[Carl Russell]

I bought my first horse in 1986, and I have never had a team that looked the same. In fact a few years ago I had four in the barn, a bay Belg/Perch, a sorrell Belgian, a red chestnut Belgian, and a bay roan Brabant.

There is a difference between a draft horse, and a work horse, just look at them;).

Remember the teamster is a member of the team too!!

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Scott, on the surface this looks great. My lifetime best buddy lives in Estes Park, he is a packer and a guide. In fact he runs the USFS mule string in the summer, packing for the park service. He also has a big team of Belgians, he may be another good contact for you, but I would love the opportunity to come stay with him and work with you in such a situation.

Unfortunately there is very likely no way that I could make it happen, so I can make a viable commitment to get it off the ground, but I want to know how it progresses, as you never know, it could be an opportunity of a lifetime.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Here’s wishing you all long warm nights, and days of good sledding.

Yours, Carl, Lisa, Tuli, Timber, and Bazel

[Carl Russell]

I had to think about these comments before I felt I could respond.

Wes Gustafson;13587 wrote:

Carl, you’ve missed the point that I’m making. Bear with me for a bit.

My point is that trust is a two-way street. As we know, by consistency and good training, the horse, or team, learns to trust the teamster as their leader and protector. Likewise, as the teamster grows accustomed to his team, which includes learning about their unique characteristics and personality, the teamster learns to trust his team. All this is the same whether you utilize blinders or don’t utilize blinders. By staying calm through stressful and explosive situations, the teamster maintains control of his team, and helps to prevent an escalation of anxiety; once again the use of blinders is not the issue.

I don’t think we disagree that much. For the most part that statement echoes what I believe. The only difference is that I only concentrate on being trustworthy. I don’t invest any time in “trusting” my animals. That is not to say that I don’t “let” them be the horse that they are. My sense about “trust” is that I don’t have any true control over whether or not they are trustworthy, but I have absolute control over whether I am trustworthy.

Wes Gustafson;13587 wrote:

……..I gave specific examples, which you seemed to have dismissed as being unimportant. For example, when you said:

I have no problem with the dog acting like this. It was kind of amusing. She was basically good- natured, and was having fun. I find it a good exercise for the horses to have this kind of distraction and stimulus. My biggest problem was Kevin yelling at his dog with a loud and domineering tone. This made the horse more nervous than the dog.

Oh. I see. A harmless, good-natured dog was just having a little fun. Got it. In your way of thinking, all external stimuli is under your control, and never cause serious harm to you, your team or any bystanders, because you are quiet, calm and in control. Only uninformed humans, like Kevin, who don’t share your calmness and control, cause problems. Unfortunately, we can’t always have a controlled environment wherein our horses are working…..

This is not the interpretation I intended. This was an example of how I DON”T try to control my environment. I let the dog do what it wanted, as I knew that if I became distracted by that, then my communication with the horses would break down. The fact is that I don’t try to control my environment, or any external stimuli, I only concentrate on how I respond to the things I can’t control. I know that the only way to protect myself, the team, or any bystanders is to concentrate on my reaction, and my connection with my horses. This is not to say that I am never a short tempered, angry, frustrated guy, but I have been on both sides of that coin enough to realize how much better things are when I maintain focus on calmness.

Also I never said that Kevin was uninformed. My example was that when he barked at his dog, trying to stop her behavior, the tone in his voice was disconcerting to the horses. It was merely a mention of how tuned in they are to human vocal inflection.

And in fact I didn’t dismiss your examples as unimportant, I only meant that when I read them, I don’t see the open bridle as the determining factor. I know that you are saying that the more the horse knows about the situation, the more they may be able to participate in the response. My experience with unpredictable situations is that horses can respond in very unpredictable ways.

So although I don’t see their unpredictable reaction as any different than any other unpredictable occurrence, I know that at some level it will be my guidance/communication that I have to depend on, not some hope that they understand enough about the situation that they will be able to help out. I just don’t believe that just because the horse can see something guarantees that their reaction will be any more predictable, or helpful.

This is not a condemnation of open bridles at all, just a focus on a different, and in my mind, more important part of the equation.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Ouch…my ribs…hahahahaha:eek:

[Carl Russell]

jenjudkins;13578 wrote:

…. Perhaps if I just ignored those moments, I would bring more confidence to the working relationship?

…I will try harder not to concentrate too much on the anxiety and simple work on my own calm, assertive energy….

Jen, “ignore” is probably a term I would use as well, but I don’t really “IGNORE” those moments. I definitely pay attention to them. Register them. Evaluate them. But I definitely don’t react to them. Or, I see it, appraise it, and react to it the way I want my horse to react to it.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Wes Gustafson;13587 wrote:

Carl, you’ve missed the point that I’m making. Bear with me for a bit.

….. at least has the option to defend itself …..

In both cases, a horse allowed to have more visual information at the earliest instant, can provide for a safer result for you, your team and those around you.

I think that you are assuming that the idea of not using blinders is a ‘fix’ for a lack of good, basic training for a horse. It’s not. But it is a way to extend more trust towards your horse, which depends upon you for leadership and help.

