GROW Horsemanship

11/16/2025

Bits and Safety: What Does the Research Actually Say?

There’s a very common belief in the horse world that bits make riding safer. Most of us were taught this from our earliest lessons, and it gets repeated so often that it starts to feel like an established fact.

That belief showed up again this week.
I was attending an R+ summit, a space full of thoughtful, well-respected people in our industry, and the idea that bits are a safety feature and provide more control, was mentioned in a way that suggested it was supported by research.

And I think it’s important to recognize that this isn’t just a “traditional” belief. It shows up even in modern, evidence-based circles.

Because of that, I wanted to look at this from all angles. I went searching specifically for peer reviewed studies that support the claim that bits increase rider safety or reduce safety risks compared to bitless equipment.

I wasn’t able to find ANY.

There are studies on bridles, rein tension, rider perceptions and pressure distribution. Some of these papers get referenced to defend bit use. But none of them demonstrate increased safety because of the bit.

The only study that directly compared rider safety between bitted and bitless horses found no difference in safety outcomes at all. Horses ridden without a bit did not create more safety concerns, did not show more risk, and did not demonstrate a disadvantage.

So before we keep repeating the belief that “bits equal safety,” especially in spaces that value evidence, I think it’s worth acknowledging that this claim doesn’t appear in the scientific literature. It seems to come more from tradition and habit than from data.

The peer reviewed evidence available right now simply doesn’t show a safety advantage to using a bit. Grounding our safety conversations in evidence matters, especially in a field that values welfare and clarity. If you’d like to explore the topic further, World Bitless Association has excellent educational resources.

11/15/2025

The horse industry often thrives on extremes.

You’re either traditional or progressive
A serious rider or just a hobbyist
All in on one method or seen as uncommitted
Good or bad. Right or wrong.

But horses don’t live in absolutes. And the truth is, neither do we.

When we treat methods, tools, or ideologies as all or nothing, we lose the nuance that real growth and learning require. We stop asking questions. We stop listening. And we stop being curious, which is one of the most essential traits in any good horseperson.

Black and white thinking creates camps instead of communities and followers instead of thinkers. It drives wedges between people who might otherwise learn from one another. It can also create a kind of indoctrination where stepping outside the accepted method is seen not just as different, but as disloyal or even harmful.

That kind of rigidity helps no one. Especially not the horses.

Nuance does not mean abandoning your values. It means being willing to look closer, to consider context, and to keep learning. It means making room for conversations instead of shutting them down.

Because the goal is not to be right.
The goal is to do better. For the horses.

11/14/2025

In the horse world, we’ve used the word “breaking” for a very long time.

Before anything else, I’d love to ask you this:

What does that word invoke for you?

What feelings, images, or memories come up when you hear it?

Because the language around horse training tells us a lot about how we think about “willingness.”

We use terms like:

• green broke
• broke
• dead broke

And while these words are often said casually, their definitions all circle back to the same idea:
how familiar, reliable, or predictable a horse has become under saddle.

Green broke simply means a horse is early in training and still figuring things out.

Broke means they’re dependable and understand their job.

Dead broke means extremely quiet, experienced, and steady, often to the point of tolerating a wide variety of riders and environments.

None of these terms actually tell us how much a horse WANTS to be ridden. They describe how well a horse has learned the expectations placed on them, and how predictable their responses have become.

Not because they “want” to be ridden. But because compliance has been shaped into the safest, clearest option through training and repetition.

Most horses have simply learned that saying “no” loudly leads to outcomes that feel risky, scary, overwhelming, so they switch to saying “no” softly instead.

And even when we use softer language like “gentling,” the purpose doesn’t really change. Though it is a huge improvement on breaking because it focuses on lowering fear, increasing understanding, and introducing things in a calmer, more supportive way.

Whether we call it breaking or gentling It’s meant to reduce those big flight responses and build familiarity, not to explore whether the horse actually wants the task.

A horse who has learned to stay quiet is not automatically a horse who is CHOOSING the work.

