Talk:Halter

Break or don't break

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)

As in the question of whether halters should or should not break under pressure? Yes. Actually, have heard a rumble that Horse Journal might be doing an article on that very topic sometime this year, I subscribe, so will stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Added some stuff, FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Safety issues

Saw the commentary on riding with a halter on the bitless bridle section. I guess the short version of my take on the matter is, sure, you can ride a gentle horse in a halter around the ring -- if nothing goes wrong. (Heck you can ride completely bridleless too) But if something goes wrong, you can get the leverage to do something about it in a bridle or hackamore or well-designed what have you, but in the average halter they can just ignore you totally...if you have reins on the side, an adult can probably force a runaway horse into a circle with a halter, but a child won't be able to. I see people ride in rope halters, I suppose the knots on the noseband provide some emergency pressure in a crisis, but I wouldn't count on it, myself. I know some people even try breaking horses in those rope halters, in theory I suppose you can train a horse in anything, but nowdays the only people I have actually seen doing so were a hazard to everyone around them. (Also remember a show where a kid did a bridleless exhibition, the horse bolted, ran around the ring with the kid for about 5 minutes before it settled down, scared the socks off of everyone, luckily no one hurt.) Just seen too many wrecks and near-wrecks. A lawyer could make mincemeat out of someone who let a kid ride a horse with a halter if someone got hurt, open and shut liability case. Montanabw^(talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, I am sorry your experience with horses has led you to this belief. It is a common belief but it is a POV, not a fact. Have you ridden a horse bolting out of its mind? I have, and I can tell you that under no circumstance will I ever again attempt to stop such a horse. No "leverage" (meaning pain) can magically restore the horse to its senses, and pulling hard enough to bend the neck is likely to either (1) cause the horse to stumble or run into something or (2) cause you to come unstuck from the saddle. I have seen both. I think your best bet is to stay on for the ride. Else bail off. The idea that more bit and more bridle equals more "stopping power" is nonsense. People who train green polo ponies for a living get run away with on a regular basis, even though the pony is wearing a leverage bridle (gag or pelham) and draw reins and a martingale and the rider is a better horseman than most riders even dream of being. Bolting is expected and no one makes any effort to stop them. --Una Smith (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Leverage to the side is NOT pain. Obviously, just hauling back on the reins won't stop any horse, even from a trot in a little ring. Leverage is simply enhancing human strength, either by pulling the horse to the side (nice big round circles DO work if you can do it) Anyone who puts a kid on a horse with a halter, especially out in the open, is a lawsuit waiting to happen and I could call on 50 expert witnesses who would agree. I will confess to no experience with polo, but I sure don't see polo players riding in a halter, either, nor with one rein! I have been exposed to a lot of rodeo stuff, (I do not "do" rodeo myself, however), and I see no halters on barrel racers or roping horses either. (Sounds like polo players and rodeo riders in speed events have a lot of personality traits in common, though) They have halters - with one rein! - on the saddle broncs. As for horses bolting of "out of their minds," um, I have ridden for over 40 years, so yes, I have had some bad things happen - and have seen worse. I can only say one of two things: 90% of spooks can be minimized if you are on the stick and 9% of the other 10% can be stopped in the first few strides with use of a pulley rein. The remaining 1% you are right, it ain't going to end pretty. Now, how about you quit implying that I am too stupid to tie my own shoes, OK? Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've both stopped and come off of bolting horses, and even though I count myself a beginning rider, I know that leverage doesn't mean pain. Stopping a horse involves providing it with physical impediments that exceed its willingness to flee. That can consist of throwing it off-balance with a pulley rein, putting knees into its shoulder blades, or any number of other things that have been described to me by experienced horsemen, but that I hope I never have to try myself. I'm not sure this is what Montanabw is saying, but I think the problem with riding in a halter is one of leadership and respect--most horses don't have enough experience with being ridden in a halter to accept that they are under any control at all, and it takes an experienced rider to provide that control. It's too much to ask a beginner to handle that. And I'm not talking about "out of their mind bolting", but rather a horse that shies or spooks, and is not reassured by the rider correcting its gate. A bit can be a crude tool in the wrong hands, but at least it's a tool.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Horse riders often use the term "leverage" vaguely, as a synonym for control. Some bits and bridles provide mechanical advantage (leverage), but mechanical advantage does not necessarily equal control. It is a complex topic and to some extent we are talking past each other. By "out of its mind" I mean literally that. It resembles a psychotic episode in a human. Very scary. Most horses who do this probably are psychotic and absolutely are dangerous, because they go out of their minds in the absence of any real stress. On the other hand, stress to the breaking point is something we impose on many sport horses. Learning to cope with extreme stress is part of their job. However, most bolting horses are just disrespectful, fearful, or both. A novice rider should not ride most horses in a halter, but then a novice rider should not ride most horses, no matter what the horse wears. It can be argued that if the horse cannot be ridden safely in a halter then it should not be ridden by a novice. I am sure Montanabw has seen many riders get into trouble riding disrespectful horses. I have seen the same. But the tack involved varies! In some parts of the world, I see this kind of trouble paired with snaffles and drop nosebands; in other parts, I see it paired with severe mechanical hackamores and severe curb bits. Montanabw sees it paired with other equipment. So, it isn't about the tack; it just looks that way. --Una Smith (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think here is the essence of the matter. If you have a disrespectful horse, riding in a halter probably would be a very bad idea. Disrespectful horses often do respect the bit more than the halter. But, relying on a bit like this is such a dangerous thing for a rider to do! Specify that the safety issue re using a halter to ride concerns (dis)respect. --Una Smith (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is probably most the point; but there are a LOT of "disrespectful" horses out there. And a lot of novices who are overhorsed. And, most of all, a lot of novices who inadvertently create disrespectful horses out of once-well-trained animals. And unfortunately, those are the people most likely to buy new gadgets instead of learning how to ride. Hence my concern. (Where I live, lots of examples; people move from the cities out here, buy 10 acres and immediately buy any old horse they don't know how to ride and get a big huge dog that they let run loose - in everyone else's property. No clue what to do with either. But they are chasing their cowboy dream. Sigh. Don't get me started...)

