|
Post by Ally S on Nov 5, 2009 14:22:56 GMT 1
Re the buckstopper, feelings always run high when this is used. I would not normally be happy for one to be put on a horse which appeared to have a physical issue as Woody did. However, as stated he was checked and no muscular or structural problems were found and he was in an extreme situation. He went around the pen with no tack on with no problem. Then when a very light jockey saddle was put on he exploded. There was no way that the saddle could have caused him any pain at that point. And at that point he wasn't wearing the buckstop. He settled. I believe, that whatever his problem physically, it was memory of something bad that caused him to buck in the way he did. Monty then put the buckstop on him followed by a dummy which he did not buck with and then Adrian who he did at first buck with. Then he settled. I believe the buckstop not only prevented him bucking so big, but in doing so allowed Woody to realise that actually things weren't so bad. Lots of you will disagree, but that's how I saw it at the demo.
There also seems to be a view that the buckstopper causes pain and is dangerous. I don't agree! I think it causes discomfort. I have never heard of a horse being hurt by one and Monty states the worst he has seen as a result is a small red line on the horses gum. That is not saying I do not believe what Caroline says - just that I haven't heard that. And frankly if a horse has seriously been hurt in such a way it is totally unacceptable. But was the buckstopper or the person who used it to blame? Almost certainly the latter. And let's face it, how many horses have been hurt by bits, saddles, etc etc in the wrong hands?
I do not disagree with the buckstopper in the way some people do. I think that in some cases it is kinder to a horse to get it over it's issue in such a manner than to drag the process out. And I belive it is only a risky tool to use in the wrong hands. Monty knows what he is doing whether any of us approve or not!
The last horse of the night really made my mind up on some counts. It was a home bred filly, 18 months old and was in for loading. It became clear very quickly that her problem was leading and respect. She tried to run over Monty, lost her temper when he stopped her, stamped, threatened to throw herself on the ground or potentially rear vertical. She had a heart rate monitor attached and all this time her heart rate was well up. Then there was a moment where she relaxed and accepted Monty as leader. And instantly her heart rate dropped hugely. She did not shut down, she relaxed and it was wondeful to see that happen. Others will disagree with what Monty did, that she was in a demo etc. I saw Monty do an amazing thing. That does not make me a blind follower and I always have my own views. But when I see what I believe to be a good job done I'll say so! And what Monty did in Okehampton was amazing to watch. In a matter of minutes a stressed filly learned she did not have to look out for herself because she had a reliable consistant leader - in my opinion a much nicer place for a horse to be in.
Anyone who dislikes Monty, pressure halters, buckstoppers etc will continue to do so, and have every right to their opinion and nothing I say will change that. But I can't sit back and hear about buckstoppers etc beeing painful and dangerous when I just do not believe that is the case and yet it is stated as fact.
What is strange is that we're all still arguing away about Woody - he just had 30 mins in a round pen and is now relaxing in Cornwall with Dan! What I am convinced about is that we're all horse lovers - we just see things differently.
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Nov 5, 2009 14:53:48 GMT 1
I'd echo AllyS' comments about Woody's ability and speed of learning. He seemed to understand what was intended very quickly, and I feel Monty & Adrian were extremely sympathetic to his plight and were determined to help him through it if at all possible. Not only that but they were very brave to go into a confined space with a horse that could IMO quite reasonably be described as dangerous.
I would suggest that, without Monty's intervention in the case of the non-loading horse, that filly may well have ended up in a similar state - she had no manners whatsoever and was fairly described as a "spoiled child". Had she been allowed to continue on that path it is entirely conceivable that she would have been written off as dangerous, with all the undesirable outcomes that implies.
