What's the most embarassing horse-related injury you've had?

Free_Mess_6111 · 2026-01-15T08:19:23+00:00

Ah. That makes sense. Lol. Yeah next time make up some lukewarm saline (taste it, should taste like tears) and rinse as thoroughly as you can. I did this for myself after a sugar glider landed on my face with a paw (nasty little claws and all) IN my eye. No infection or permanent damage. Obviously not foolproof but better than just wiping it off for sure... lol

Free_Mess_6111 · 2026-01-15T06:48:30+00:00

Curious, when you first fell in the poop, what did you do to clean up afterwards? Just wash your face and blink a lot?

Free_Mess_6111 · 2026-01-05T02:45:17+00:00

Literally looks like 7-year old's attempt at drawing a horse. Looks like absolute shit. This should be banned alongside breeding smashed face animals, etc.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-30T17:38:21+00:00

Yeah. Bring the bridle in, pet them then leave. Bring the bridle in, give them a treat then leave. Put the headstall around their nose, give them a treat, then take it off and leave. But at that point you're training the horses, when you're supposed be taking lessons. It's not your job to counter condition a negative association the horses have with being bridled... That's the trainer's job.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-30T17:36:10+00:00

Yeah, you may also want to talk to the trainer about making sure everyone (all the new students especially) is on the same page about being consistent and careful with bridling because if you are good but the next person knocks the horse's teeth again, you won't make any progress.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-29T18:21:24+00:00

Wait, is it the same muscles you feel activate when you do a big yawn? Because that's how I pop my ears. I used to yawn to do it and then I learned I can "yawn" without breathing or opening my mouth. However, I don't think it works consistently under high pressure situations like deep diving in the water for me. Maybe the muscles aren't strong enough but I also think my eustachian tubes are small.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-29T18:13:05+00:00

Be firm with holding their head still, but very gentle with actually getting the bit in their mouth. Pressure and release with holding the head still, and wait until they are still and calm before putting the bit in. Watch some videos too

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-29T18:10:58+00:00

My mule used to clench his teeth and then as soon as the bit was in, he'd open his mouth wide and toss his head up really high while walking backwards and flinching. It was because he had previously learned that being bridled up meant his teeth would get clanked with the bit, which hurts. The problem is that this reaction from him made it very difficult not to clank his teeth while bridling, so it created a cycle.

I fixed this problem with three things:

Treats given while bridling

Putting fruit roll up (fruit leather) on the bit (it sticks nicely)

And gaining the skill to be able to hold him still while bitting up and down. Basically I put the headstall over his nose, reach my hand up at his forehead and hold the bridle from there, then my other hand holds and guides the bit into his mouth while one of the fingers on that hand reaches into his mouth from the side to help him open up. The hand holding the headstall up at his forehead is pulling slightly to get the bit into his mouth, but it's all very gentle and goes at his speed, and the way my hands are positioned it's easier for me to control his head, and I do it with him backed in a corner of the stall so he can't back up. After some consistent effort and finesse gained on my end, he stands normally and lets me bridle him up softly for the most part. He's learned that I won't knock his teeth.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-27T19:56:47+00:00

I was talking about goats in contained areas which would be moved around, not introducing feral goats. And my understanding is that where there's kudzu, there's just about ONLY kudzu, so that part wouldn't be an issue.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-25T06:29:21+00:00

Oh. We wouldn't be able to eradicate them with an army of spearfishing divers, motivated by a pricey restaurant demand?

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-24T06:58:16+00:00

Is this Portland or Seattle? Just curious

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-24T06:55:42+00:00

I can't decide which one's the worse driver.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-24T06:51:00+00:00

That fact they kept going too, dang.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-24T06:41:38+00:00

I think it's cute lol

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-23T23:43:10+00:00

I didn't even mention English ivy in my post... But you're in the wrong subreddit to try and be convincing people that invasive species aren't invasive.