The other point is that even a "gentle" horse can be spooked by something out of the ordinary. A bad spook can also be due to greenness, or often due to the unexpected -- things like ducks flushing from a ditch, etc.. (IMHO, most "psychotic" horses I have seen are made that way by inept and/or abusive handling.) I personally haven't been run away with for a very long time, (knocking on wood) but that doesn't mean I haven't had horses spook with me, but having that three seconds and the right gear to apply a pulley rein sometimes has been the only reason we just spun in a couple of circles and then went back to our merry way rather than winding up somewhere in the next county (or me on the ground). I don't think I, as a grown adult, have the physical strength to apply a pulley rein on an ordinary halter, and I frankly have been rather leery of being able to do so even with a sidepull or a jumping caveson, though I've used them. Naturally, there are some situations where no piece of equipment will stop a true panic (read about a case where some hot air balloons went off course and flew over a horse show, wherein most of the horses in the ring at the time left without use of the gate, several injuries...) I can't say about various halters designed to add additional pressure or leverage, if they allow an ordinary-sized female rider to apply a pulley rein on an ordinary spook and attempted bolt, then they are probably reasonably safe.

Oh, and there's also bucking -- safe headgear needs to allow a rider to lift the horse's head to the side and up if they try bucking...again, I don't think I could pull a halter sideways hard enough to stop a buck; I can easily do so with any bit and most hackamores...? Well, yeah, that's my perspective. Hope we are getting closer to a meeting of the minds...? Montanabw^(talk) 09:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I love this discussion; this is more like it (imagines us sitting around the stove at the warm end of the barn with cups of hot coffee). Some points:

• I think the reason disrespectful horses respect the bit more than the halter is at least in part a statistical issue: most of them have experience with experienced riders using bits. I imagine that if a disrespectful horse had been broken to halter (for riding) and only novices rode it with the bit, things might be different. But of course that would not be likely to ever happen.

