Time is short for puting your name forward against the use of hyperflexion. In the following letter, Philippe Karl invites you to make a difference by signing a petition to be submitted in a week’s time at an FEI meeting in Switzerland.
Although science is to be considered at the FEI meeting, the types of tests that are undertaken are difficult morally, difficult to undertake, and the past methodologies have at times been sub-standard, which is why I think that, in addition to the science, ‘common-sense’ should be used and erring on the side of caution is advisable. The petition Mr Karl mentions is one way to add your voice, and I encourage you to do the same.
Dear Madam, Dear Sir,
On 9 February 2010, more than 20 experts will attend an FEI meeting in Switzerland to discuss once again whether the so-called hyperflexion (“Rollkur”) is an adequate method of training a horse. In order to support the opponents of this method and offer them further arguments, a petition has been initiated at www.no-rollkur.com. We’d like to invite you to support this action against hyperflexion – time is short!
You were so kind as to sign our own petition calling for reforms of the FN rules, which was initiated in May 2009. This obviously bore fruit: The German FN eventually invited Philippe Karl for a meeting in Warendorf, Germany. They now have to find an appropriate date. We will of course keep you informed about the outcome of this meeting.
Thank you very much again for your support!
Cordially,
Philippe Karl & his team
Here’s the link again: www.no-rollkur.com
Thanks for your time and happy riding…
What has changed since equestrian sports emerged from the Beijing Olympics (2008) in tatters with the dubious distinction of being the most drugged-up of all sports? A total of 8 positive samples from 6 horses were identified at Beijing, these being spread among horses from the German, Irish, Brazilian, Norwegian and American teams.
It has been especially personally embarrassing for Princess Haya, head of the FEI when, following statements that banned substance use would not be tolerated, her husband Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum’s endurance horse ‘ Tahhan’ tested positive to two banned substances in April 2009.
Drug use seems to be particularly rife in the sports of show jumping and endurance riding, however also dressage rider, Isabell Werth’s horse, Whisper 156 (GER) failed a drug test in 2009.
January 18, 2010, the FEI has rolled out it’s new anti-doping website FEI Clean Sport, with the new regime to clean up the sport’s act to be implemented from 5 April 2010.
The process itself has not gone untainted, with raging disquiet following allowance of a substance previously banned for 20 years – Phenylbutazone (‘bute’) – which failed to attract objections prior to the FEI General Assembly (Copenhagen 2009), but which achieved an assembly vote of 48/53 FOR the new ‘progressive’ drugs list versus the old. With the obvious implications for competition horse welfare, and following moves by veterinarians and concerned others, the drug is to undergo a further review in 2010 before it’s acceptance in competition.
The Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games to be held in Kentucky in September this year will make an interesting study…
Negative reinforcement gets a bad rap – after all, why would someone want to beat a horse? Why indeed! When asked about if they use negative reinforcement in their training, riders frequently assure one that they do not… ‘no, I only use positive reinforcement’ comes the earnest reply.
But in fact, negative reinforcement is indeed the trainer’s friend, and has nothing to do with beating horses or performing any other dodgy activities.
But what does negative reinforcement actually mean?
Unlike the common misconception that it is something ‘bad’ – as humans, we tend to associate the word ‘negative’ to averse consequences, for example a sarcastic remark is ‘negative’, a fight is ‘negative’; but negative reinforcement in animal training is simply the removal of something that results in improved responding rates.
While this terminology originates in behavioural psychology, the meaning can be found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary [negative n. 2. negative quality, absence of something, negative v.t. neutralize (effect)].
To understand this negative reinforcement, we also probably need to know what ‘reinforcement’ means… the Concise says that to reinforce something means ‘to strengthen or support’, including in quantity, size, importance – so this suggests an impression of an increase in force or magnitude.
But The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, written by Arthur and Emily Reber recognises use of the term also elicits confusion among psychologists. Is it any wonder we are confused?! The Rebers – after a useful diatribe exploring ‘reinforcement’ finally come up with
any event, stimulus, act, response or information when made contingent upon the response that preceded it, serves to increase the relative frequency or likelihood of occurrence of that response.
