I signed a lease today on a mare named Jewel!!!! I am SO excited!!! AND I've ridden two times in as many days and I'll be three for three tomorrow! How happy am I? THRILLED.
Pictures will be soon to come on Jewel. She is about 14.2, bay with a bright white star, built like a brick shite-house and as cute as a button. My English lesson is tomorrow AND I was offered another horse to ride last night.
When it rains, it pours.... It's rainin' horses baby!!!
Showing posts with label AQHA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AQHA. Show all posts
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Dirty Bunny
(1)
Wow! The comments made on my post "Breed Profiling" is the perfect example of why I love to blog! I am grateful to have such reasonable, intelligent and sincere people to reflect ideas off of and with whom to debate the endless questions, concerns and controversies of the crazy world of horses!
It seems the overwhelming sentiment of our collective comments was that a horse must be judged and treated as an individual.
While I agree, absolutely, that one should never count or discount a horse because of his breed, I believe that those stereotypes exist for a reason and can be used to our advantage.
It seems the overwhelming sentiment of our collective comments was that a horse must be judged and treated as an individual.
While I agree, absolutely, that one should never count or discount a horse because of his breed, I believe that those stereotypes exist for a reason and can be used to our advantage.
(2)
Is it our resistance to racism and (human) prejudice, stereotyping and profiling that makes us feel defensive about applying negative qualities to a breed? I too have actually taken (mild) offense to a strangers comment that they "hate" a particular breed. I too feel the need to defend such statements with examples of those horses who have proved the exception. Even if it is my own biases! Why, just recently I considered leasing an Appaloosa! and even once made an offer to purchase one despite my (generally) ill-favored opinion of the breed. I am always willing to consider and find merit in the individual but that certainly doesn't mean that I'd go seeking an Appaloosa if were in the market to purchase!
For example, I own a lazy Australian Cattle Dog (Blue Heeler). I've known other lazy Blue Heelers. But when my Mom, a mildly active and over worked mother and wife, went looking for a dog I didnt recommend she look for a Blue Heeler, despite my experience with those dogs that defied the the reputation of their breed.
Breeds- by definition- are collective stereotypes...our human effort to selectively reproduce animals that are homozygous (alike) in qualities.
Have you ever had an experience with a horse, dog or any kind of animal that turned you off of a breed or species- even though it was the faults of the individual, not a common fault of their breed?
For me it is Poodles. I know they are smart, athletic and amazing dogs but when I was a child my Grandmother's friend had a poodle that used to harrass and bite me (until one I day I bit it back!) and my Aunt had one that would pee while standing on it's front legs (I found this disturbing for some reason). To this day I cant seem to get past my poodle prejudice ... then there was that thing I saw that time with the (aptly named) "Dirty" bunny and the cat... cant shake that one either... but I'll leave that story for another day!
***
Be sure to vote on my bizarre (but not creep, promise!) poll question!
***
Today's pictures are inspired by Pioneer Woman's "sunset" photo contest! Which is your favorite (1,2, 3 or 4)?
Is it our resistance to racism and (human) prejudice, stereotyping and profiling that makes us feel defensive about applying negative qualities to a breed? I too have actually taken (mild) offense to a strangers comment that they "hate" a particular breed. I too feel the need to defend such statements with examples of those horses who have proved the exception. Even if it is my own biases! Why, just recently I considered leasing an Appaloosa! and even once made an offer to purchase one despite my (generally) ill-favored opinion of the breed. I am always willing to consider and find merit in the individual but that certainly doesn't mean that I'd go seeking an Appaloosa if were in the market to purchase!
For example, I own a lazy Australian Cattle Dog (Blue Heeler). I've known other lazy Blue Heelers. But when my Mom, a mildly active and over worked mother and wife, went looking for a dog I didnt recommend she look for a Blue Heeler, despite my experience with those dogs that defied the the reputation of their breed.
(3)
Breeds- by definition- are collective stereotypes...our human effort to selectively reproduce animals that are homozygous (alike) in qualities.
Have you ever had an experience with a horse, dog or any kind of animal that turned you off of a breed or species- even though it was the faults of the individual, not a common fault of their breed?
For me it is Poodles. I know they are smart, athletic and amazing dogs but when I was a child my Grandmother's friend had a poodle that used to harrass and bite me (until one I day I bit it back!) and my Aunt had one that would pee while standing on it's front legs (I found this disturbing for some reason). To this day I cant seem to get past my poodle prejudice ... then there was that thing I saw that time with the (aptly named) "Dirty" bunny and the cat... cant shake that one either... but I'll leave that story for another day!