• My experience is with a gentle horse that tends to the spooky (my instructor says he's "suspicious"). A big part of stopping him is reminding him that there's a rider on his back, and that he has "misjudged the situation". I think the key to that is being able to deliver an emphatic correction quickly and with a minimum of thought on my part. I certainly wouldn't feel as confident doing that in a halter or sidepull.

• When I think of leverage, I also think (incorrectly, from a physics standpoint) of ways that I can use my body in either low-strength or low-motion ways that have a magnified effect on the horse. (A groundwork example would be asking a horse to move laterally with a fingertip rather than the flat of a hand.)

• Which leads me to my next point. It seems to me that lifting the head to the side and up will be easier when the reins are inserted below the jaw (bosal, curb, possibly some of the cross-under designs, halter with reins attached to the bottom ring) that when they are inserted even with the teeth (snaffle, sidepull, halter with reins attached to the sides). Does that make sense?

I definitely agree with Una that "It can be argued that if the horse cannot be ridden safely in a halter then it should not be ridden by a novice."--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah Coffee. Yes! (Snowed here today, warm drinks are good) Actually, though there is less leverage, the direct pressure of the snaffle works about the best for up and sideways, the bit acts on the corners of the mouth. Curb bits bring the head down (unless the horse is in pain, when they flip their heads insead) and if pulled sideways sort of twist at odd angles in the mouth and the results are less certain -- you can usually get a horse's head up and around enough to stop a buck or a bolt, but in the process, they often flip their heads into the air, and sometimes in the opposite direction of your pull -- other times they can evade curb pressure by overflexing and going "behind the bit" -- a curb bit is best on a finished horse, and there was a reason the masters of dressage developed the double bridle, as there was a place for both snaffle and curb pressure. Bit leverage stuff is too complex to go into here (even the bit article doesn't explain things real thoroughly), but to drastically oversimplify, snaffles help bring the head up and to the side, curbs bring the head down and encourage collection - a shifting of weight to the hindquarters. As for the rest, hard to speculate on the halter thing; you can in theory train a horse to go in anything, but most of the equipment we use today is only slightly modified from equipment that has been used for a century, if not centuries. Things like the bosal or the curb were invented because they helped achieve desirable results in the form of collection, balance, etc... It does depend on what you are after, too. As for your suspicious horse, yes, either you are being the positive leader and letting them know you are there and in charge, or else they figure they are on their own and they will act according to their own instincts. If they bolt and run off, they honestly think they are just saving the both of you from the horse-eating troll that lives in "that corner" of the arena! LOL!Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To horse: "Equiraptor. See, I told you it was a redlink. No, you can't start the article."--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Horse replies: "Ah, but there is Taraxippus!" Eek! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 08:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to "leverage", I see three separate concepts in play here.

• Leverage: In terms of leverage meaning mechanical advantage, there is not much difference between bridles and halters. None of them provide significant mechanical advantage. The only thing that comes close is a draw rein. A loose halter may put the attachment point farther back on the head, hence equal a shorter lever arm than a bit, but the slightly longer lever arm provided by a bit in the mouth won't help much because, frankly, the horse's neck is vastly stronger than the rider's arm (or seat, whichever is weaker). Also, in many cases the lack of mechanical advantage is a good thing, because the equipment is not up to the task. Halter and lead rope as a rule are made stronger than bridle and rein, so less likely to fail. Anyone who rides with a little clip between the headgear and rein is asking for a major wreck if they attempt to use a pulley rein. Some of those clips are rated for no more than 35 pounds static load.