Hopefully, conversations like this are always pointed towards learning more about the fine art of using horses in harness, not about who is right and who is wrong. ….

No Wes, I think I understand your point. I just think there is more to the acceptable reaction than whether the horse can see the distraction. My knowledge of horses tells me that any of these examples would cause the horse to shy, IF it weren’t under the control of the teamster.

Today I had to cut some dead-fall out of the trail from in front of my horses. While I expect my horses to stand for me to use the saw in front of them, I also realize that they are hardwired to react in alarm to small erratic flying objects, like sawdust. Even though they are watching me, they are startled as soon as the sawdust starts flying. Why don’t they run, or move? I think that it is because they are watching me, and I am telling them through my body language that these flying things are not a problem.

The same mechanism will be in play in the other examples you mention. I understand that you want to show respect to your horses by giving them the opportunity to see for themselves, but I still believe that the reason they remain calm is because they are following your guidance.

I realize that my comments have been interpeted to mean that I see open bridles as a “fix”. Those words were used in response to Jen saying that she thought that the open bridle helped Reno with his anxious behavior. In that case it seemed as though she looked at the open bridle as a way to “fix” that problem.

I never started this to dismiss open bridles. My point was, and still is, that there is more to the glue that holds the working relationship together than whether or not the horse can see.

I absolutely respect you for making the gesture to your horse. I never doubted the value of that. And I apologize if I made you feel like I was saying that you were wrong for doing that.

[Carl Russell]

I agree, LF’s sleds look great. I am a wood man because I can’t build something like that out of steel, whereas I can, and have built and rebuilt wooden sleds. These steel sleds look relatively light but well-built. I’d try it if I could make them myself.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Does’ Leap;13545 wrote:

…..
Here come the questions:

1. Seem like it is worth the effort based on what I have to work with? (The bunk would end up being about 12″ off the ground).
2. Is the evener attached to the pole kosher given the weight I will be pulling? The hammer strap is rugged (1/2″ steel).
3. The sled is about 6.5′ long by 4′ wide. Is it ok that the bunk is not centered on the sled?
4. How long should the bunk be (I am thinking 4′ to match the width of the sled)?
5. Any other suggestions?…..

George, yes it looks worthwhile. I am more concerned about how low the underside of your roll and bunk will be. You may find you end up “plowing” a lot of snow, at least at first. It may also reduce your clearance for other variations in terrain. These will not be limiting though, just things to work around. I might consider moving the roll up on top of the runners, and welding in another block between the runner and your bunk.

12″ off the ground is an ok height, but I like 18″ better.

Hitching the evener to the pole will put a lot of “responsibility” on the pole to turn that sled under the load. Hitching to the roll directly, or at least welding the hitch to the receiver will be better. In my mind the pole is not a lever, it should float between the horses when they are turning a sled.

The sled looks long enough, but the bunk should be located at about 2/3 length back from the roll. Maybe weld your bunk on in front of where the pipe goes across now. It won’t be a huge problem, but a load on the sled will probably let the horses lift the front of the sled up a little too high, moving your line of draft back farther. They should be able to lift the front of the sled, but there should be enough weight directly down on the front of the sled so that the angle of draft remains the same.

My experience is that 3/4″ pipe is entirely inadequate for securing logs. I would go more like 3-4″. Even 3-4″ pipe sockets to stick wooden stakes in.

My only other observation would be that I don’t like steel sleds because the welds make everything too rigid. With wooden sleds, reinforced with steel, there is always a little shuck here and there which helps when moving heavy loads on variable terrain. But of coarse I am more of a wood worker, and don’t have the metal-working skills that you demonstrate.

Go for it, Carl

[Carl Russell]

I had a few more thoughts.

The Ted horse that I wrote about last night is a run-away horse. I have only had one run-away in twenty-three years, and it was because of him. It was only the second time I ever drove him, about six years ago. He has always been the type of horse that I call a “thunder flincher”, not so much a runner. You know his whole body goes…”Waboom”… when he sees something that disturbs him. But working him consistently has almost eliminated that.

It got me thinking about Jen’s BFO. In her defense, she is not the only “rider” that I have had a hard time getting my point across to. The reason, I think, is related to the “rider’s seat”. There is such a direct and intuitive connection to the animal that the reassurance and guidance is instantaneous and somewhat subconscious.

Like Donn’s example, horses left to their own devices will shy away from frightening stimuli. When riding or working that shying can be a big problem. So even when riding the horse, say without bridle or saddle, when the horse sees a distraction they need guidance from the rider to react appropriately. They get that through the bodily connection used by the rider, not from repeated exposure and experience with the particular stimulus.

When I am driving I replace that connection with “Tension, Intention, and Inflection”. When the dog was excited and distracting, I never said anything to the dog, never got distracted from the work I was doing. I never changed the inflection of my voice, and continued to speak directly to the horses. I used a consistent working tension on the lines, showing that my mind was still on the directives that I was giving to my horses. By the time the dog “attacked” Ted, they were focusing through the distraction on me and what I was telling them.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

So today I was working the team in the woods. I have an apprentice who has just started working with me. He has a husky mix, and today was the first day she came into the woods with us. She was pretty excited about the horses. She would run in front and jump and bark in their faces, run ahead, then back at them and bark some more. When they had to pull hard uphill she would get really excited and barked like a cheerleader.

