Different styles have different "ideals"

[Flying minis]

So I've been debating posting this for a long time, but finally decided to put on a flame suit and go ahead. Different styles of riding and driving have different ideals. The styles have different goals and purposes, and the "ideal" horse in one is likely far removed from the "ideal" in another. That does NOT make one style "right" and the other "wrong". I have seen horses in EVERY discipline abused with both legal and illegal equipment, in and out of the show ring. I've ridden 3 and 5 gaited horses and driven fine harness horses that are light on the bit, relaxed and using themselves, and I've driven and ridden dressage horses that were heavy and dull.

In the show ring, in order to achieve the "ideal" look, checks and martingales are used. In the dressage / CDE ring, the ideal is different, and they aren't. That does not mean either horse is being "abused" or "forced". I'm sorry, but it's pretty difficult to get the airy movement desired out of the front end of a show driving horse if he is being "forced" into a position. Do some people do it? Yes. Do the majority? No. Just because a horse has a high check, or a low martingale, certainly doesn't mean they are abused.

Just because I like a different look than you do, doesn't make it "wrong". Personally, I'm not a fan of CDE horses - but I will admit they are usually very well trained for what they do. I would argue though that show horses are also well trained FOR WHAT THEY DO! Either one would unlikely be able to succeed in the other's competition. That's ok. That's why there are different types of competition - so you can show the way you like, and I can show the way I like. If a CDE driver drove a show ring pleasure horse, they might not like how it drives. But if a show driver drove a CDE horse, they would likely have the same issue. It's not right or wrong. It's just different.

I guess my point is, just because you don't like it, or it isn't what you would do, doesn't make it the "wrong" way to show. You can tell me it's "abusive" to "force" the horse into a frame with checks or martingales, and I will ask you why? Beause you don't do it? Because you think it means the horse isn't trained to the level you think they should be? Or because it's actually harmful to the horse? And if it's harmful - how? It's not causing pain, and it's nothing different than what many (even dressage) trainers do during training - the shows just allow it during the show also. And please don't try to tell me the dressage and CDE trainers don't use training aids, I've been around too many for too long to believe that. To me, cross-country driving and riding is more "abusive" - our show horses show for 10 minutes. No matter how conditioned a horse is, to take it out among obstacles and jumps on a course that requires vet checks to ensure the horse is healthy and can continue is overworking the horse. . . see what I mean? It's all lin the point of view.

Ok. Flame suit on. All those who know the "right" way to train, go ahead and comment now. . .

 

[Eagle]

Sitting back with a nice cup of ice tea to watch the riot begin. ( evil laugh)

Only kidding, great thread

 

[Jetiki]

My horse does lower level CDE type shows and shows in the Western Country pleasure division at AMHR shows successfully in both.

The vet checks are there especially in the hotter months to make sure the horses competing haven't injured themselves and they are physically capable of completing the competition, the vet check is at the end of the Marathon, The ridden equivelent of Eventing also has the same thing. Its to make sure the horse hasn't hurt its self and to make sure its not over heated which can happen when its hot.

When I think of a horse that is forced into the head set for the show ring, my picture and I have seen this at shows, this horse's head is cranked up by the check (meaning they can't really move their head), then pulled down by the martingale and the horse the horse's mouth looks like its being ripped apart and the horse looks stressed. Not all of the competitors show this way, but some do. I have seen horses in the ring look happy like they enjoy their job and are comfortable but I have also seen a lot that are over checked. The more naturally high headed the horse is does help to achieve the not so stressed look. A horse that has a lower set neck looks awful when its brought up to high. a lot of people also forget that the martingale is listed as optional.

To each their own. my I ask what it is you don't like about the CDE horses?

karen

 

[Minimor]

Hmm, for one thing, it makes a huge difference if that show ring driving horse that is checked up high is built to go that way, or if he is built completely wrong for that style of driving. If he is built wrong ie: low set neck, thick throatlatch....then yes, to check him up tight and pull his nose in to make him look like a fancy driving horse is cruel. Such a frame is going to be extremely difficult for him--not only will he have difficulty breathing, but it's going to be physically uncomfortable for him as well. That is the type of horse that has been the subject of such threads as the one about a proposed rule change regarding horses wheezing/roaring in harness classes.

