Perhaps I have been watching too many liberal documentaries… or maybe just maybe I’ve been stewing at these ideas for a while and they are finally coming to a boiling point. Yes, I think it is the later of those two which is the truth for me.
What is it to be a real horseman? Can you be a horseman even if you’ve never before been involved with horses? Can you be involved with horses every day and still fail to be a horseman?
It never ceases to amaze me what our horses will allow us to do, but then when I step back and consider what we as people are willing to put up with in regards to one another I am less surprised. And still, do I always appreciate how much my horses are willing to do for me – simply because I ask?
I’ve posted quite a bit on the whole Rollkur issue… this post will not delve into it in just the same way, nor is it focused solely on the Rollkur / hyperflexion problem. To be entirely honest, Rollkur / hyperflexion isn’t even *the* issue, rather we’ve again missed the whole problem that is being superficially represented by Rollkur and those who are being allowed to utilize it in order to gain success.
I propose that no horseman is perfect. Rather, the whole idea of exemplifying one individual over another is rather preposterous. Instead, are we at risk, with such a statement, of confusing a horseman’s skill at riding with his personality and social popularity?