Some horses absolutely ENJOY being ridden.
But enjoyment isn’t something we can assume simply because a horse is quiet, compliant, or predictable.

And this is where I struggle the most with the phrase:

“If they didn’t want me to ride, they wouldn’t let me.”

Because the people who say this often ignore the very behaviours that show disagreement in the first place.

They’ll share videos of their horses bucking, rooting, rearing, spinning, refusing to move forward, sometimes even adding music or jokes over it, and then use that same argument about “letting” them ride.

When a horse is broncing, launching, or trying to leave the situation entirely, that is the horse saying “no.” Loudly. Unmistakably.

And yet those loud no’s get brushed off as “attitude,” “freshness,” “sass,” or “just being a young horse.”

If the loudest no’s are being dismissed, how can we pretend the quiet moments are proof of willingness?

At the end of the day, horses communicate long before things become dramatic. Their subtle signals matter just as much as their loud ones.

A horse being ridden quietly could be enjoying the work, or simply coping with it.

The only way to know is to look for the small signs, acknowledge the big ones, and stop using their silence as evidence of desire.

11/13/2025

We cover so many aspects of welfare in horses, but sleep is still a piece that often gets missed.
Not just resting on their feet. Not just dozing.

Actual REM sleep.

Horses can only enter REM sleep when they lie down. They can rest standing because of their stay apparatus, but the moment they enter REM their muscles lose tone. That means tthey need safe, comfortable time lying down to complete their REM cycles.

When they cannot lie down often enough, or when they do not feel safe doing so, they begin to show signs of sleep loss.

The behaviour can look like irritability, reduced learning, slower recovery, or even collapsing into micro sleep while standing. Many people mistake this for a medical issue (Such as narcolepsy) when it is actually the final stage of REM deprivation.

———

Three factors make the biggest difference:

Social security:

Horses are herd animals. They sleep best when they feel protected by the social environment around them.

A horse that is isolated, unable to see others, or unsure about the horses beside them is more likely to stay hyper aware. That hyper awareness reduces lying behaviour, which reduces real sleep.

When horses sleep in groups, they take turns watching while others lie down. That shared sense of safety is something a stall cannot always recreate. The more predictable, familiar, and socially secure the environment feels, the more confidently a horse will rest.

———

Bedding and comfort:

A horse will not lie down if the surface is uncomfortable. Bedding that is thin, hard, wet, or deep in ammonia discourages laying down. Comfort matters.

Soft footing supports joints. Clean bedding supports skin and respiratory health. Deep and dry bedding encourages the horse to lie longer and shift into lateral recumbency, which is the position most associated with REM sleep.

Comfort is not a luxury. It is a biological requirement for proper sleep.

———

Adequate space to lie down:

Horses need space to stretch out, roll, and shift positions. If the space is too small, too narrow, or cluttered, they simply will not risk lying down.
Laying down requires more room than sternal resting, and many stalls do not provide enough width to encourage this posture. Horses need enough room to lower themselves to the ground safely and to get back up without slipping or hitting walls.

When horses have enough space and feel secure in that space, lying behaviour becomes natural again.

——-

Why this matters:

Sleep touches every part of a horse’s health and behaviour. When social security, bedding comfort, and space are all in place, horses rest more deeply. They learn better. Their emotional stability increases. Their bodies recover faster.

Bad sleep is not the root of all training issues, but it can absolutely influence how a horse thinks, reacts, and learns.

It is one factor always worth checking!

11/12/2025

From PATH to GROW 🌱

It’s been a long time coming.

When I started PATH Equestrian back in 2017, I was a university student trying to find my place in an industry that often told me I wasn’t “tough enough.” I didn’t want to be tough, I wanted to be kind. But at the time, kindness and horsemanship didn’t seem to coexist, at least not in the environment I was in.

PATH, which stood for Positive Approach to Horsemanship, came from that tension. It was my way of saying there had to be another path, one rooted in understanding, compassion, and partnership instead of dominance and control.