Whoah! I had never thought of that. I guess I'll appreciate the complex attachment on the reins I use the most next time I'm fiddling with it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Pressure: A severe bit is one that applies greater pressure. In many bits this has nothing to do with levers, the exception being curb bits. Some curb bits involve leverage; others merely translate the vector of force. Pressure equals force per unit area. The finger vs palm push is a good example: using the same force, a finger tip applies far more pressure than a palm, because the finger tip applies this force over a far smaller area.
• Control: Most use of "leverage" in the context of stopping a spook or bolt refers to "control" (meaning force of persuasion): the horse yields to the rein. The horse is more likely to yield when it has respect for the rider and/or the tack. And the more severe the bit, the more likely a respectful horse is to yield, but only if the respect is there already; a more severe bit will make a disrespectful horse less (not more) likely to yield.

--Una Smith (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally find that proper use of a bit provides considerable advantage, one way or the other, but the bottom line is that nothing is stronger than a horse's neck when it comes to pulling up or down, but sideways is a fair contest that I have won on many an occasions with a simple snaffle. Of course, obviously an unbroke horse will have a level of panic that will override most anything that isn't horrendously abusive, so, given that I have no interest in the old "buck 'em out" school of rough breaking, I don't worry about it. But the point here is just over whether it is safe to ride in a halter or not. The argument is simple, my understanding of what you have written is that you think the difference between bits/hackamores and an ordinary rope or web halter is negligable, thus it is safe to ride a broke horse in a halter, anywhere. I think the difference is significant and that one takes a calculated risk riding in a halter that is greater than the calculated risk one takes riding with even a simple snaffle bridle. Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wear or don't wear

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)

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)

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)

Halters are not Hackamores

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)

halter: (n)

Etymology:

OE. hælftre = OHG. halftra (Ger. halfter), MDu. halfter, halter, OLG. heliftra, MLG. helchter, halter:WGer. *halftra-, *haliftra-, f. root *hal-, whence OHG. halb, MLG. and MDu. helve, OE. helfe: see HELVE. The primary sense was 'that by which anything is held': cf. L. capistrum halter. The f between l and t was lost in ME. as in MDu. and MHG. 1. a. A rope, cord, or strap with a noose or head-stall, by which horses or cattle are led or fastened up.

a1000 Gloss. in Wr.-Wülcker 199/14 Capistrum, hælfter, uel cælfster. a1100 Ibid. 332/18 Capistrum, hælfstre. c1175 Lamb. Hom. 53 et is es deofles helfter. a1250 Owl & Night. 1028 Hom ne mai halter ne bridel Bringe. 1390 Gower: Conf. II. 48 And trusse her halters forth with me. 14.. Nom. in Wr.-Wülcker 727/44 Hoc capistrum, a heltyr. c1450 St. Cuthbert (Surtees) 5361 e hors heltirs to breke he ran. 1497 Naval Acc. Hen. VII (1896) 119 Horsharnes without halters. 1546 J Heywood: Prov. (1867) 44 It wolde haue made a hors breake his halter sure. 1760-72 tr. Juan & Uloa's Voy. (ed. 3) II. 240 The nooses, or halters, are thongs of a cow's hide. 1835 Lytton Rienzi V. v, The horse runs from one hand, the halter remains in the other.

b. A strap attached to the top of a backless bodice and looped round the neck; also, a bodice with such a strap or cut so as to give a similar effect. Hence attrib. and Comb., as halter neck(line), top

2. a. A rope with a noose for hanging malefactors.

b. Used typically for death by hanging; 'the gallows'.

3. attrib. and Comb., as halter-chain, -maker, -place, -seller, -strap, -string; halter-proof adj.; halter-break v. U.S., to accustom (a horse, etc.) to a halter; to break by means of a halter; halter-cast ppl. a. (see quots.); halter hitch (see quot. 1944); halter-man, a hangman. Also HALTER-SACK, -SICK