Now, if the horse is built to go in that style...no, it's not cruel. Some people still won't like the style/training/equipment, but there would be no complaints about the horse roaring/wheezing due to physical discomfort/breathing restrictions. There's be a lot less complaining if all horses being shown in open pleasure driving were built like this one:

He's got the high neck set, the nice slender throatlatch--this guy can set his neck straight up out of his shoulder, and break at the poll to bring his nose in and put his face on the vertical without any effort whatsoever--and you don't need a check to make him set up that way--so if he were being shown with a check there'd be nothing cruel about it. And yes, as a matter of fact this one would make a top notch dressage horse as well, if one were small enough to ride him--because he doesn't have to go in such an upright frame, he can lengthen out & go that way too. He can trot level or above, and he's got good extension too, just depending how you ask him to go. No reason he couldn't do CDE either--he's got the ground covering gaits, oodles of stamina and the conformation to stay sound.

This little guy, on the other hand, is a rather good example of a horse that doesn't belong in open pleasure driving.

He doesn't have the conformation to be comfortable in an upright sort of frame--you bring his head up & make him tuck in his nose so that his face is vertical he's going to be a very unhappy, uncomfortable horse--and you will pretty much need the check and a martingale to position his head that way because he won't go that way naturally. We do see countless horses that are very similar to this one in conformation being forced to go in the frame that is favored for pleasure driving in the breed ring--and that is exactly why there are so many people that are complaining about how these horses are being presented in the ring!

 

[Flying minis]

Thank you Karen, that's exactly what I mean - we can have our preferences, and still respect the other styles.

I guess it's not that I don't like CDE horses, I just far prefer the showier, higher action, show type horses. I can appreciate a good CDE horse as being a good example of what it is supposed to be (and I have 2 CWP minis, so I realize not all are made to be pleasure horses, etc.) I just prefer the look of the show horses. Maybe because I originally showed Arabians and Saddlebreds, and that's the look I love in the show ring.

 

[Flying minis]

Hmm, for one thing, it makes a huge difference if that show ring driving horse that is checked up high is built to go that way, or if he is built completely wrong for that style of driving. If he is built wrong ie: low set neck, thick throatlatch....then yes, to check him up tight and pull his nose in to make him look like a fancy driving horse is cruel. Such a frame is going to be extremely difficult for him--not only will he have difficulty breathing, but it's going to be physically uncomfortable for him as well. That is the type of horse that has been the subject of such threads as the one about a proposed rule change regarding horses wheezing/roaring in harness classes.

Now, if the horse is built to go in that style...no, it's not cruel. Some people still won't like the style/training/equipment, but there would be no complaints about the horse roaring/wheezing due to physical discomfort/breathing restrictions. There's be a lot less complaining if all horses being shown in open pleasure driving were built like this one:

He's got the high neck set, the nice slender throatlatch--this guy can set his neck straight up out of his shoulder, and break at the poll to bring his nose in and put his face on the vertical without any effort whatsoever--and you don't need a check to make him set up that way--so if he were being shown with a check there'd be nothing cruel about it. And yes, as a matter of fact this one would make a top notch dressage horse as well, if one were small enough to ride him--because he doesn't have to go in such an upright frame, he can lengthen out & go that way too. He can trot level or above, and he's got good extension too, just depending how you ask him to go. No reason he couldn't do CDE either--he's got the ground covering gaits, oodles of stamina and the conformation to stay sound.

This little guy, on the other hand, is a rather good example of a horse that doesn't belong in open pleasure driving.

He doesn't have the conformation to be comfortable in an upright sort of frame--you bring his head up & make him tuck in his nose so that his face is vertical he's going to be a very unhappy, uncomfortable horse--and you will pretty much need the check and a martingale to position his head that way because he won't go that way naturally. We do see countless horses that are very similar to this one in conformation being forced to go in the frame that is favored for pleasure driving in the breed ring--and that is exactly why there are so many people that are complaining about how these horses are being presented in the ring!