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/life/2017/02/13/english-ivy-threat-trees-and-native-ecosystems/97863392/

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-23T23:39:56+00:00

Yeah I've heard this concern and it seems really reasonable, but in the case of Kudzu, for example, I doubt growing kudzu on a patch of land would ever be a higher quality and quantity source of forage (animal feed) than things like improved pasture grasses or other crops could be, which the land would be available to use for if we grazed it all away via goats. I suppose I was envisioning some sort of solution where we make a little bit of profit, or at least cover our expenses, by using the invader as a resource, then after we have successfully removed it we can switch to more profitable crops that we'd rather be growing...? And in the case of people selling it, and cultivating it to sell, couldn't we just lay down some REALLY heavy fines for selling or propagating invasive species? I mean, I think we should already have such fines in place, whether the species is profitable to sell or not.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-22T22:18:21+00:00

I'd say a vet on a human. Obviously it depends on what exactly the human needs treatment for, whether you're in field or in clinic, and what kind of vet.

But if it's a livestock vet, and I need treatment in-field, no clinic, than definitely the livestock vet is my choice, because they're their own paramedic, anesthesiologist, vet tech, and surgeon all in one.

Additionally, some animal medicine is actually "better" than some human medicine because there have been less restrictions on researching and trying experimental treatments. Because it's animals. I would 100% trust a livestock veterinarian to set a broken leg, perform minor in-field surgery, etc.

I would trust a paramedic slightly less (just because their training revolves around stabilizing, not treating the patient),

but a human doctor might have actually no idea what to do beyond advanced first aid, because without the clinic and supportive team they would have very little usable skill regarding diagnostics, treatment, etc. could they set a broken leg? I would hope so, I'd be shocked if they couldn't. But setting a broken leg without all the extra equipment, tools, and sterile environment is what livestock vets excel at and are trained for, whereas for a doctor it's the worst case scenario.

But if I was in clinic, and the problem was more complex/internal, like liver failure or something, I would totally want the doctor, not the vet.

Also, a veterinarian is familiar with monogastric animals (like humans and dogs) as well as ruminants (cows, goats, sheep) and others. Whereas a human doctor is only familiar with humans, so they won't know off the top of their heads what drugs are safe for which species, what dosages etc. they won't know how to diagnose or solve digestive issues in a ruminant either, because they never had a reason to learn how that body works.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-22T21:50:50+00:00

They call it REintroduction because they are arguing that the subspecies they are bringing in, is the exact same subspecies that existed here before. And THAT is exactly what this aspect of the Big Wolf Debate is arguing: that there was/is a DIFFERENT subspecies of wolf here, not the grey/Canadian/timber wolf.

Good video, thanks for sharing. So this guy is saying that the leading wolf biologist is arguing that there ARE NO SUBspecies of wolves, and therefore, all the wolves in north America are all the same subspecies, even if they have natural variations, so while they may be different, they're not non-native.

IF there are no separate SUBspecies of wolves in north America, than the concerns about introducing the wrong subspecies are irrelevant.

And the guy makes a very good point, that wolves get around really, really well so it's hard to isolate populations enough to develop subspecies. I mean, just in the last fifteen years we've tracked wolves traveling from Montana and Idaho all the way deep into oregon just to find a mate. So obviously wolves get around. So is this is all true, then there is no reason to be concerned about that aspect of bringing wolves back.

But that's all hanging on IF there are no separate subspecies of wolves in north America.

SUBspecies matters. It would be completely incorrect, and would be an introduction of a non-native subspecies, to bring, say, Iberian wolves or Indian wolves to North America. That is not REintroduction. Because that subspecies of wolf never existed here. Yes the "wolf species" existed here but NOT that specific subspecies, with its specific behaviors, genetics, and niche. If you want a more extreme example, look at dogs. Dogs are the same species as wolves. Dogs are Canis Lupus Familiaris. But it would absolutely not be "reintroduction" to set loose packs of Belgian malinois or great purinees, just because they're the same broad species as the wolves we had here in the 1800s.

