sad to say this but I think some of the upper level judges need to see what a horse whose nose is slightly in front of the vertical looks like!
2. A strengthening of the process so that stewards are not intimidated or argued with - a rider can appeal a warning, etc. but must cease what he/she is doing until the judge reviews the call. Intimidation or argument with stewards is grounds for immediate disqualification. (there is no reason to argue with the stewards if there is an appeal process in place and especially if there are cameras so that looking at the infraction is simply done by the judge)
3. Include long-time classically trained dressage riders/trainers in the working group, the round-tables, committees, etc. IMO, Sjef Janssen being included as the "dressage representative" is counterproductive. According to Janssen, he invented rollkur. It seems unlikely that he will now denounce it as abusive. We need a balance of perspectives discussing these issues. He is not representative of the discipline and sport of dressage as many of us know and cherish it.
and Maire added:
Absolutely, stewards must be protected from intimidation. I am absolutely stuck on how to define aggressive force. Do they look at the rider's position, the horse's position or both? This is crucial as it is how they have distinguished Rolllkur from LDR. I wish they had not made this distinction but it is a given for now at any rate.
They could have a clear length of time that a LDR frame is held for.
I think we've covered some good things here. Thank you to everyone who came by to read and most especially to those of you who took the extra time and thought to comment.
Don't hesitate to continue adding comments if you've had a busy week and want to jump in. People come to these posts all day and all night long, and your words will continue provoking thought!
*******
This morning when in between sleep and wakefulness, I found myself thinking of the spectrum of thought on the issue of competition.
On one end is Nevzerov and his Haute Ecole, who I read just now have put up a petition calling for a complete ban to equine competition.
On the other end are riders and trainers who seem to feel that whatever they need to do to get the horses into the winners' circle is warranted, and if necessary they will invent a name for it and say it's better than classical dressage, in order to make the ends justify the means.
Most of us probably fall somewhere in the middle. Here at our little farm, my daughter enjoys competing at the local level, so we do occasionally go to shows. I've never taken Keil Bay to one, although he would probably be fine as long as he had plenty of hay and attention. Cody, our QH with PSSM issues, doesn't trailer well right now and wouldn't do well being stalled overnight, so his comfort dictates what we do with him. The pony seems to enjoy the "specialness" of being loaded and groomed and ridden in front of people, and although he's encountered some scary things (applause, a judge in a box, giant dressage markers, etc.) with some care he has overcome those fears. And we have never hesitated to scratch due to extreme temps or other last-minute factors that we feel will adversely affect his experience.
I noticed yesterday that Redford followed me out to the horse trailer where I am keeping hay. I went into the trailer and Redford came halfway in behind me, and suddenly Salina came charging out of the barn, whinnying her most concerned whinny. She does this any time either of the donkeys go near the trailer or practice loading.
For Salina, who was a fancy brood mare for years, babies and trailers mean one thing: mare and foal inspections. It is not a good memory for her.
I promise her repeatedly that those days are over, but she comes right out to the trailer and insists that the donkeys get out.
As I have wondered before about cross country courses, I wonder about competition: would any horse choose the trailer and a show stall and the loudness of music and announcers on speakers over home? I suspect most wouldn't, although obviously many seem to do okay while there. Others do not, and we see ulcers, stall vices, difficult to manage behavior, etc. as a result.
I think my final point is that if we choose to put horses into competition as our partners, or in my case, to join in as a spectator, we must do everything we can to make the experience a positive one. In my mind, doing no harm is an absolute, but I think going beyond that is a better goal.
The first thing I notice when I go to dressage shows is the horse's head, the frame, the noseband, the bit(s), and how the rider is impacting these. I think the fact that this part of the horse and rider stands out so blatantly is a huge red flag.
I notice too the busy legs of the rider, and the spurring forward.
Often I wander back to the stabling area, and see horses in tiny, dark stalls with no turn-out. In my mind I see them missing freedom, but the worse thing is that probably many of the horses don't even get that at home. They might have bigger stalls with more windows, but it's likely they don't have turn-out to the degree I feel they deserve.
The FEI cannot manage all of the above, nor is it their duty. But I do believe they play an important part in setting and adhering to standards that protect the horses in show stabling, in warm-up arenas, and in the actual competition rides.
We have to start with that, and move outward.
I think we've experienced here, this week, that it is far easier to complain than to engage in meaningful dialogue and to actually grapple with some of what the FEI committees and working groups experience each time they meet.
Back in my public mental health therapist days, I ended up as coordinator and then director of outpatient services for children and families. There was long-standing difficulty between the mental health clinics and the social services agencies. We had very different mandates, and yet we were all supposedly there to help children. And it was clear that more children would be helped if we worked well together than if we didn't.