Couldn't agree with you more - horses are built differently, and not all are made to be pleasure drivers. However, I think where I have the issue is in threads that say basically, don't allow checks or martingales, or it's "wrong" to use checks and martingales. They are, like any other piece of equipment, capable of being used correctly, and capable of being abused. However, in many threads lately, that has not been the point of view presented (other than an occassional caveat that any equipment can be misused). Instead, the posts are basically that checks and martingales are "wrong" and shouldn't be used. Sometimes they should, sometimes they shouldn't. But to just make blanket statements that using this equipment is incorrect, to me, does a disservice to those who use them correctly, and to those who are trying to learn about the use of the equipment. Should they be optional? You bet, I'd agree with that, it allows each trainer / driver to treat each horse as it should be as an individual. Will banning them change the issue of horses that are not physically made to go high being "forced" into this frame? Not likely. I've seen enough to know that horses can be made to go in an unnatural frame (ever see the peanut roller quarter horses?).

However, before I'd write off the second horse, I'd also watch how he naturally moves when turned out. It's not all about headset. He actually seems to carry his head fairly high, but I agree, asking for tuck would cause him problems. But then, will he be any more comfortable in a "long and low" headset? Let's face it, very little of what we ask from horses is "comfortable" for them. We ask them to move and do things, repeatedly and at our command, that they never do, or very seldom do on their own. To me, trying to make a high headed horse "go low" is just as bad as making a horse who carries low "go high".

 

[Minimor]

I do agree, there are many that complain about checks (and martingales) regardless--and some like to use Black Beauty as an example of why checks should be banned. I always say that there's a far cry between checking up a show ring driving horse and trying to make a checked up horse pull a heavy load up a hill!

And yes, you're right, my little black guy wouldn't be comfortable in a long & low frame either--he is quite upheaded, just not built to tuck his nose & have his face vertical. He's just a going-down-the-road driving horse and it doesn't matter where he sets his nose--or if he "sets" it at all--he's bright eyed and happy doing what he's doing!

I have no beef with anyone whose horse is bright eyed & looks to be happy & comfortable doing what it's doing, regardless if it is or isn't wearing a check or martingale. But, if the horse is wheezing & has a very unhappy/worried/stressed expression--then I will have something negative to say about that horse or rather the way he has been trained and the way he's being presented.

 

[Jetiki]

if we all liked the same thing the world would be boring

I can add I think that some people don't like the restrictions that the checks and martingales offer. Because lets face it they do restrict what the horse can do with his head. if the horse wants to stretch its back and put its head down it can't. You wouldn't take a highly checked horse on a trail drive, its not fair to the horse. In a lot of cases those that are naturally high headed don't really need the check to hold their head there, I have also seen a lot of people, well those with helpers unhook the check until they go in the ring and I have no issues with this, its fair. They are only checked for the time in the ring. Its the ones I have seen out in the warm up ring for a long time (over an hour) horse was constantly moving never unchecked. That horse probably needed a break and I really don't think it was fair to him. The longer he went the more excited he seemed to get but I don't know if that was just him or if he was just having a case of nerves or a bad day.

Karen

 

[Flying minis]

I do agree, there are many that complain about checks (and martingales) regardless--and some like to use Black Beauty as an example of why checks should be banned. I always say that there's a far cry between checking up a show ring driving horse and trying to make a checked up horse pull a heavy load up a hill!

And yes, you're right, my little black guy wouldn't be comfortable in a long & low frame either--he is quite upheaded, just not built to tuck his nose & have his face vertical. He's just a going-down-the-road driving horse and it doesn't matter where he sets his nose--or if he "sets" it at all--he's bright eyed and happy doing what he's doing!

I have no beef with anyone whose horse is bright eyed & looks to be happy & comfortable doing what it's doing, regardless if it is or isn't wearing a check or martingale. But, if the horse is wheezing & has a very unhappy/worried/stressed expression--then I will have something negative to say about that horse or rather the way he has been trained and the way he's being presented.

Minimor, I think you and I agree : ) I just don't know how we try to ensure that is what is chosen in the show ring. . . to me it's a matter of continually educating judges, rather than making rules. But, judges are inevitably trainers, so where does that leave us?