Simply put, negative involves removal or absence, and a reinforcer increases responses – Simple!
What does it mean to a horse-rider? No matter what anyone says, people ride using negative reinforcement. The stimulis (aids) are applied using a bridle, bit, halter, string around the neck and the legs on the horse’s sides. The removal of the bit pressure or the leg pressure removes discomfort and signals to the horse that his response was correct. The horse has no way of determining that his response is ‘correct’ if he is not rewarded by a removal of the stimulus when the response occurs.
All good horsemen (yes, women too) know this. The Dorrance brothers knew this, Philippe Karl knows this, Andrew McLean knows this, Steffen Peters knows this. The old masters knew this ‘leg without hand, hand without leg’. Gas pedal and brakes do not go on together.
Repeat after me…
‘correct use of negative reinforcement is a good thing’!
At the most subtle level (blink and you will miss it) the best proponents of the German system may recognise this, but that system is terrible at expressing it or teaching riders to ride using correct negative reinforcement, with confusion produced by statements such as ‘the horse must be through’, and be ridden ‘with the forward-driving aids into the hand’, undoubtedly leading to some of the abominations seen at all levels of the sport with horses suffering from relentless pressure.
Another day, we will explore positive reinforcement – also a good thing!
Dressage Disgrace’s teleseminar with Klaus Hempfling on Rollkur was illuminating – it is important that we have these conversations, and I would like to thank Mark from Dressage Disgrace for making this conversation possible.
Photo courtesy of Klaus Hempfling (KFH Archives) http://www.hempfling.com/
What did Klaus say?
Klaus said that the dignity of the horse is lost, his sight is hampered and respiration is hindered when in Rollkur. He noted that if we were to beat a cat or dog, it would not be considered acceptable, but that hitting horses is perfectly legal in most countries.
The control of the horse’s neck has proven a very successful and speedy way to control a horse, and is also used a lot in show jumping; that this form of neck control is mostly used ‘without empathy’.
The majority of horses that are coming to Klaus are ‘depressed’. He thinks that it is a reflection of society and how humans have ‘lost themselves’. He says that a second reason is that in horse whispering and dressage circles
the psychological level of the horse is being brought down, breaking the soul of the horse; there is no light, no magic in the horse; he has lost his dignity, is in permanent panic, and is scarred for life, because there is no way out
In some natural horsemanship practises he sees horses are ‘giving up’, as an antelope does to the lion in a predator/prey relationship when he can do no more to escape.
Sadly Klaus doesn’t have too much hope for horses that have been ridden using Rollkur. He says it is nearly impossible to restore the horse’s internal ‘fire’. Although recognising that he has a special gift, he says horses like this are
typically lost, they are half-killed
It may be possible to bring the life back to the horse, but it takes a lot of time; Klaus sometimes has to tell people that they should never ride their horse again, because the horse will ‘die again’ when the saddle goes on.
What are the alternatives?
Klaus advocates that we should open our eyes to see the reality, that indeed reality is more often not seen by those closest to the horse, but instead by the observers who may see it clearly.
Watch the world with your eyes, see the natural horse, and his typical balance – the balance is very different between native horse breeds such as the French Camargue or Haflinger with short, bulky necks and jaws, than the very different composition warmblood horses.
Go out and look at horses, he says – look at your horse, look at photos. The build of the horse dictates how the horse has evolved or been bred to ride; for example the Spanish horse needs the reins to feel that he hasn’t been deserted. Klaus uses a cavesson halter, vibrating the rein softly, and with a loose contact, he says ’the horse knows I am here’. Klaus says that to forget the reins (e.g. suggest the horse needs no reins at all) is quite wrong for some breeds, and that you must instead bring yourself to the suitable level to ride them.
Klaus himself uses two systems of riding – ‘natural riding’ (his favourite) on one style of horse – the stronger, more naturally evolved horse, but horses bred ‘with another set of skills’ with reins.