As we were returning from a hitch, and I was turning the horses around to back them to the tree where I chain them, she came at my Ted horse from behind yapping, and snapped at his heel, taking hair in her mouth. He raised his foot, and laid his ears back, and when I said “easy” he put his foot back down and relaxed. I said whoa, dropped the lines, got off the cart, dropped the choker around the tree, and went back to work.

I have no problem with the dog acting like this. It was kind of amusing. She was basically good natured, and was having fun. I find it a good exercise for the horses to have this kind of distraction and stimulus. My biggest problem was Kevin yelling at his dog with a loud and domineering tone. This made the horse more nervous than the dog.

I love you guys, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Bingo!!!:D

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Jim Ostergard;13482 wrote:

I’m going to put a pole on my scoot and try the new guy with Rusty as a pair. Carl, I couldn’t quite see where you put the ring for your pole on the photo of the front end. Is it on (what I call) the spreader chains at the very front. Also is you socket a steel pipe that the pole fits into? Any and all ideas welcome as always.
Jim.

As Earle said!

I mount a ring under the front bunk, and set the end of the pole into that.[ATTACH]760.jpg” />

You can’t see the ring, as it is under the bunk, but this picture should show the rigging pretty well. I put a U-bolt through the bunk, and hang the ring from that. The ring is probably about 5-6″ in diameter. I just shave down the end of my pole so that it is tapered, and fits into that ring. I like it to stick out about 6-8″ beyond the ring for a good seating.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Does’ Leap;13489 wrote:

I know, dulling the saw – goes with the territory:eek:. I am somewhat fanatical about keeping my saw sharp. If it’s the least bit dull, I find myself taking the time to return to my shop, putting the saw in a vice, and getting it right rather than cutting with an even slightly dull saw. I probably burn through chains a bit quicker but I like the feeling of the saw pulling me into the wood with perfectly shaped chips a flying!

Carl, when you say put a slight bend at the end of the peavy point, I assume you mean the hook part and not the part on the end of the shaft? Can you elaborate with maybe a picture? Peavy work is an art in itself (one I haven’t mastered). Maybe another thread in the making?

George

George

George, I am the same way with the saw. A cutting tool is made to be sharp, even when attached to a powerful motor. I have become quite good at sharpening in the woods, on a log, or a stump. Sometimes I will carry extra pre-sharpened chains with me.

I mean the point, on the end of the peavey. The point that you drive under the log to use as a lever. Think of a carpenters crowbar, with the crook at the end. You know how much more handy that is than just a straight bar.

The point I put on it looks like a crooked finger, with the first knuckle bent.

I will try to get a picture sometime and start another thread. Sharpening the hook is another feature. It should be sharpened so that when the peavey is pushed along a log point and open hook against the bark, then the hook will cut. Also hard to describe…more later.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Wes Gustafson;13490 wrote:

…..
Carl, when you said: “I’m done”, does that mean that the discussion is over?

Wes

No it just means I feel like I have been manipulating this thread and I was getting trapped in a situation where I was having trouble making my point without offending people. I had said all I needed to say. I don’t need to be right nor perfectly understood. I just meant I was done for now.

Wes your scenarios have happened to me, or at least things very similar. My training requires that my horses don’t need to understand what is coming, happening, or chasing them. At the same time, they are not clueless. The information they can gain from open bridles is negligible in helping them know how to respond to my expectations. They hear the loud noises, they see the strange things, the flying objects, and they may react out of fear. When I tell them to stand, or stop, or calm down, that is what they are expected to do. The bridles they are wearing have no bearing on how well they know to respond to me. That is the training.

Brush-hogging this fall with my DR tow-behind mower, a six inch piece of wood shot up and bounced off my mare’s rear. She never saw it coming because of the blinders. She jumped, and high-stepped for about 20 feet. When I told her to take it easy, she calmed right down into working walk.

I don’t want my horse trying to figure out all the things that might be going to happen (they can if they want to, but they will find it exhausting as it will distract them from the work at hand), I just want my horses to respond to me when I ask them to. This is no different with or without blinders. In my own little world, I do not worry about how a horse reacts to a stimulus, I worry about how they respond to my command when I give them guidance about how I expect them to react. This way I never have to worry (neither do they) about the infinite possibilities that might occur, and only concentrate on communication, so that when the unexpected happens, my calm “easy” can be heard and focused on through all the adrenalin, over all the barking, or loud motors, or whatever.

This is why my horses will be safe regardless of the tack they are wearing, or not wearing. This is why I made the comment that led to this discussion.

I never said that using open bridles was illogical, nor did I say that blinders help horses to deal better with frightening situations.

It seems that folks want to rally around open bridles. That is great. I truly think that is great. But just because that is great does not mean that it is the only or best way to prepare a working horse. There are many other factors that go into that making than the equipment they are wearing.

Carl

[Author]

Posts