Personally, I would love to see a change to rules that AMATEURS can be judges, and not affect their amateur status. If you have enough knowledge to write books, etc about horses and training and still be an amateur, why can't you also be a judge and be an amateur? I always hear complaints that "well, all the judges are trainers". HELLO? Of course they are, because the rules make it easiest and most conducive for them to be judges! (OK, I know that's totally off topic.) : )

 

[minigrub]

Minimor, I think you and I agree : ) I just don't know how we try to ensure that is what is chosen in the show ring. . . to me it's a matter of continually educating judges, rather than making rules. But, judges are inevitably trainers, so where does that leave us?

Personally, I would love to see a change to rules that AMATEURS can be judges, and not affect their amateur status. If you have enough knowledge to write books, etc about horses and training and still be an amateur, why can't you also be a judge and be an amateur? I always hear complaints that "well, all the judges are trainers". HELLO? Of course they are, because the rules make it easiest and most conducive for them to be judges! (OK, I know that's totally off topic.) : )

I disagree that amateurs should be able to be judges but I do have an issue with trainers on LOC for 2 reasons. First, breeders should be the ones that are dictating where the breed is going. If you have trainers training judges that jut doesn't work. Second issue is that when LOC is what stands between someone and their card, which is some peoples livelihood, you want to do right by those people. An insecure judge will just start picking trainers. A judge who had his job on the line will start picking the people who give him a job.

Sorry, I know it is very off topic. It is something I have a MAJOR issue with.

I do agree with the OP 100% about checks, martingales and such.

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

We need to do as the dog show people do: once you get your judge's card you cannot show. Period.

 

[Minimor]

First, breeders should be the ones that are dictating where the breed is going. If you have trainers training judges that jut doesn't work. Second issue is that when LOC is what stands between someone and their card, which is some peoples livelihood, you want to do right by those people. An insecure judge will just start picking trainers. A judge who had his job on the line will start picking the people who give him a job.

I don't entirely agree that breeders should be the ones dictating where the breed is going. I do think that someone other than the breeders should be judging what the breeders are producing--though of course there are breeders who are judges. As for trainers (or breeders) training judges....I think JUDGES should be training judges.

"We" as in we the general owners/members have some power over who gets hired as judges, because we can choose who we want to show under. Don't like a show's choice of judge? Don't show, and do let the show committee know why you're not entering their show. There are judges who cause people to choose to stay at home rather than come out to a show and when it comes to the worst of these judges the show committee is likely to know what the issue is, and they won't hire that judge.

Every exhibitor at every show is given a judge evaluation sheet--and so make sure you fill those in, particularly if you have a complaint about the judge. It may not make any difference, but then again it might.

I personally don't think it would be a good thing to make it rule that anyone holding a judges card cannot show--that would surely eliminate some/most of our best judges. Few trainers are going to give up training/showing to be exclusively a judge--I am guessing that the majority of those who train and judge make a lot more money from their training services than they do from judging. They're not going to give up the majority of their income just so they can judge--they would drop their judges card and keep on training.

 

[ClickMini]

I am the one who originated the rule change thread. I compete in breed shows and CDEs. One of my horses is extremely successful at higher levels in both disciplines, and continues to compete in both.

What I am against, totally, is horses being forced into frames that make it hard for them to breathe. You see it fairly often in roadster and single pleasure. I just don't think it is fair to the animal.

 

[Flying minis]

Good thread, I really expected that I may need a "flame suit" but just wanted to mention how civil and respectful all responses have been . . . this is the type of discourse that I feel leads to real discussion and good decisions . . . too bad it doesn't always happen where it needs to (thinking of politics here), but I think it shows how we all tend to agree on the issues, just disagree perhaps on the best way to solve them. . .

 

[kaykay]

Don't like a show's choice of judge? Don't show, and do let the show committee know why you're not entering their show. There are judges who cause people to choose to stay at home rather than come out to a show and when it comes to the worst of these judges the show committee is likely to know what the issue is, and they won't hire that judge.Every exhibitor at every show is given a judge evaluation sheet--and so make sure you fill those in, particularly if you have a complaint about the judge. It may not make any difference, but then again it might.

I have been saying that for years. But in talking with show managers rarely does anyone fill out the judge evaluation form.

You have to speak with your money.

I really wish we had more breeders on the ASPC/AMHR board. The board now is made up of a high percentage of judges/trainers. I do think that is a totally different mindset than a breeder sitting on the board.