It is evident that Klaus has a true empathy of what it could be to be a horse, to respond to the world in the horse’s way, a view that challenges our anthropocentric view and leaves us feeling pretty uncomfortable. Like many uncomfortable experiences, it is a call to move to the next level of realisation and change.
www.DressageDisgrace.com has made the Hempfling Rollkur discussion available of this discussion.
To find out more about Klaus Hampfling’s work, go to www.hempfling.com
Over on Twitter, TrotonTV (John Bethell) wanted my thoughts on Anky van Grunsven’s reply about her student Patrik Kittel’s ‘Blue Tongue’ video recording, now being investigated by FEI. (I also wrote about it here).
140 tweet characters does not allow a particularly thorough reply!
So John, here you go…
Example of unknown dressage horse ridden in Rollkur (hyperflexion)
We must use a degree of caution, knowing that the link is a translation (for those of us who don’t read Dutch!) With anything translated, there is always a danger of the old problem of ‘meaning lost in translation’.
For the benefit of our discussion here, I am talking about the translation made by Google today, 15 November 2009.
- Anky appears to suggest that the horse’s tongue was over the bit. The question arises: ”is it OK for the horse to go with the tongue over the bit at all?; but also why would he want to put his tongue over the bit?
- Assuming Anky is right, and that the tongue was over the bit, the answer is: because of pressure on his tongue that he is trying to escape. A horse trying to escape tongue pressure retracts his tongue in his mouth, and can then get it ‘over the bit’.
- My thoughts are that if the tongue is blue: (a) it probably not simply over the bit, but is either trapped between the two bits, or under both bits, but with sufficient pressure to limit oxygenated blood supply to the tongue, making it appear blue (unoxygenated), OR (b) [and this is a very unqualified statement on my part, as I don't know of any studies that have addressed this] perhaps it possible that blue tongue is merely a symptom of lack of oxygenated blood to the horse’s whole head caused by overbent neck limiting oxygenated blood supply.
- I am not sure what ‘losrijterrein’ means. It is possible this means hyperflexion or Rollkur, but I do not know. If this does mean hyperflexion, I am not sure if she is saying that audiences either (a) are used to seeing hyperflexion, (b) regularly complain about it, or (c) are used to seeing it enough to think it normal.
- The translated reply says that horses ‘can put their tongues over the bit for any reason and that it need not be negative’ – perhaps something here is confused in translation, or maybe not. I don’t accept that a horse going with tongue over the bit is acceptable, one wonders why this wasn’t this pointed out to the rider by officials.
- Anky recognises that the FEI has to uphold equine welfare, but thinks that the problem has been blown out of proportion and that they need to support riders also.
Personally, I am relieved this is getting attention at the FEI.
Somewhere I have read that Anky says the science does not show that hyperflexion is detrimental to the horse. She is right in this comment – studies of Rollkur have been inconclusive, they are not easy undertaken, and indeed the science does not as yet point firmly in one direction. A recent report to the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality noted studies contained flaws in methodology, limited numbers, or unhelpful parameters were used and that
This leads us to conclude there is insufficient scientific evidence to confirm unequivocally whether or not there are welfare issues involved in training techniques using hyperflexion’.
The case of hyperflexion and the blue tongue is perhaps a situation where rather than relying solely on the current scientific evidence, common sense should enable us to utilise our knowledge of biology, pain, biomechanics (and physics – e.g. the lever action of the curb), which is what I believe many educated people are trying to do.
You will see on the FEI website, their rules governing Abuse of Horses (Article 142, page 35) – specifically notes that no person may use actions ”causing pain or unnecessary discomfort to a horse’. Given what has been observed of recent times, these actions have not been held to account for years.
This raises the question: given the implications for the FEI and equestrian sport in general, is the FEI the appropriate body to conduct and impartial investigation into Patrik Kittel’s horse’s blue tongue? – or is it a case as Bidda Jones of the Australian RSPCA suggests ‘is the fox in the hen house’?