As I dove deeper into behaviour science, learning theory, ethology, and welfare, I began to understand just how much the language we use shapes the work we do. In learning theory, “positive” and “negative” don’t mean good or bad, they describe how behaviour is reinforced or reduced. So, while PATH started from a place of good intention, “Positive Approach” wasn’t scientifically accurate for the work I was doing.

I held onto it for a while because I loved the name and what it represented emotionally, but I always knew a change was coming, one that aligned the language with the science and values behind it.

That reflection also made me think about the difference between equestrian and horsemanship.
Over time, I realized I didn’t want this work to be defined by the act of riding or competing. Equestrian often describes what we do with horses, horsemanship describes how we understand them. That shift felt important: from identity to relationship, from sport to connection, from control to curiosity.

So after a lot of reflection (and probably some overthinking, let’s be honest), it was time for a name that truly reflected where this work had grown.

That name is GROW Horsemanship:

Guided by Research, Observation, and Welfare.

⸻

Research:

Research keeps this work grounded in evidence and curiosity. It challenges assumptions, questions traditions, and ensures that the choices I make are informed by science. But research is never static; it’s always changing, evolving, and updating as new studies deepen our understanding. Staying open to that growth means continuing to learn, adapt, and find new ways to support both horses and humans.

Observation:

Observation means slowing down to truly see the horse in front of us. It’s about combining data with intuition, blending what we know with what we feel and notice. Observation bridges science and empathy, allowing us to respond to each horse as an individual rather than a formula.

Welfare:

Welfare is the guiding principle and the heart of it all. It reminds us that training is only ethical when a horse’s physical, emotional, and social needs are fully met. Every decision, from management to handling to all interactions, is filtered through that lens, ensuring that the horse’s well-being always comes first.

⸻

Together, these three pillars represent how my vision has grown; not just training differently, but thinking differently. They create a framework for growth for horses, humans, and the connection between them.

This isn’t a rebrand for the sake of it. It’s the next step in a journey that’s been about learning, unlearning, and reshaping what good horsemanship truly means.

PATH brought me here. GROW represents where we’re going.

Thank you to everyone who’s been part of this journey, to the horses who continue to teach me what real connection feels like, and to the people who have believed in this work even before it had a name that fully fit.

Here’s to continuing to learn, evolve, and grow together. 🌱

11/12/2025

When welfare isn’t consistent, it’s political.

Last week, the FEI approved two new “blood rules”, one for dressage, one for show jumping.

In dressage, the rule became stricter: if fresh blood is seen at any point during or immediately after a test, the horse must be stopped and eliminated. That’s a clear, welfare-first decision.

In show jumping, the rule became looser: horses showing visible blood can now continue after a vet check, if officials decide they’re fit to compete. The decision becomes subjective, and political.

Both came from the same governing body, yet they reflect very different priorities when it comes to welfare.

During the FEI General Assembly, President Ingmar De Vos addressed delegates about these changes. He urged them not to revisit welfare topics too often, warning that doing so “gives ammunition to activists and to our so-called critical friends” and risks bringing “our sport and our athletes into discredit.”

He also cautioned that discussions about welfare should be “scientifically based, not based on emotions or panic.”

When welfare concerns are labeled as “emotional,” it’s not about science: it’s about dismissal.

Calling it emotional shifts focus away from the evidence that’s already on the table: decades of research on pain responses, stress behaviour, learning theory, and welfare outcomes.

The data exists. The studies exist. The evidence exists.

Pretending it’s “emotion” doesn’t make it less scientific, it just makes it easier to ignore.

So why does activism feel so threatening to those in power?

Because scrutiny exposes the cracks in systems built on prestige, profit, and control. It asks uncomfortable questions about who benefits, and who suffers, when image comes before welfare.

Questioning isn’t an attack.

And seeing it as one raises a significant red flag about how comfortable leadership is with accountability to the horses they represent.

Activism and open discussion aren’t dangers to equestrian sport. They’re the reason it continues to evolve.

If the FEI can’t even align on where it stands on welfare, that’s the clearest signal we’ve got that the system is lost.