 

[minigrub]

I don't entirely agree that breeders should be the ones dictating where the breed is going. I do think that someone other than the breeders should be judging what the breeders are producing--though of course there are breeders who are judges. As for trainers (or breeders) training judges....I think JUDGES should be training judges.

"We" as in we the general owners/members have some power over who gets hired as judges, because we can choose who we want to show under. Don't like a show's choice of judge? Don't show, and do let the show committee know why you're not entering their show. There are judges who cause people to choose to stay at home rather than come out to a show and when it comes to the worst of these judges the show committee is likely to know what the issue is, and they won't hire that judge.

Every exhibitor at every show is given a judge evaluation sheet--and so make sure you fill those in, particularly if you have a complaint about the judge. It may not make any difference, but then again

I agree judges should be training judges. There are enough breeders that are judges out there to accomplish that.

Why do you think trainers should have a say in the direction we are going?

As far as "stay at home if you don't like the judge" sure that would work in a perfect world. I tell a show manager I am not going to a show with my 2-3 horses if judge x is there. A trainer says he isn't going with 10-20 horses with his clients if he doesn't like the judge. Who has more influence? Not to mention in some, although infrequent, cases when the judges are hired by the trainers and then they show.

Green Cards (AMHA) used to be given out in every owners packet with a $5 deposit. Those green cards were collected and sent back to AMHA, tabulated, RECORDED, copies of scores and some comments were sent back to the judge and then used to evaluate the judge when they went back to LOC to renew their card.

Now, show managers get about 20 Green Cards, there is no deposit or requirement to fill them put, you have to ask for them and maybe they will have them, they get sent to AMHA and that is the end of them. The judges do not have any idea how they did. AMHA is not watching how they did. I will go in and get a Green Card but those results do what? In addition to that there are way to many people that don't know what they are anyway!

Again, I am sorry for straying from the topic of the thread.

 

[RhineStone]

I don't know of carriage driving trainers using a lot of training devices other than maybe sliding side reins for a short period of time in the training process. When you use the German Training Scale as the basis for training, there just is not room for shortcuts.

And actually, there are many "show horses" in the carriage ring. It's just that they aren't checked up. I know of horses that have done both well, minis, Morgans, saddlebreds, etc. There is a saddlebred right now that is a former 5 gaited horse that is being shown CDEs I think with Sterling Graburn. The Saddlebred association has a big promo for it trying to show the versatility of the breed. Most horses may not be able to show in both rings at the same time, but they can by all means crossover.

Myrna

 

[Minimor]

I agree judges should be training judges. There are enough breeders that are judges out there to accomplish that.

Why do you think trainers should have a say in the direction we are going?

As far as "stay at home if you don't like the judge" sure that would work in a perfect world. I tell a show manager I am not going to a show with my 2-3 horses if judge x is there. A trainer says he isn't going with 10-20 horses with his clients if he doesn't like the judge. Who has more influence? Not to mention in some, although infrequent, cases when the judges are hired by the trainers and then they show.

Green Cards (AMHA) used to be given out in every owners packet with a $5 deposit. Those green cards were collected and sent back to AMHA, tabulated, RECORDED, copies of scores and some comments were sent back to the judge and then used to evaluate the judge when they went back to LOC to renew their card.

Now, show managers get about 20 Green Cards, there is no deposit or requirement to fill them put, you have to ask for them and maybe they will have them, they get sent to AMHA and that is the end of them. The judges do not have any idea how they did. AMHA is not watching how they did. I will go in and get a Green Card but those results do what? In addition to that there are way to many people that don't know what they are anyway!

Again, I am sorry for straying from the topic of the thread.

Why do I think that trainers should have a say in the direction our breed takes? Because I think that having trainers as judges provides some balance to breeders and breeders that are judging as well as breeding....because quite frankly there are breeders who are completely barn blind. They don’t see faults in their own horses, and often don’t see those same faults in other horses. There are breeders who have horses that just aren’t quality animals due to serious conformation issues and in the case of those breeders who are also judges, I see the likelihood of those breeders choosing horses of similar type/conformation when they are judging.

When it comes to trainers who are judges, well, there are some trainers out there who I hold in high esteem. I value their opinions. (Breeders too—I am NOT disparaging all breeders with what I wrote above!) They know conformation, they value good movement, they understand the importance of form to function, particularly if they are training performance horses. In many cases they are more knowledgeable than a lot of breeders. I simply don’t think it would be a good thing to bar them from being judges.