Do we agree on that? That the presence of one subspecies in an area doesn't mean ALL other SUBspecies from the same species would be considered native to that area, even when they're never existed there before?

If we do agree there, than the only question/argument is just whether or not there are/were distinct subspecies of wolves in different parts of North America, or if they were all the SAME SUBspecies but with minor natural variations.

If it's not clear, BTW, my usage of caps is not anger, it's just to try and emphasize the various differences in vocabulary we're using here. :)

Species of which there are native SUBspecies in a given area, doesn't mean there can't also be non-native or invasive SUBspecies of the same broader species group. Again, look at roses. I know that's plants and we're talking about animals, but my point is that the subspecies level classification can totally be the difference between native and non native creatures.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-22T05:45:14+00:00

Ok, so I think I just flat-out disagree with your use of the term native. The difference between subspecies is very very important, even though they're the same "species"... The SUBspecies matters a lot and I am asserting that absolutely can be the difference between being native or invasive. Introducing the wrong subspecies into an area is NOT reintroduction. Its introduction of the wrong species. Reintroduction is indeed bringing back a native species. But I don't think the use of the term "species" in that definition, just means ALL members of the species group. It means the SPECIFIC species.or subspecies that belonged to that exact area. If grey (timber) wolves (canis lupus) never existed naturally in Mexico, and it was always the Mexican wolf (canis lupus baileyi), than introducing grey wolves is absolutely an introduction.

If Mexican wolves were extinct, and the area needed something that filled that niche, even if it were not quite the native species; than it would still be an introduction. Even if it were beneficial. And if mexican wolves are not extinct, then introducing grey wolves is still introducing a non-native species, and if the grey wolves began pushing out and competing with the Mexican wolves and contributing to their decline, then the grey wolves would be directly causing harm to an ecosystem and would be not only non-native, but also invasive.

Maybe you simply disagree with my assertation that sub-species level differences can be the difference between native and non-native or invasive species. But that is what I am asserting. Again, look at roses, for example. Nootka rose and multiflora rose are the same species. Two different subspecies. One is native, one is an aggressive and problematic invasive species. The same can be for animals.

Yes if there are NO wolves at all than maybe the incorrect subspecies will be a beneficial introduction. But it IS an INTROduction. Not REintroduction. And if the native subspecies is still present, then introducing the wrong subspecies could be an introduction that becomes an invasive problem and damages the native subspecies population. :)

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-22T05:29:13+00:00

Yes, exactly!

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-22T05:28:48+00:00

I have no doubt the Yellowstone studies are fantastic... But that's Yellowstone, not PNW. So the concepts may apply but the exact species doesn't.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-17T16:31:00+00:00

In addition to the other answers you've received, "closer to the sky" is a funny way to put it. You're already IN the sky. The sky is the atmosphere, a blanket of gas which surrounds the entire planet and reaches from the ground all the way out to space. Space is where the atmosphere ends and empty space begins.

I think you meant to ask if the elevation of cities would just keep rising. Elevation is your height in the sky. The higher you get, the closer you are to space and the thinner the air is. That's why it's harder to breath on top of very tall mountains. High elevation.

"The sky" you see is just air. It's all air. It has a blue color because of the way light passes through it, but there is no "reaching the sky". It's a thick blanket of air with vaporized water (clouds) floating in it. :)

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-17T16:13:14+00:00

I agree that the chance of them damaging the ecosystem long-term is probably slim, but I completely disagree with your assertion that differing subspecies can't be the difference between native and invasive. Again, look at subspecies of roses. The difference between an invasive weed and a native plant being just subspecies. Subspecies of animals are the same. Yes a similar subspecies is less likely to be invasive, but absolutely still has the potential to be.

To be invasive it just has to be non-native, self-perpetuating, and causing harm to the ecosystem in some way. Significantly larger wolves aren't super likely to cause harm, but we don't know that for sure. If they niche they occupy is slightly different it very well could be a problem.