Any animal prejudices of your own?
***
Be sure to vote on my bizarre (but not creep, promise!) poll question!
***
(4)
Today's pictures are inspired by Pioneer Woman's "sunset" photo contest! Which is your favorite (1,2, 3 or 4)?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Breed Profiling
A family I know who has been boarding "outside" horses at their farm for a few years now has recently decided that they no longer wish to take on Thoroughbreds. It is not (at least entirely) for lack of respect or affection for the breed but instead due to a trend they noticed in the added expense, attention, and headache that their past Thoroughbreds clients have generated.
Some people, being equal opportunity enthusiast would take offense to applying breed profiling when selecting potential boarding clients but as someone who has boarded "out" (at large barns with a variety of breed types and large turnover numbers) for the better part of my adult life I actually have to support her decision as I too have noticed trends in different breed types.
For instance, most smaller quarter horses, ponies, and even draft and draft crosses require half (or even a quarter) of the calories needed to sustain the average larger thoroughbred (of course every horse is an individual and I am speaking very generally here...and yes, that is my attempt to be diplomatic). The quiet blooded breeds tend to be more content to hang out in the field, causing less trouble- generally not pacing fence lines, weaving, cribbing, and stirring their stalls into a manure mash. Some breeds, you must admit, are hardier than others- being less fussy about feed, less prone to digestive issues, injury, accidents and sensitivity to the elements, (bugs bites, weather etc.) ....of course, the exception proves the rule (diplomacy).
If I were trying to make an (ever allusive) buck in the boarding industry I think I too would use breed profiling as a starting point....because really how is that any different than breed profiling for positive traits. like endurance, speed or cow sense? Why is it that even I, who doesn't hesitate to show a marked bias for a certain breed *cough* Quarter horse *cough* still feel so guilty for admitting to not preferring (or dare I say disliking) a particular breed? For example Appaloosas (excluding My Boy and Rusty and any other reader's Appy....of course:) are not my favorite horses... It doesn't matter that I come by that honestly- having caught nothing but shit and abuse from every single solitary appy I've ever thrown a leg over) I still feel it is disrespectful...or somehow wrong to admit a... prejudice against some breeds?
Do you have a breed prejudice?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Neglect and Abuse Cases- What can be done?
I think that, given Fugly's blog is umpteen times bigger than my own, it is safe to assume that anyone concerned with the issue of the "starving reining horses" in Washington have either already seen Fugly's blog or will in the near future.
Fugly's decision to publish the name and ranch of those who are accused of starving some reining horses in Snohomish County Washington was one I previously chose not make in light of the fact that I was unable to ensure that any information I posted was factual and/or that it served the purpose of helping the horses concerned.
Bloggers are not held to the same ethical standard as journalists, but with the evolution of the Internet in our culture, more and more of the public has come to rely upon blogs as a source of news and information and as such, I feel we bloggers must take responsibility for ensuring that anything we write, when presented as fact, is such and that the rights of the individual are being respected. Laws against libel and slander exist, in part, to avoid the mob mentality and potential for vigilantism that can be created when the public's emotion is called to rise by those who offer neither facts, an un-bias opinion or a solution.
While it may seem I am putting the rights of those who may be violating the responsibilities inherent in owning and caring for animals, over the concern for those who are being subject to their abuses, I'd like to point out that attacking the accused does little to help the situation, and in fact may be counterproductive.
My reason behind first blogging about this issue was to hear from people that knew of the situation first hand and to find out what was being said and done to help those horses. I also wanted to express my shock that such neglect could happen to animals so valuable.
After writing that post I e-mailed a number of people in an attempt to find out- First, what was true; Second, what had already been done; and Third, what more I could do to help.
In the past, when faced with a case of neglect, abuse, and/or horses that are in need of the public's help I have found it most helpful to first ask:
Who has power to feed, remove, view and control these horses?
The answer almost always is the owner and the government.
Those who have the greatest position of influence- friends, family and peers- are most likely to be able to persuade the owner to accept help. In this case I am sure Judy Caton was overwhelmed by the e-mails, phone calls and visitors from all of these concerned fellow breeders and trainers in her community. Anyone in a position of influence, that was willing to do so, has no doubt already tried to remedy the situation.
If social pressure from an owner's peer group is unable to persuade him or her, it seems unlikely the public would fair much better.
