Spurs

 

Copyright 1990 truth-or-consequences
1648 Words Exactly
Non-Fiction
Published by The Western Horse


Spurs. What a cruel and unnecessary torture device.

Right?

Let's try to find out.

The cowboys of the last century all wore spurs. Because of that tradition many modern cowboys feel they ought to wear spurs too, "just because". But some folks may not completely understand their purpose or their proper use in everyday riding.

There are those who condemn the devices completely, reasoning that they are of no use to the educated rider and that they can only be used to inflict pain on a horse-- and pain, they argue, is never appropriate.
In the first place, while it's true that positive reinforcement in training is at least as effective than negative reinforcement, what's dramatically more effective yet is a combination of the two.

Some folks think that negative reinforcement means pain. It does not-- although it can. Negative reinforcement means that the horse will avoid doing a wrong thing because the consequences of doing it are unpleasant. And to really dissect this issue we need to stop for a moment and ask ourselves just what the word "pain" means.

This part gets a little thick, but I promise, it's necessary to really gain an understanding of the question about spurs. You may have to read it twice.

According to Webster's, "pain" can mean "penalty or punishment", or, more appropriately, "the distress or suffering caused by anxiety or disappointment", or, simply, "an annoyance". It does not necessarily have to mean the sheer, blinding agony one might feel in, for instance, having his arm ripped from his body by a hay cutting machine or a chainsaw. Pain can be no more than "a nuisance". The distinction is found in varying degrees of that nuisance. I guarantee that there is not a rider on this earth who can ride any horse for five minutes without making that horse feel some degree of "pain", however infinitesimal it may be.

For example, a horse might feel an annoyance when he doesn't get as many oats at night as he'd like to have. This could also be termed "negative reinforcement". Technically, if you want, you can call it pain. Is that cruel and unusual punishment? Some horses might think so.

Or your bronc may feel "a suffering caused by anxiety" when you squeeze your calves together gently in asking him to move out. That's pain too, for it might be annoying the horse. And if you squeeze harder, that's more pain. If you squeeze harder yet, it represents even more pain, and if you actually move your legs outward and then bring them together quickly at his sides, that's even more of an annoyance yet-- But where do you draw the line? At what point does this "feeling of suffering caused by anxiety" become inhuman and torturous? Is it immoral and mean to kick your horse to get him to move out? Is it cruel to squeeze your calves together gently to get him to do the same thing? You can see what a gray area we've moved into.

To most reasonable folks' way of thinking, this negative reinforcement becomes intolerable when "damage" is inflicted upon the horse. And I agree. Noticeable damage to tissue in almost any form is unacceptable. And therein lies our definition of how much negative reinforcement is too much.

Note that "pain" means only pain, or annoyance, or a suffering caused by anxiety, etc. etc.. The word does not mean "damage" in any form or context. I suppose some scholar will challenge the statement and remind me that intense pain--too much pain, can be inflicted on the body without obvious damage to the tissues when certain ancient Chinese crucifiction methods are implemented or something-- but we're reasonable people here and our common sense will prevail and tell us when we are inflicting damage in the normal course of training a horse, without needing a college degree to figure it out. Pain is pain. Damage is damage. If you whip a horse until he bleeds, that's damage. But if you snap him once in awhile to keep him from rearing or bucking you off, that's negative reinforcement without damage, even though it may be somewhat painful for the horse (or for you if he bucks you off). Conversely, if you give a horse an injection of a vaccine that may well save his life, you are "damaging" tissue. It's far beyond acceptable pain by our above definition--- So is that cruel and inhuman? Or is that small amount of damage justifiable when the results and benefits are weighed? Once again, we have to call upon good old horse sense to make sense of the issues, and horse sense generally serves us well if we'll just pay attention to it.

So there. Now that we have a working understanding of what's acceptable in the training of a horse and what's not, we can take a really good look at this issue of spurs, and come to a logical conclusion as to whether or not they're a "fair and reasonable" method of getting horses to do for us what we wish.

The bottom line is this: Do we have the right to cause our horses to feel "a suffering caused by anxiety", or "an annoyance", short of physical damage, in order to teach him to move when he's told to move? Yes, we do.

While "damage" is not only immoral as defined by our scrutiny of the issue, it can also detract from the value of the horse-- and that's something even the roughest of old bronc busters should be able to appreciate.

In the old days, cowboys sometimes sharpened their spurs to the point that they left a horse's flanks raw and bloody. This was pain---but it was also damage. And I suspect that's where much of the bad rap that spurs endure today, came from.

I like large, round rowels. I file mine to just such a point that the horse can feel the cue with as little pressure as possible, but not to the point that it would be easy to inadvertently damage him with even an accidental application of them to his sides. If spurs are damaging a horse, they need to be filed down until they stop being damaging to a horse. It's as simple as that.

Spurs are not used as a way of controlling the horse per se. Not directly. They're an aid in training, and are used only to correct an unwanted behavior. They're used initially so that they won't have to be used subsequently. If used to cue the horse every time you want him to move out, he quickly numbs to this constant over-stimulation and you'll have to continually find new places and ways to spur him, just as the over-used and abused mouth can get hard and unresponsive to the bit. There is no difference in the use of bit or spur; the principle is the same in either case. Frankly, I'll use spurs before I'll use a bit--- the bit--any bit-- being a device I find slightly barbaric.

I like a horse to walk out when I think about having him walk out-- and perhaps I'll raise the reins just a bit to help him be sure he's getting a cue to walk.

In order to move to a trot, my personal cue consists of a shift in body position, and just the slightest, slightest............tensing of the thighs. I used to also cluck my tongue when I wanted a horse to pick up the pace, but too many years sneaking up on rustlers taught me that it was not always appropriate to be clicking and clucking one's tongue.

To move to a lope requires yet another subtle change in body position, and an almost negligible..........tensing of the knees and upper calves.

To move to a gallop is accomplished by the gentlest.......squeeze with the lower calves and perhaps the inner sides of the feet if the horse is tall and you can accomplish it without cramping your feet around to the underside of his belly.

If the horse doesn't instantly respond to any of these cues, (which are my personal cues and may not be yours), then he is immediately made to feel "a suffering caused by anxiety" when I repeat the same cue strongly and deliberately, and in so doing, I let him know that I am not pleased.
If the horse's response is still not instantaneous, then he is made to feel "a considerable annoyance" with the application of blunt spurs.

If this STILL doesn't bring the desired results, it's often not because the horse doesn't feel like performing, but because he wasn't properly trained in the first place, and he's not completely sure what he's supposed to do.

When a horse responds to the initial and very subtle cue there's no reason to spur him, and a well trained horse will respond flawlessly for a long time between negative reinforcements. We must remember our positive reinforcements as well, and every time my horse does exactly as he's asked, without needing any negative reinforcement, I tell him in no uncertain terms that he's the greatest equine on the face of the earth. And I mean it. And he knows it.

Every ride is a training session, even on a 30 year old plug. Whether the horse gets properly trained or not on every ride is another matter. And even though your horse may go hours or days or weeks and never need to be reminded, via the spurs, to pay closer attention to you-- the odds are that sooner or later he'll require a wake-up call. If the spurs are back in the barn hanging on a hook, it will take some additional physical effort on your part to give the horse a good kick or three which will hopefully convince him to take you a little more seriously next time you cue him gently. It's easier just to wear spurs all the time.

Spurs are to be thought of as nothing more than an extension of your heels. Think of them as "power steering". You're still only asking the horse to do a certain thing. But spurs mean you can send the same signal with less effort. That's all.

 

Copyright © 1982-2009 truth-or-consequences.Com, All Rights Reserved