11/11/2025

The horse industry is overdue for change.
Not a new trend, but a shift in culture that reshapes how we think, talk, and connect with horses.

The last time we saw a movement that did that was in the 1980s and 1990s, when Natural Horsemanship began to rise. It did not solve everything, but it did something remarkable. It made people pause, pay attention, and see their horses differently.

Natural Horsemanship helped trigger one of the most significant cultural shifts in horsemanship, reminding us that change is possible.

It encouraged people to use timing instead of force, to listen to feedback, and to see partnership instead of dominance.

That shift was revolutionary.

At its core, Natural Horsemanship is a system built around pressure and release, where the horse learns by responding in ways that make pressure stop. In learning theory, that is called negative reinforcement, not because it is “bad”, but because something is removed when the horse offers the correct response.

There is not just one way to apply this, and that is what makes it so complex. It can be used with precision and feel, creating clearer communication and lower stress, or with too much pressure and poor timing, leading to tension and confusion. Those differences lead to vastly different welfare outcomes.

That is also what made Natural Horsemanship so influential. It was not just a set of techniques. It was a mindset shift toward communication, timing, and awareness. For many, the idea of release became the first clear, tangible way to understand how horses learn. It was influential in changing how people thought about training and communication, though welfare outcomes often depended on how it was applied.

Beyond the mechanics, and why I think it resonated so deeply, is because it changed mindset. It replaced the language of dominance with one of feel, timing, and partnership. It gave everyday riders a sense of agency and hope, the belief that they could understand their horses, not just manage them.

It arrived at the right time too.

Conversations about animal sentience and welfare were growing worldwide, and people were ready for a kinder, more connected approach to training.

We are standing in another moment like that now.

Welfare is finally at the centre of more horse conversations, and more people than ever are asking about emotional wellbeing, agency, pain faces, social needs, and evidence-based care.

At this point, it is going to be hard for everyone to agree on methods of training, and that is not what this conversation is about.

But I think, given what started the Natural Horsemanship movement and what welfare science is showing us today, we can all agree that welfare NEEDS to be the focus right now.

If Natural Horsemanship showed that culture could change once, this moment shows us that it can change again.

Through open discussion, shared learning, and a genuine commitment to welfare, we can write the next chapter together.

Natural Horsemanship changed how many people thought about control, communication, and connection. It showed that our culture can evolve, that awareness and empathy can reshape how we work with horses.

We have done it before.
We can do it again.

There is a growing movement calling for welfare to be at the centre of the sport.

Cultural shifts are never easy, but this time, for better and for worse, we’re more digitally connected than ever. Conversations that used to happen in small barns or clinics are now happening online for the whole world to see. If we use that reach with empathy and intention, with welfare science at its heart, it might just be what makes lasting change possible.

11/09/2025

We talk a lot about how horses learn, but we don’t always realize how much we’re being trained too.

The same reinforcement loops that make video games so engaging, reward, relief, and control, also shape how we handle conflict and connection.

Stick with me, I know this is a bit of a different direction from my usual posts, but I really liked the tangent I went on today!

Aggressive training doesn’t just condition horses, it conditions humans. Every time we “win” a moment of resistance, our brains get rewarded.

The horse gives in, the conflict ends, and that sense of control FEELS good. That feeling reinforces our behaviour, even if the horse’s experience was fear or confusion.

It’s the same mechanism that drives most games.

Defeat the challenge, feel the rush, move on to the next.

And while I’m oversimplifying a very complex process, this is the gist of it: behind the scenes, that’s a dopamine-driven reward system at work.

When we overcome an obstacle or regain control, dopamine neurons fire, signalling that worked, do it again. That feedback loop motivates repetition, even if the “success” came through tension or force.

Games are built around that psychology. They teach the brain to ENJOY the conflict because winning it feels rewarding.

However, it doesn’t have to be this way.
There’s another path that feels just as rewarding, one built on curiosity, not conflict.

My favourite video game, Undertale, shows exactly what happens when compassion becomes the strategy instead of control.