And so that leaves us with government intervention and Fugly's suggestion that Animal Control be called. Obviously, if anyone is witness to any kind of abuse or neglect it is our responsibility to report it to the local Animal Control office. However, I worry that rallying a group of third parites together to call on mass will do little but overwhelm the office staff, who are probably overrun with the unfortunate byproduct of this economy (unwanted, neglected and abandoned animals.)
My experience has been, in such cases where it seems the local authorities are doing little or nothing to resolve the problem, it is because they are subject to certain legal procedures and protocols in order to seize property (and horses are considered property). Restrictions like whether there is enough feed on the property to for the number in the herd, mitigating circumstances that could have lead to the horses declining health, the owners explanation, the person(s) responsible for their care vs. owner(s) etc.. are all factors that could leave the humane society will little choice to but wait for the situation to decline. No amount of public outcry can change the ability for local animal control to act in a case where there is no legal merit. As these laws are made at the legislative level, I think we are better served to put the presure of such social activism against those who have the power to exact change.
Another source of potential change within the industry could be within the governing bodies of equine sports like the NRHA, NCHA or NSBA not to mention breed associations like the AQHA or APHA. Should these organizations take stand on the breeding and husbandry practises of their members? Should limits be placed on breeders? Should licences or registration privileges be revolved for abuse or neglect cases?
Fugly's decision to publish the name and ranch of those who are accused of starving some reining horses in Snohomish County Washington was one I previously chose not make in light of the fact that I was unable to ensure that any information I posted was factual and/or that it served the purpose of helping the horses concerned.
Bloggers are not held to the same ethical standard as journalists, but with the evolution of the Internet in our culture, more and more of the public has come to rely upon blogs as a source of news and information and as such, I feel we bloggers must take responsibility for ensuring that anything we write, when presented as fact, is such and that the rights of the individual are being respected. Laws against libel and slander exist, in part, to avoid the mob mentality and potential for vigilantism that can be created when the public's emotion is called to rise by those who offer neither facts, an un-bias opinion or a solution.
While it may seem I am putting the rights of those who may be violating the responsibilities inherent in owning and caring for animals, over the concern for those who are being subject to their abuses, I'd like to point out that attacking the accused does little to help the situation, and in fact may be counterproductive.
My reason behind first blogging about this issue was to hear from people that knew of the situation first hand and to find out what was being said and done to help those horses. I also wanted to express my shock that such neglect could happen to animals so valuable.
After writing that post I e-mailed a number of people in an attempt to find out- First, what was true; Second, what had already been done; and Third, what more I could do to help.
In the past, when faced with a case of neglect, abuse, and/or horses that are in need of the public's help I have found it most helpful to first ask:
Who has power to feed, remove, view and control these horses?
The answer almost always is the owner and the government.
Those who have the greatest position of influence- friends, family and peers- are most likely to be able to persuade the owner to accept help. In this case I am sure Judy Caton was overwhelmed by the e-mails, phone calls and visitors from all of these concerned fellow breeders and trainers in her community. Anyone in a position of influence, that was willing to do so, has no doubt already tried to remedy the situation.
If social pressure from an owner's peer group is unable to persuade him or her, it seems unlikely the public would fair much better.
And so that leaves us with government intervention and Fugly's suggestion that Animal Control be called. Obviously, if anyone is witness to any kind of abuse or neglect it is our responsibility to report it to the local Animal Control office. However, I worry that rallying a group of third parites together to call on mass will do little but overwhelm the office staff, who are probably overrun with the unfortunate byproduct of this economy (unwanted, neglected and abandoned animals.)
My experience has been, in such cases where it seems the local authorities are doing little or nothing to resolve the problem, it is because they are subject to certain legal procedures and protocols in order to seize property (and horses are considered property). Restrictions like whether there is enough feed on the property to for the number in the herd, mitigating circumstances that could have lead to the horses declining health, the owners explanation, the person(s) responsible for their care vs. owner(s) etc.. are all factors that could leave the humane society will little choice to but wait for the situation to decline. No amount of public outcry can change the ability for local animal control to act in a case where there is no legal merit. As these laws are made at the legislative level, I think we are better served to put the presure of such social activism against those who have the power to exact change.
Another source of potential change within the industry could be within the governing bodies of equine sports like the NRHA, NCHA or NSBA not to mention breed associations like the AQHA or APHA. Should these organizations take stand on the breeding and husbandry practises of their members? Should limits be placed on breeders? Should licences or registration privileges be revolved for abuse or neglect cases?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)