In the context of this thread, Caroline comments "I am wondering if there was a better way to get this horse saved that didn't involve use of a painful and hazardous tool. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that question." Neither do I; by questioning things via reasoned debate, we should advance our understanding of a situation. However I believe we do the best we can with the tools available to us at that time, so until a better solution is devised perhaps the buckstopper is the most humane right now. And whichever side of the debate one sits I would like to think we agree that it is better than beating the horse into submission.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Nov 5, 2009 14:54:04 GMT 1
Others will disagree with what Monty did, that she was in a demo etc. I saw Monty do an amazing thing. That does not make me a blind follower and I always have my own views. This is slightly out of context as you wrote it when speaking of the last horse at the Demo AllyS but I feel it applies to Woody as well... I have many times been accused of being a blind follower and even a fanatic, perhaps I am but I do try my best to be objective and realistic but am much less experienced than many on this DG and certainly know nothing compared to Monty,Kelly and the team. I go by my insticts a lot about trainers and their methods and there are a few things i would prefer didn't happen or were used... laying a horse down is another of these but I am prepared to accept that someone whom I consider to be very experienced and makes a decision to do something in certain (unusual) circumstances that is going to help the horse and that I've never seen any evidence of it harming a horse (done correctly) is in a better position than me to make that decision. Yes there are many things that various Trainers do that I find seem on the surface to be at odds with their philosophy but I do believe that many do so as their personal experience over many years has taught them when and where these dramatic techniques are of benefit to a particular horse. If or when we get 'the perfect world' then there will be no need for these discussions but in the meantime this is one instance I feel comfortable with looking in from the outside... Off babbling again sorry.
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Nov 5, 2009 15:41:19 GMT 1
It sounds like I must produce evidence to support the suggestion that the buckstopper can rip a horses lip off.
There was apparently a local case in the New Forest where a lady saw the buck stopper used in a demo and used it on one of her own horses - which later turned out to have a hormonal imbalance. That horse apparently did not give in to the buck stopper and instead ended up ripping half it's lip off. I know someone that actually saw the ripped lip and I think is still in contact with the woman. I could try and chase it up and get photos if necessary.
It seems a bit of a waste of time though - it should be fairly obvious what could happen if a horse has a reason that would cause it to keep fighting beyond the pain of the buck stopper.
|
|
|
Post by Zoe RA on Nov 5, 2009 15:52:02 GMT 1
Caroline, there will always be those who "have a go" at home, in spite of Monty repeatedly stating that this is not a bit of kit to be used by anybody but a professional competent in using it.
I have seen horrendous injuries caused by bits, and by badly fitting saddles. It is not the bit of kit itself that is bad, but howand by whom it is used.
Mods, may I suggest that this thread is moved to the DG Hall of Fame (and Caroline's own threads about rescuing horses to the Personal Charities and Missions Section)) so as to avoid any more detraction from the wonderful chance that Woody has now been given?
|
|
|
Post by heather on Nov 5, 2009 19:47:39 GMT 1
Thank you Zoe.
Heather
|
|
|
Post by heather on Nov 5, 2009 19:57:36 GMT 1
Caroline,
I dont know how many times I need to repeat this, but in an ideal world, had I the time and space to take Woody on myself, if I was a lot younger than my 56 years, and also had the not inconsiderable sum it would take to get him fully investigated, then yes, this would have been my first and preferred option.
But this was not an option, and the only way to save Woody was to prove that he could be ridden through the bucking. As Ally said, when he reacted so badly to the saddle, the buckstopper was not in place. He didnt react nearly so badly to the dummy rider, as he did to the saddle, and the buckstopper was not used until Adrian got on. He is a superbly balanced rider and I saw him ride up at Kellys a couple of years or so ago and was impressed with his light seat and hands. Woody could not have had a better or more sympathetic rider to steer him through the comparatively mild bucking that ensued once Adrian was mounted.
To my mind there was never any danger of Woody reacting very badly with Adrian, once he had got the incredible aerobatics that the saddle caused, out of the way. To my mind, Woody has issues from the saddle, which may stem way back to his racing days even. He was sold as 'cold backed' which makes me think that his aversion is not to being ridden, so much as having a saddle, even a light racing saddle such as Monty used last week, placed on his back. I suspect he has remembered pain from a badly fitting saddle and this is the root of his bucking.
Heather
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Nov 5, 2009 23:02:00 GMT 1
Heather - I am not suggesting you should have taken Woody on. I am sure you would have done if you had felt able to. You clearly care a lot about him.
