MGs and PH: I realize and acknowledge your concerns. Unfortunately using leading terms without validation are why we have problems with this subject. I am again asking that you refrain from repeating unsubstantiated material and to try to phrase the wording so that people understand you are presenting ideas not factual information.
To broaden this discussion, this is why we have so many myths and untruths in our breed. People tend to take everything at face value when it is presented by a person posing as an expert. Truly, truly, I wish more people would question those experts. Passion, strong beliefs, self promotion of an idea are not good replacements for plain ol' hard work and research. Lately it seems more important to get "approval", to feel good about oneself, than to seek hard facts and knowledge, acquire skill to BE the expert NOT follow an "expert".
It also seems to be the vogue to use the philosophy of "if you are not for me, then you are against me". Thank God our country was not founded on such premises and ideas were tested again, again, again modifying them until they worked for the better.
Forums are NOT a good format to exchange ideas because the reader does not have a clue as to how the writer is responding. The reader must chance the tone, inflection and emotion of the writer. This is why face to face meetings are important, why teleconferences are made. One must know whom one is dealing with to make good decisions. Opinion, because it IS personal, does not read well on paper.
MGs: The problem is making statements without further review. Taking a post from of a clipping of a law does not provide enough substantiation to interpret what was quoted. I can take and quote law and depending on my own views, skew it to support my view. Laws are written purposefully with a certain degree of ambiguity. This is done in order to allow circumstances, which may not be the norm, to fall under the broad umbrella of the law. The full context and intent of the law must be studied and further investigated to determine if such a law has been tested in the court systems.
I believe we could all agree using terms like "barbaric", "illegal" are inflammatory remarks and can be misinterpreted to provoke not to reason. I know people who dock dog's tails. They are not barbarians and what they do isn't illegal. Neither are lay people who are competent and perform tail alterations on horses. Again, rather than defend this approach of terminology it might be best to rephrase the concern. I might add that this point is mute since a new PFHA rule will be in place September 2008.
Quote:
...it leads me to BELIEVE that it MAY NOT be valid on all horses. I have had long time paso fino owners tell me that this clamping of the tail is quite characteristic of a number of paso finos.
I understand, again, I am asking for proof behind the belief. Using hearsay as evidence is not proof. It must be quantifiable. There is no correlation between your experience with one attempt on one horse and stories. Also there nothing has been clarified as to why it was thought your method was a valid test to begin with.
The point was missed about discussing tail alterations with others. I pointed out presuming everyone is guilty until proven innocent is a false presumption based on definition of what is natural. I asked if others had been surveyed to begin data collection not to share stories among friends.
Again, it might be best to stick with what is relevant. People making choices based on advisement from others is not relevant.
Quote:
The first thing that I noticed was a comment that I said that everyone altered tails. It would be easier if you attached a quote because if I said that I made a typo. I don't just think, I KNOW most paso fino owners do not alter tails. Very few of them in this country do since the majority of paso fino owners in this country do not show. But unfortunately the ones who do are very visible since they are generally in the show ring.
This was taken out of context. I was referring to the suggestion of requiring all horses to be tested for unaltered tails for the rest of their natural lives. The presumption is erroneous as I will state again for your benefit here. The presumption is all people will alter a tail therefore all tails must be monitored to prove they are unaltered. I then stated my reasoning for why the presumption may not work. I gave a modified proposal to assume all tails are unaltered at birth by the common sense definition of what is "natural"--that which is dictated by nature. As Cindy pointed out, you can not test for a "unity" or "null" in any quantifiable manner. Trying to prove whether nature has "unaltered" a tail is not a sound scientific approach. This means to test, one must be versed in ALL unnatural methods by which a tail can be altered to prove it has been unaltered.
Britz: My only apology is that I feel obligated to respond in order to mitigate the discussion. Years past I would have simply ignored such posts but I have discovered an unanswered response is misinterpreted as approval. It is simply my observation and opinion, of course, but there is a tendency to make statements as if there is underlying expertise, knowledge so as to present the statements as indisputable facts. My attempts are to demonstrate such statements have no underlying factual basis and that the general audience should proceed cautiously before accepting such statements.
Ok Cindy is waiting, Bye! Bye!
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:18 pm
britzlove
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 435
Location: Indiana
Got ya Candice,
I wasn't scolding just attempting to divert towards positive. Kind of like giving a misbehaving horse something else to do with their brain.
We have a number of breed supporting threads started now here, and I just puzzle at why we have 7 pages of a touchy subject, and maybe one, rarely two pages on the other excellent threads.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:02 pm
BigJ
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 1049
I'm posting an explanation about the "null" hypothesis and how it works.
I'll link it here later.
Here's the link explaining negative proofing and why it's a bear to do.
Important progress! There has been "SOME" development on this matter that we all should be aware !
Fedepaso the official Association of Venezuela and Confepaso hosted the Convention last weekend in Caracas ,Venezuela!
Guess what! very interesting....... Dr. Alfredo Olavarria made a great presentation of the danger and scientifically explained the serious consequences that Confepaso Rules is imposing to the breed by having the SWITCHING TAIL thingy in there.!
Well! HELLO!!!!!! something very funny! where the hell have they been I may ask!
The USA has been screaming bloody over this! for years! and decades!!
But the curious thingy here is! the same people that campaigned so hard in this country to allow such stupid rules..... are now promoting the serious of this matter! jejejejejejejejejejeje PEOPLE genuine.
Conclusion: I am glad to see people getting EDUCATED! is about time!
At last science is working with common sense. I hope South America and Caribbean countries finally stand up to be counted in our efforts to protect the paso fino's true heritage.
The switching tail rule has done nothing to improve the performance or disposition of the breed. It has only but the horse at risk for the sake of man's vanity.
_________________ Be the change you want to see in the world. Gandhi
There may be hope for this after all . It's about time!
_________________ Marleen
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:36 pm
caliber
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 2868
Location: Paso World
BigJ wrote:
At last science is working with common sense. I hope South America and Caribbean countries finally stand up to be counted in our efforts to protect the paso fino's true heritage.
The switching tail rule has done nothing to improve the performance or disposition of the breed. It has only but the horse at risk for the sake of man's vanity.
Interestedly enough Candice, Puerto Rico, Los Abiertos association, listen to this, they will not "excuse" a horse from competition....(something new that Wilman Rodriguez, President, implemented) but instead they will penalize the horse. WOW! I don't see where and how that will improve the system
If two horses placed FIRST! but one switched the tail, the switcher horse will be placed second! COME ON! stop the bull and how/where does Los Abiertos think they are fooling..................... NOT ME!
I agree Felix. We don't need rules when common sense can prevail. Do not the judges know the difference between a horse that has a temper, one that has a weak expression, and one that is working?
I have a hard time believing they do not.
_________________ Be the change you want to see in the world. Gandhi
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 7 of 7Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
. It's about time!