It’s a game that flipped the system completely.
You could still face challenges, still have “battles,” but you didn’t have to fight. You could ACT instead of attack, talk, listen, and connect with the characters.

And when you did, the story changed.

The game didn’t just let you choose kindness, it HEAVILY rewarded it. By showing compassion, you unlocked more dialogue, more connection, more depth.

It brought the whole world to life.

Meanwhile, choosing constant aggression made the game repetitive and empty on purpose, designed to make violence feel hollow, and empathy feel meaningful.

Every choice stripped more life from the world, until there was nothing left to connect to.
The music changed. The tone changed. Grinding your way through everything wasn’t satisfying, it was exhausting.

Toby Fox DESIGNED it this way.

And that tiny indie game, made in GameMaker, full of spaghetti code, went on to win multiple awards and redefine storytelling in gaming.

That message completely changed how I saw “victory.”

Working with horses isn’t so different. We’re often told to be firm, to “win the moment.”

But what if we took a moment to ACT instead of fight?

Like Undertale, our stories with horses change when empathy becomes the strategy. It’s not about avoiding conflict or ignoring boundaries. It’s about recognizing that control isn’t connection, and that real progress comes from understanding.

Even when aggression feels more immediately rewarding, connection is what lasts.

When we step away from aggression, we’re not just changing our methods. We’re retraining what we find rewarding. We’re moving from the quick dopamine rush of control to the quieter satisfaction of connection.

Success isn’t in winning the fight.

It’s in realizing there was never supposed to be one.

11/09/2025

I’ve been approved for Facebook subscriptions, which is pretty cool and definitely feels like a milestone!

This might be a bit unconventional, but I won’t be offering exclusive content, I don’t want the information I share here to sit behind a paywall. Everything will always stay free and accessible.

That said, if you’ve found my posts helpful and would like to support the work I do, you’re welcome to subscribe!

Either way, thank you all for the engagement, thoughtful comments, and conversations, your support means so much. ❤️

https://www.facebook.com/PATHEquestrian/subscribe/

11/08/2025

Is this a step backwards for horse welfare?

Lately, many of us speaking about the FEI’s new blood rule have been told we’re being dramatic or misinformed.

So let’s set emotion aside for a moment and look at the facts.

What exactly changed, who proposed it, and what does it mean for the horses?

⸻

What the rule used to say?

Under the previous FEI Jumping Rules (Article 241), if a horse was seen with visible blood anywhere on its body during competition, the combination was automatically eliminated. It didn’t matter if the cause was accidental or not.

The point of the rule was simple:
if a horse shows visible injury, the round stops immediately, and an investigation follows.

That automatic stop created a clear welfare safeguard. No debate, no judgement call, no pressure to “finish the round.”

⸻

What the new rule says:

At the 2025 FEI General Assembly in Hong Kong, the organization voted to change how visible blood is handled.

Starting January 1, 2026, a new Article 259 comes into effect.

Here’s what it means:

1. Visible blood now triggers an on-site inspection, not automatic elimination. The Ground Jury and Veterinary Delegate decide whether the horse is “fit to continue.”

2. If the bleeding is judged to have been caused by the rider, tack, or equipment, the rider receives a “Jumping Recorded Warning.”

Two warnings within twelve months result in a fine and a one-month suspension.

3. If the bleeding is considered accidental, such as a bitten tongue or rub, the horse may be allowed to continue in the same or a later round.

4. These warnings are administrative, not competitive penalties. The horse may still jump once cleared.

⸻

Who proposed the change?

The revision was introduced by the FEI Jumping Committee as part of the 2026 rule overhaul.
Input came from the International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC), who argued that not every instance of blood should cause elimination and that “minor or accidental” cases should be treated more proportionally.

When the final proposal went to a vote:

• 56 federations voted in favour
• 20 voted against (German, Danish, Finland Austrian and Swedish Equestrian Federations are confirmed)
• 2 abstained.

I know many have asked - I do not know how Canada voted.