I feel exhausted and hurt by this entire debate. All I am trying to do is suggest that we find gentler ways to save lives. I can see that by the time the horse was in the ring, that probably looked like the only way to save him. But was it really the *only* way? Truly? Couldn't an appeal have been made when the size of the problem was known and before the buck stopper was employed? Coudn't IH take on the occasional project like this as a case study?
I understand IH is a business and is not operating as a horse sanctuary. Wouldn't that be wonderful if it was though? And it wouldn't necessarily destroy the business model either. I have said for a long time that IH would work better on TV and over longer periods than it does in a 30 minute demo. Surely there is an entire TV series in the fixing of Woody and horses with similarly big problems? I would watch such a program. I am sure many here would. It would be a much better validation of Monty's methods because we would see the whole story and the long term outcome. People would know the methods really do work long term because they would see the whole story of a horse going through the system.
These things take money, I know - but surely there is money in TV program making? Surely it would reach an even bigger audience and market and the knock on sales of books, equipment and merchandise would be even greater. It could really work!
It would be too late for Woody of course, but he is in core-IH hands now, so would probably still be followable in a TV series.
Horse and Country TV or similar should be all over this idea! Cesar Milan's series is MASSIVELY popular. Even the least enlightened dog owner seems to watch his program and has changed their dogmanship as a result. I would like to see something similar for Monty and IH - combined with a program to rehab particularly hard case and life-endangered horses.
|
|
tobyh
Grand Prix Poster
My horse of a lifetime!!. Magnus 1985 - 2005.
Posts: 1,616
|
Post by tobyh on Nov 5, 2009 23:41:33 GMT 1
Caroline, in answer to your question only on is there money it TV programmes, having worked for a TV company in truth the answer is no. The cost of producing a TV programme let alone a series as high. If we take one episode of greyhounding racing that we covered. The stadium get no money at all, it costs us an OB company to supply the OB trucks, VT trucks, camera crew, sound men, VT editors, trucks equipment, riggers, runners, office staff, hotels in excess of £10,000. We get paid by Sky only 10% on that. The TV companies make their money by advertising not by the programmes they show. You are extremely lucky if any TV company will pay anything but small change to put your programme on air.
So no I cannot see the TV programmes let alone a series bringing any money in (other than small change) but a chance to promote IH especially on a small specialist channel like Horse and Country, it could also well be that IH has to pay to have their programmes on the Channel which is not unheard of at all.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Nov 5, 2009 23:46:21 GMT 1
Caroline, if YOU feel exhausted and hurt by this whole debate, how do you think I feel!! ???All I did was try to save the life of this horse, in the very, very limted time available. Yes, there are other ways, which, if the time frame had been greater, could have been employed. There simply WAS no time to make appeals or whatever, as I have said, time and again!!
Yes, a whole TV series for H and C TV could have been made, and still can. Had Woody been shot, this would not have been a possibility!
As for there being money in TV programme making, there isnt! It gains the maker publicity, but unless you are a top TV personality on a main channel, programme making is not lucrative, and costs a lot of money to make a decent one.
I have no regrets whatsoever and if the same situation and emergency time frame came up again, I would do it, all over again.
Heather
|
|
|
Post by june on Nov 6, 2009 11:43:19 GMT 1
I think that's the key here - time. Given the circumstances Woody needed a quick fix. Now his future is safe he can have a slower, long term fix.
Given that Woody has been described as a very laid back character it does sound quite possible that he doesn't have ulcers. We've all assumed that he does and must be in massive pain, but it is equally possible that this is a mental issue from a bad experience in the past and putting him in the position where he was confronted with the issue, discovered it wasn't that bad and lived through the experience may not have been the worst thing possible for him.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Nov 6, 2009 14:10:47 GMT 1
Caroline said 'wouldn't it be wonderful if IH was operating as a horse sanctuary?' or similar. Well actually, no I don't think it would. There will always be more horses than places - as long as there are people who abuse (sometimes unintentionally) or indiscriminately breed horses, so well done to those who do rescue and provide sanctuary. But IH performs a different purpose by educating people, and helping horses in just such a way as you suggest Caroline. Little miracles are being performed regularly by RA's who use their multitude of skills, not solely using but including IH methods, usually after being called in as a 'last resort'. They & others like them, actively prevent large numbers of horses each year from needing to be rescued, or living their lives under threat of death. I don't see why there needs to be any conflict on such a subject, and would far rather see mutual respect and co-operation for the sake of the horses, and not to further the aims & ideals of any one organisation or method, to the exclusion of all others.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Nov 6, 2009 14:43:54 GMT 1
I agree with all you have said there rj... well put.