1837 N.Y. Mirror 28 Oct. 140/3 The moose has been frequently tamed, and unlike the common deer, can be *halter-broken as easily as a horse. 1860 J G Holland Miss Gilbert's Career xix. 350 You want to halter-break 'em when they're little and get 'em kind o' wonted to the feel of the harness. 1868 Rep. Iowa Agric. Soc. 1867 117 My colts are halter-broken as soon as foaled. 1883 W H Bishop in Harper's Mag. Oct. 725/2 They are halter-broke, and turned loose again. 1704 Worlidge Dict. Rust., *Halter Cast happens thus: when a Horse endeavours to scrub the itching part of his Body near the Head or Neck, one of his hinder Feet entangles in the Halter..by the violent strugling of the Horse to disingage himself, receives sometimes very dangerous hurts in the hollow of his Pastern. 1813 Sporting Mag. XLII. 58 Danger of being halter cast, which has proved fatal to so many horses. 1831 J Holland Manuf. Metal I. 183 *Halter-chains..used with bridles. 1944 C. W. ASHLEY Bk. Knots ii. 44 Halter hitch. Horses are hitched with this knot the world over. The end is stuck loosely through the loop, which is not tightened. The knot is easily slipped after removing the end from the loop. 1947 Times Lit. Suppl. 15 Nov. 594/4 When he was seven he was given a pony on condition that he mastered a halter hitch. 1596 Nashe (title) Haue with you to Saffron-walden, or, Gabriell Harueys Hunt is vp. Containing a full Answere to the eldest sonne of the *Halter-maker. 1638 Conceited Lett. (N.), *Halter-men and ballet-makers were not better set aworke this many a day. 1630 J Taylor(Water P.) Trav. Wks. III. 80/1 The priuiledges of this graund *Haulter-master are many. 1704 Lond. Gaz. No. 4082/4 A bay Nag..with..a Dent cross his Nose in the *Halter-place. a1679 Earl of OrreryGuzman 111, By your Charms you may make your self *Halter-proof. c1515 Cocke Lorell's B. (Percy) 5 Hary *halter seler at tyborn. 1753 Chambers: Cycl. Supp., *Halter-Strap or String, a cord, or long strap of leather, made fast to the head-stall, and to the manger, to tye the horse.

halter (v) 1. trans. To put a halter upon (a horse or the like); to fasten up with a halter.

c1440 Promp. Parv. 235/1 Heltryn beestys, capistro. 1530 Palsgre 577/2, I halter, I tye in a halter, Iencheuestre. 1617 Markham Caval. I. 75 When the colt is haltered. 1881 FennOff to Wilds xxix. (1888) 203 The horses were haltered up to the wheels. fig. 1647 Trapp Comm. Matt. xxii. 12 He was muzzled or haltered up, that is, he held his peace, as though he had had a bridle or a halter in his mouth. 1650 R Staylton Strada's Low C. Warres II. 35 Should they now halter themselves, called by a woman's voice?

2. fig. To put a restraint or check upon; to bridle; to fetter; to hamper.

1577 B GOOGE Heresbach's Husb. III. (1586) 130 A faire feelde, that the Steeres may..not be feard, or haltred, with trees, or bushes. 1679 Hist. Jetzer 22 They thought they had made him their own, and halter'd up his Conscience.

3. To catch or entrap with a noose or lasso.

1573-80 Baret Alv. H 54 To halter, or intangle, laqueum injicere alicui. 1597-8 Bp Hall Sat. (1753) 70 Or halter finches through a privy doore. a1625 Beum & Fl Wit without M. IV. ii, What pretty gins thou hast to halter woodcocks! a1732 Atterbury (T.), Catching moles and haltering frogs. 1760-72 tr. Juan & Ulloa's Voy. (ed. 3) I. 416 They are very dextrous in haltering a bull at full speed..The noose is made of cow hide.

4. To put a halter about the neck of (a person); to hang (a person) with a halter. Hence haltering vbl. n.

1591 Percival Sp. Dict., Cabestrage, haltering. 1598 Florio Capestratura prima, the first haltering of a coult.

Halter/headstall

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)

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)

Rope halters

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)

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)

Lead ropes

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)

Great. I really dislike reading articles that use {{main}} then proceed to rehash the main article, so I am glad we agree about that. --Una Smith (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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)