Talk:Halter

message: The article needs a discussion of the "break" vs "don't break" opposing schools of thought re halters.  This parallels the opposing schools of thought re tying a horse. --Una Smith (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some stuff, FYI.  Montanabw(talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now much more about this.  The article is about halters, not specifically horse halters, and many dog owners do tie their dogs hard and fast.  So do many horse owners, if near a highway or in a public place.  Eg, a shopping mall parking lot before a holiday parade. --Una Smith (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May need to break it out then by species.  Dogs sure, we outweigh most of them.  Of course, a few dogs have been hung by their leashes because they tried to jump a fence or something and didn't get all the way over.  But tie a horse hard and fast --ESPECIALLY in a parade setting?  =:-O  Good god, I know people do it, but that's insane!  I am serious.  Want a dead animal when it panics?  Have you ever seen a horse hung up and have to be shot due to a broken neck?  I have.  It's horrible. Seen a tied horse fall on concrete and people can't cut it loose?  I have. (That one lived) Ever had to rehab a horse with neck injuries from being tied with unbreakable equipment and left to "fight it out?." Not fun.  There may be a place for the no-escape equipment, but it still needs a human-triggerable release mechanism or else it literally has to be life or death and the animal potentially disposable. If you want to advocate for tying a horse hard and fast without a slipknot, (I can't count the number of horses-tied-to-trailer wrecks and near-wrecks I have seen over 35-some years) then better source it properly because I will be shocked if any mainsteam source advocates tying a horse hard and fast under any but very unusual or extreme circumstances.  I'll wait to see what you do on this, but I highly recommend thinking this one over.  Montanabw(talk) 07:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at a parade if a tied horse panics I want it to stay tied.  Likely alternatives include injured bystanders, even a maimed or dead child.  A horse is nothing, compared to a child.  But my view is irrelevant.  Wikipedia isn't about what is right, it is about what is, and it is a matter of fact that some expert horsemen do tie horses hard and fast.  It is a matter of POV that this is right or wrong, either way.  It is NPOV to say who thinks this is right, or wrong, with adequate sources.  --Una Smith (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then footnote it.  A horse can stay tied with a good slipknot, properly done.  The point is tying with a non-release bowline that only allows a knife to cut a rope is not a great idea.  Me, I don't think sharp objects and panicking horses are a good blend.  I'll just grab that rope end and PULL!   Personally, I've seen more people - and kids - get hurt trying to "help" the panicking horse than hurt by a loose runaway, but what you or I claim to know is irrelevant.  I'll fact tag what I take issue with as OR, and if you can source it, fine.  Montanabw(talk) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break or don't break

message: Here are some other points of debate:
*Some people insist a horse in a stall always wear a halter;  others insist the halter be taken off.
*Some people insist a horse in turnout always wear a halter;  others insist the halter be taken off.
Along those lines, some people insist a nylon halter (rope or web) never be used in the back country, in case the horse  is lost.  These people insist on cotton or leather halters, which they expect will quickly rot and fall off, lessening the risk of trapping and hence killing the horse.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the reasoning for leaving it on in stall or turnout? (I assume the reason for taking it off is to avoid getting it caught on something; that's the reason I always take it off.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh man, I see your point, but maybe we should let sleeping dogs lie until other articles cool off and we all have time to think. I have NO time right now to work on this article because all of a sudden "fact" tags and threats to remove large blocks of material are appearing on several articles on my watchlist, oddly enough, some of the ones to which I have contributed recently.   Most general books on horses just say that a horse should never wear a halter in a stall or in turnout, I happen to agree with that view,  I personally saw a horse (neighbor across the road) catch a nylon halter on a metal fence post, break its neck in the struggle and have to be shot on the spot, I have extremely strong feelings on that topic.  I guess if we want to go into all the reasons people have for legitimately wanting to keep halters on or off in a balanced, NPOV way (I suppose leaving them on would come in handy at a show if some stupid kid went and let all the horses out of their stalls), but later, please.  Oh please...  Montanabw(talk) 05:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wear or don't wear

message: Full definition from the OED, you might want to research this stuff a bit more before you put it in. Don't mean to be snarky, but halters are not hackamores and hackamores are not halters, even if people do ride in both. Montanabw(talk) 08:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Halters are not Hackamores

message: Originally the word halter (other than in US), referred to a hemp or cotton head that possessed a headpiece, noseband and attached lead. Summerhayes in “Encyclopaedia for Horsemen” defined Head Collar (sic), Head Stall (sic), thus: “A leather head for leading an unbitted horse or tying up in a stall.” Over the years, in some places, the terms halter, headcollar and headstall have become interchangeable. The commonly seen headstall is the Newmarket design. A bridle without reins and bit is known as a bridle head. I can provide more info and refs. if required. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  In the US, "halter" is really the only word used; what you call the bridle head in the USA is a "headstall."  I have never heard the term "bridle head" used.  What fun!  Once again, as Mark Twain said, the Brits (or Aussies? smile) and the Americans are a people separated by a common language!  LOL!  I wonder if it would be worthwhile, somewhere, to do a list of British versus American English terminology for horse stuff?  There are a lot of places this is cropping up.  (whipple trees versus singletrees, wire gates versus Hampshire gates, oh man, there is quite a list!)  There also may be some East Coast/West Coast terminology splits within the US also (lots of Spanish influence in western USA, seems to be causing some heartburn).  Now, which is what you call the "Newmarket" design?  Also foreign language (though maybe less so on the east coast, don't know.)  Believe it or not, sorting this out is actually kind of fun (see horse trailer for more regional fun with words, may need your additions if the terms are off for some nations, also, only has photos of US and Euro trailer designs, may need others)  Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Halter/headstall

message: Just a FYI... Johnson rope halter is not a brand name, at least not any more.  It is still available in some tack shops, under various brand names, and can be made from scratch using off-the-shelf hardware.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with the new edit.  And even in the 60s, the term "Johnson halter" was a generic term then too. Usually for a cheap, cotton rope model that was prone to shrinking and broke easily.  Montanabw(talk) 02:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rope halters 

message: FYI, though done without consensus, I am actually OK with the Lead (tack) breakout.  However, a bit more mention that halters have leads needs to remain in the halter article, if somewhat cut down.  I also think that further discussion about this article needs to come here to the talk page for discussion and consensus.  I don't know about you, but I have to eat and sleep, it's tiring to waste time on edit wars when ideas can be worked out here.  Montanabw(talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  I really dislike reading articles that use  then proceed to rehash the main article, so I am glad we agree about that. --Una Smith (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But I also think that a short summary appropriate to the article is also OK, even if some redundancy.  Here, leading and tying are halter issues.  I spent a lot of time on this and other articles trying to avoid a wholesale revert, but rather, painstakingly going through edit by edit to figure out what to toss and what to keep.  I added back in material somewhat broadly in the interest of time. But like I say, though, no sense tailing after you now, I'll see what you have later.  I have a real life to attend to as well, may be a day or two.  Montanabw(talk) 07:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead ropes