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Nov 6, 2009 16:09:35 GMT 1
I am trying to stay out of this now because I have had so many attacks and I really have other things I need to be doing.
I'm going to cut to the chase and leave it at that.
1) I think buckstoppers are barbaric, potentially hazardous and inconsistent with the gentleness and understanding that otherwise characterises Monty's methods.
2) Every set of hands that uses a buck stopper thinks they are experienced enough, so a "don't do this at home kiddies" warning is not enough. People are advised to learn Join Up properly, but the vast majority just have a go and get it all rather wrong. People do copy what Monty does and this use of the buck stopper was not a one off. I have certainly seen him do it before. Is this a method he really wants to be known for?
3) In my opinion, demos are too much about the showmanship. I suspect that the horse was put through the buck stopper because, on balance, Monty estimated the horse would settle and his methods would be validated with a dramatic result. I don't think it proved much other than that the horse will stop bucking under certain circumstances. It doesn't prove or disprove the ulcer or cold-back theory. The only thing it does prove is that the horse is not crazy enough to damage itself by fighting. That's interesting and useful to know of course, but I question whether it was worth the risk and trauma.
4) If the horse hadn't quit, he could have lost his lip and the rider could have been injured or lost his life. It would be a shame for something like this to happen in the future - I would wish I had spoken up if I had kept quiet this time.
5) I don't believe the buck stopper had to make the difference between life and death. Did there have to be that drama to create a new home? Did it have to go that far? Surely to completely cure the horse of this issue, baby steps will be involved. Couldn't he have demonstrated some of these first steps, shown the success at that point and explained what needs to follow over coming sessions? Wouldn't that have inspired the new owners? I guess only they can say whether they would have offered the home if they hadn't seen the buckstopper in action.
6) I think Heather did a good thing by trying to find a solution for Woody and the new owners have done a wonderful thing by offering a home. I may not like or approve of the method, but I am delighted that Woody will live. I don't think anyone that knows me questions that.
On the subject of rescue and IH. I don't think there is any conflict. I know several RAs get involved with helping rescues and there are lots of rescue people who are into IH/PNH/NH.
Most rescues are hideously under-funded and over-subscribed. We simply cannot afford professional help unless it is donated. This means in practise that there are horses with problems in rescues all over the country which the carers have to cope with, do their best with, work around. Inevitably, some horses are shot because they are just too difficult and dangerous to handle. Similarly, there are lots of private owners with horses with bigger problems than they can fix or pay to fix. The horse always pays the price in those situations.
I think there is a need for a horse rehab centre for particularly hard cases in the UK, operating on a charity basis and simply for the good of problem horses. Maybe IH is not the organisation to run this, but it seemed a good fit. I am sure there are lots of us that would run such an operation if we had the money and expertise. I am also sure we would all support such a project greatly. I realise that some similar operations do exist already and there is a fineline between sanctuary and rehab centre - but I still think we need more operations like this in the UK so horses like Woody have better options than what was available to him. For every Woody, there are a considerable number of horses that don't get any option.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Nov 6, 2009 18:35:02 GMT 1
I'm not discussing the buckstopper further Caroline but I do firmly believe that IH is aimed at helping horses and people to learn better ways. Monty of course has been doing this in his way (Demos) for years. The fact is that many humans are impressed by a show and this is one way Monty has been able to reach so many... you can disagree all you like with the Demo format but it is popular and reaches large numbers of people. Hopefully by education less and less horses will need to be rescued... yes that one life matters greatly to that one horse or person but this message needs to be got across to as many people as possible as well imo. Rescuing is a great way to 'pick up the pieces' and I wish funds were unlimited but we mustn't forget that education is the way to really change things... You have clearly stated your feelings Caroline and I have heard you loud and clear. My life is not as black and white as yours I'm afraid.
|
|