In an effort to bridge the troubled waters between, I instituted a monthly luncheon and invited all the mental health child and family staff, as well as the social services staff. The first month there were two people in attendance. Me and one worker from social services. Eventually more people came, and we ate lunches together and to some degree realized that we were all trying to help children and families. And that it was harder to complain about each other after we had shared lunch together.
We did several years' worth of work trying to find ways to support one another. That work involved lots of meetings, lots of administrative and structural change, and sometimes negotiating that felt a little bit ridiculous, but got us the next step further that day, that meeting.
Still, when it came to individual cases and children at risk of harm, we did what we had to do. I threatened numerous times to involve the national media and the governor's office when children were being left at risk. I stopped being polite in open court when testifying as an expert witness. If I had seen mistakes made and incompetence allowed, I said that. I was not popular, but often in private, I was thanked for what I was doing.
It was difficult - trying to maintain working relationships with people and agencies I would disagree with the next week when a new case landed on my desk.
I think this is what we have to do here though - create relationships with the organizations who govern, such as the FEI, while at the same time serving as active advocates for the horses.
Talk and discuss, as we've done here. Try when we can to leave the role of complaint behind and take on the role of change-maker.
And when we go to the shows, take our video cameras to the warm-up arenas. Keep watching, reporting, speaking out when we see things that are not right. And let the FEI know about it.
Again, thank you to Malina and all who participated this week. Hopefully we can do this again after the working group completes its current tasks.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
3 very concrete steps the FEI could take towards definitive progress?
The week's end has come quick! And I am on a tight schedule today, so am not going to ramble on as I have done previously.
What I'm proposing is that we offer three concrete steps we each feel would lead to progress with reference to the issue of rollkur/hyperflexion/LDR. I know some of the issue is that there IS a distinction between the first two and LDR, but I personally feel they need to be considered as one. You don't have to follow my categorization at all.
Pretend YOU'RE on the working group that's trying to clarify the new rules. Pretend you can go beyond that if you want to. What three things would you add in to the rules, or change?
I'll add mine in later, probably early evening, and then will go through any comments tonight with the intention of posting the entire list tomorrow.
One thing I'm happy to read this morning from Horse For Life:
Today at 7:27am
In March 2009, in concert and with the support with a number of other horsemen, we put online a petition for the two finger rule. Knowing that a properly adjusted noseband could help make it that much more difficult to maintain and hold a horse in an overflexed position. It gives the horse his voice back!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savingthehorses/
Now 3000 signatures strong the USEF has in 2010 answered that call at a national level!!!
Rule 121.6. .... At any level of competition, a cavesson noseband may never be so tightly fixed that it causes severe irritation to the skin, and must be adjusted to allow at least two fingers under the noseband on the side of the face under the cheekbone.
As someone noted, it could be better - could have specified two fingers between top of nose and noseband. BUT, this is progress. I've argued this with trainers for years and loosened many cavessons the trainers had made overly tight. Now at least the rule tells you where to put the fingers! Not under the horse's jaw where the crevice is!
What I'm proposing is that we offer three concrete steps we each feel would lead to progress with reference to the issue of rollkur/hyperflexion/LDR. I know some of the issue is that there IS a distinction between the first two and LDR, but I personally feel they need to be considered as one. You don't have to follow my categorization at all.
Pretend YOU'RE on the working group that's trying to clarify the new rules. Pretend you can go beyond that if you want to. What three things would you add in to the rules, or change?
I'll add mine in later, probably early evening, and then will go through any comments tonight with the intention of posting the entire list tomorrow.
One thing I'm happy to read this morning from Horse For Life:
Today at 7:27am
In March 2009, in concert and with the support with a number of other horsemen, we put online a petition for the two finger rule. Knowing that a properly adjusted noseband could help make it that much more difficult to maintain and hold a horse in an overflexed position. It gives the horse his voice back!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savingthehorses/
Now 3000 signatures strong the USEF has in 2010 answered that call at a national level!!!
Rule 121.6. .... At any level of competition, a cavesson noseband may never be so tightly fixed that it causes severe irritation to the skin, and must be adjusted to allow at least two fingers under the noseband on the side of the face under the cheekbone.
As someone noted, it could be better - could have specified two fingers between top of nose and noseband. BUT, this is progress. I've argued this with trainers for years and loosened many cavessons the trainers had made overly tight. Now at least the rule tells you where to put the fingers! Not under the horse's jaw where the crevice is!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
quick note
I meant to say in today's post that I will be adding things to each day's post as needed - so if you come back to check in, scan the full post again to see if there is new information!
Malina just commented on yesterday's post, and I have copied that at the bottom of today's to make sure everyone sees it.
Malina just commented on yesterday's post, and I have copied that at the bottom of today's to make sure everyone sees it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)