Some of those trainers are also breeders—so are they truly less worthy as judges because they are trainers and breeders? A breeder is better qualified to judge than a breeder who is also a trainer? Or better than a trainer who is a trainer but does not breed? I sure would not say so. If you don’t agree with me that’s perfectly fine, but that is my opinion and I stand behind it.

I'm curious as to what, in your view, is the problem with judges being trainers—just the fact that you feel trainers place trainers rather than judging the actual horse? If that’s the case I would point out that you could apply that same problem to breeders being judges as well...Last week you gave all the 1st places to my trainer so this week I will give all the 1st places to your trainer.....or maybe it would be more like well, you bought that filly from me last summer so I’ll give 1st to you, and I’ll give Grand to that colt there because I know that Big Name Trainer is showing him for Mr. Big Name Breeder, and I know Mr. Big name Breeder is the judge at the show next week and he’ll return the favor to me there by giving Grand to my favorite filly, regardless if that filly is shown by me or by my favorite trainer... if one sees politics as a big problem, I don’t think there’s any way to escape that problem.

Does favoritism happen? I’m sure it does. I see some judges being worse for it than others but I don't see it is an overwhelming problem, in most cases, in ASPC/AMHR. I don't show AMHA and have no idea what those shows/judges are like. I do find in enough cases people complain of politics when in actual fact there aren't politics--yes, I agree sometimes there are, I've seen it happen, I've heard judges even admit to it indirectly--but sometimes people just prefer to blame politics rather than admit that there was some other reason they didn't win when they thought they should--it does happen that way too.

I think there's something wrong if exhibitors have to be "paid" to return a judge evaluation. If people have so many complaints about the judging at shows they attend, they should be filling those in and sending them to the office. You can't say that filling out the form does no good if you never bother to fill that form in--of course it does no good if no one sends in the forms! If you've got complaints--fill out that form & send it in. Why wouldn't you?

 

[hobbyhorse23]

I guess my point is, just because you don't like it, or it isn't what you would do, doesn't make it the "wrong" way to show. ... Ok. Flame suit on. All those who know the "right" way to train, go ahead and comment now. . .

No flames here, not at all! I think you have a very good point and am well aware (as one of the primary posters on the driving forum) that the bias there has been extremely strong in the direction of "show ring driving is evil" recently. Similarly, many posters have been frightened off by the rabid "You are EVIL putting your horse to such-and-such a vehicle!" posts and I hate to see that. I completely agree with MiniMor when she says:

I have no beef with anyone whose horse is bright eyed & looks to be happy & comfortable doing what it's doing, regardless if it is or isn't wearing a check or martingale. But, if the horse is wheezing & has a very unhappy/worried/stressed expression--then I will have something negative to say about that horse or rather the way he has been trained and the way he's being presented.

There are MANY show horses who are beautifully presented and clearly happy in their work and they are a pleasure to see. Even those who are not built to work naturally in an upheaded frame can be brought to do so fairly comfortably by educated and compassionate use of the check and I have no problem with that. Heck, I take great glee in slapping a sidecheck on my own horse in the spring and watching him hit it the first time he tries to dive for grass while ground-driving!

That snatch in the mouth serves him right- he darn well knows better. I've also taken to using one occasionally since his injury because he's gotten in the habit of moving with his head held very low and his back unnaturally flat to avoid flexing the weak area and he needs a physical reminder sometimes to carry himself a little more roundly even at the walk for PT purposes. The aid is being used towards a specific purpose, with education, and with concern for the horse's wellbeing.

On the flip side there are CDE horses of all sizes whom I feel very sorry for and would probably be much happier in the breed ring somewhere. Some horses simply don't like going cross-country or are anxious about all the scary things out in the big wide world and they might be much more confident in an arena. Others have drivers who push them too hard, drive too fast, and yank the horse around those obstacles with no regards for the horse's mouth or sanity. It's all about the speed for them and good horsemen of every discipline frown to see it.

I am every bit as disgusted with those sorts of drivers as someone who checks their horse up higher than is comfortable!