The FEI described the new system as an “advancement” in welfare management.

However, several national federations publicly disagreed.

British Showjumping and British Equestrian announced they will not adopt the change at national level, saying that removing automatic elimination is a “step backwards for welfare” and a risk to the sport’s public trust.

⸻

Why people are concerned:

1. It replaces a clear line with subjective judgment:

Officials now have to decide ON THE SPOT whether blood is “serious” or “accidental.” That creates room for inconsistency and pressure, especially at high-stakes events.

2. It reframes welfare as an administrative issue:

What was once an immediate welfare stop now becomes a paperwork warning. Welfare concerns should end a round, not turn into a record-keeping exercise.

3. It could weaken public confidence;

To the public, blood means injury.
Seeing a horse bleed and continue competing undermines the sport’s message that welfare comes first.

4. It risks normalizing visible injury:

Once the automatic stop is gone, it becomes easier for minor cases to be dismissed as “accidental.” Over time, that can shift the welfare baseline in the wrong direction.

5. It creating a global divide:

The FEI’s decision contrasts with countries choosing higher standards, showing a split between international sport and national welfare expectations.

⸻

So, is this in the best interest of the horse?

That’s the question.

The FEI says the new rule allows for fairness and context. Many welfare advocates argue it removes the only objective safeguard horses had in the ring.

Visible blood is never just a “cosmetic issue”. It’s evidence of tissue damage, and it should always warrant immediate protection and review, not continued competition.

So with all this in mind, I’ll leave you with the same question:

Is this a step forward, or a step backwards for equine welfare?

11/07/2025

Bringing up one form of harm does not cancel out another.

When someone raises a welfare concern, it’s common to hear:

“But what about this other bad thing?”

That response might sound reasonable, but it’s a form of deflection called whataboutism, a rhetorical tactic that shifts focus away from the issue at hand instead of addressing it.

Whataboutism doesn’t ADD perspective, it dilutes accountability. It implies that if something worse exists, the current problem doesn’t matter.

But caring about welfare isn’t a competition.

We can, and must, care about more than one issue at a time.

A lot of discussion about welfare overlaps.
Stress, pain, fear, and management issues often exist together, progress in one area can (and should) inform another.

I originally struggled with how to handle this.
Of course I care about those other things, my whole life revolves around equine welfare. I cover a wide variety of educational topics across all areas of welfare, and I’ve likely already spoken about most of the “what about” topics. And if I haven’t, it’s probably because I don’t have enough education in that area to speak on it responsibly.

Now when I see it now, I often say something like:

“Bringing up one form of harm doesn’t cancel out another. The conversation about equine welfare is still deeply important, and addressing it doesn’t require ignoring other injustices.”

Deflection is often a sign of discomfort, not malice. But if we care about welfare, we have to let that discomfort move us, not silence us.

If this advocacy makes you uncomfortable, GOOD!

Discomfort means you’re feeling something, and feeling is where awareness begins. Indifference is far more dangerous than discomfort.

The reality is that addressing one form of harm does not mean we are ignoring others. Progress happens issue by issue, conversation by conversation.

11/07/2025

This could be the start of something huge.

I don’t know how Canada voted I looked and wasn’t able to find anything. I really hope Canada was one of the 20 who voted against and if they did PLEASE follow suit Equestrian Canada 🙏

The UK is NOT following the FEI's lead! 🚫
KEEPING THE BAR AT HIGHER WELFARE

British Showjumping (BS) confirmed they will NOT be changing their national rules. This means at British national shows, the presence of blood will still lead to automatic elimination.

This is a brave, clear commitment to putting horse welfare first and protecting the sport’s Social License to Operate (SLO).

If the UK can stand firm, other nations that voted 'No' (like Germany) can and should do the same.

We stand with the British Equestrian CEO, who said: "removing automatic elimination for visible blood is a step backwards."

The fight is now at the national level. We will continue to demand transparency from the FEI and push all our National Federations to follow the UK's ethical lead!

Fédération Equestre Internationale