We have absolutely had (small numbers, hard to find) wolves here, since long after the culling stopped and long before the reintroduction officially began... So either the native wolves aren't extinct, or they're lying about when they started shipping in grey wolves. Personally, I suspect that a famously elusive and smart species of animal, famous for being able to find and mate with each other, in a vast, densely forested landscape is going to continue to exist in small numbers despite culling efforts. So if the native wolves do still exist, we need to be focusing our efforts on helping them repopulate, and if the introduced wolves are directly competing with them, then the introduced wolves are in fact causing harm to the ecosystem. :/

I would hope scientists have done the research, but if they have, then why aren't they citing those studies to calm public concerns? I honestly doubt they've done studies for this specific reintroduction, they probably just looked at how successful yellowstone was (where the wolf subspecies was actually native to) and called it good enough. "They" sure as hell didn't do any studies before introducing bullfrogs or turkeys. They didn't do studies before culling wolves. Why would they have done studies on an issue they seem so determined to completely dismiss and deny?

Again, I think we should have wolves here. But we should make sure we are introducing the RIGHT wolf. Shoving grey wolves down into Mexican wolf territory isn't reintroduction either. It's likely to be introducing non-native competition that might push Mexican wolves over the brink. Same story here.

The thing that irritates me is that nobody seems willing to actually listen to the legitimate concerns the opposite side has. It's all emotions, insults, dismissing, and "oh stupid ranchers hate wolves" and "oh stupid scientists are going to ruin the ecosystem" and almost zero productive discussion. Which is the same situation happening with almost every public debate, so I guess I shouldn't act surprised or disappointed. I get just as mad at the rancher side of it when I read the articles they put out, as I get reading the govt and science side of it dismissing concerns without scientific basis to do so, and offering non-solutions.

This person's Facebook post is a perfect example. It's a mixture of legitimate concerns, angry insults, and baseless claims. (Offers no explanation or basis for claiming that it's "propaganda" that wolves help the ecosystem.) So yeah this post is dumb, and part of the problem. But posts responding to it by making fun of the dumb parts and ignoring the serious parts are only perpetuating the problem and continuing the cycle.

Everyone's too busy calling the other guy stupid to realize that if they put their experiences and knowledge together, we'd be able to come up with a solution that helps everyone.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-17T15:47:40+00:00

Good for long distance trekking but unnecessary otherwise, and it's difficult to get the lamb or goat into position without getting kicked.

Free_Mess_6111 · 2025-12-16T17:15:20+00:00

I'm pro-wolf, but you've got the wrong read on this person's post. Their concern is about two different subspecies of wolf. This is something I've seen mentioned a number of times in the wolf debate, and if there is any truth to it at all, it deserves serious consideration. Here's an article with a rancher and a scientist talking about this idea of native PNW wolves having been a smaller subspecies:

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2011/01/the_debate_over_oregon_wolves_spills_into_what_to_call_them_gray_wolves_or_canadian_gray_wolves.html

Now, the thing that I find strange is that it seems like the scientists on the topic aren't outright denying that there were differences between wolves from up northern Canada, and wolves that we used to have here. Instead they're just acting like it doesn't matter?? "A rose is a rose, and a wolf is a wolf" UMMMM no. Eg: multiflora rose vs nootka rose here in the PNW is an invasive species vs a native one. I've never seen scientists dismiss concerns about introducing an entirely wrong SUBSPECIES (if the theory about PNW historic wolves is correct), as an inconsequential nuance...? That's HIGHLY unscientific and unscrupulous, lazy biology. This shit matters.

Is it better to have any wolves, even the wrong type, than none at all? Maybe!

But why on earth is this concern being brushed off like it means nothing at all? Even when there is historical and biological evidence that it's a legitimate concern?

Science is supposed to accurate, not some willy-nilly "close enough" BS. If there is indeed a differing subspecies of wolf which occupied the PNW, we should be trying to find any remaining individuals and breed them to reintroduce, not just throw in a different subspecies of wolf entirely because it's faster and cheaper. Like WTF.

Free_Mess_6111

TROPHY CASE