You can tell me it's "abusive" to "force" the horse into a frame with checks or martingales, and I will ask you why? Beause you don't do it? Because you think it means the horse isn't trained to the level you think they should be? Or because it's actually harmful to the horse? And if it's harmful - how? It's not causing pain, and it's nothing different than what many (even dressage) trainers do during training - the shows just allow it during the show also.

I personally have a real issue with any sort of training, in any discipline, which causes the horse anxiety and stress. In the case of someone literally forcing a horse into a frame rather than using the artificial aids to suggest a frame to the horse, and doing so too fast and too hard, yes, I think that sort of training harms them. Do you know how much business my local equine chiropractor gets from hollowed-out, upside-down mini driving champions?? The ones who aren't naturally built to travel that way get flatter and flatter over the topline, even developing sway backs. That's a physical breakdown of the muscles of the vertebral column- to me, that's harm. I also know far too many horses in every discipline (ridden and driven) who burn out after being started early and pushed too hard and I hate it. Truly, passionately hate it, after owning an Arabian who was trained that way and who would literally have a nervous breakdown if taken into an indoor arena in his later years. No horse should ever be pushed to that point for any reason.

I don't hate checks or martingales- they are neutral devices which (as you say) can be used to educate or to harm just like any other item. What I hate is the attitude that puts a ribbon over the horse's happiness and honestly, it's a lot harder to force the horse to do something unnatural and uncomfortable without artificial aids. That is the primary reason most of my posts are against the use of such items- those who have the knowledge to use them properly are usually the ones who don't need them in the first place.

But to just make blanket statements that using this equipment is incorrect, to me, does a disservice to those who use them correctly, and to those who are trying to learn about the use of the equipment. Should they be optional? You bet, I'd agree with that, it allows each trainer / driver to treat each horse as it should be as an individual.

I actually wouldn't want to see them banned either- my goal would be "optional" as they are in the Pinto shows. I've tried when posting to show both sides of an issue and discuss what proper use of any given device (IMO) would be but have gotten less careful about that in recent months since I'm no longer the only voice saying "maybe checks aren't necessary." I apologize if I've gone too far in the other direction and agree that it's important to remember that many different kinds of drivers frequent these forums. Boards like this should be about education, not blanket statements, whether that's the breed ring drivers saying everyone needs to tighten their checks to win or ADS drivers saying no one at all should use them. (Or for that matter, that all EE's are bad or draft harnesses are not appropriate or whatever the issue might be!) Tell the person why you think something's a bad idea and let them make their own decisions. If the horse is built to bridle up I see no harm in using checks and martingales as they are proper turnout for fine harness-style competition and can show the horse what you want in a way they understand. What I hate is when people who don't know better use tight overchecks on their trail horses just because they came with the harness or new showers expect their low-necked horse to magically have a good headset because they tightened that check just like the judge told them to.

That is where I make the blanket statement of "Checks do no good, why don't you just take them off?" At least without them you know the horse is only giving what he's capable of.

Just because I like a different look than you do, doesn't make it "wrong". Personally, I'm not a fan of CDE horses - but I will admit they are usually very well trained for what they do. I would argue though that show horses are also well trained FOR WHAT THEY DO! Either one would unlikely be able to succeed in the other's competition. That's ok. That's why there are different types of competition - so you can show the way you like, and I can show the way I like.

A good show horse certainly should be well-trained for what they do- a lot of work goes into teaching a Single Pleasure horse to use themselves and develop that brilliant action!

I admit freely I wouldn't have the first clue how to do it and admire those who do. I think most of the negative posts are aimed at an industry which allows young horses to be simply (and literally) checked up, put in the cart and shoved in the ring with no clue what they are doing and somehow get rewarded with ribbons. We can all tell the difference between a confident and forward performer and a stressed and anxious green horse and my only objection is to the latter regardless of equipment or discipline. In our area at least many of the CDE horses also compete in Country Pleasure and even Single Pleasure and WIN, even at Nationals. Many of the show horses would also do very well in ADS-style competitions because they were trained to use themselves properly (meaning to engage the rear end rather than trailing it out behind them.) I think a correctly-moving, happy horse is beautiful regardless of what tack he's wearing and what style he's being shown and will respect his driver without reservation.

Leia