In Which I Discuss Whips and Spurs

I've heard from many people, well-meaning and otherwise, who think that the use of whips and spurs is abusive. Here's why I disagree. Some horses, whether through genetics or previous bad riding, are dull. This means that they don't respond readily to the natural aids -- specifically in this case, the leg. When you're riding a horse like this, you end up having to nag at him to get him going. There's only so much leg and driving and clucking you can do before the horse starts to tune out the constant signal you're sending. With a spur, however, you can ask once and take your leg off. The dressage whip works the same way. It is not to beat the horse; rather, it backs up your leg aid. So for example with a horse who is not listening to the canter cue, you can quietly ask with a little outside spur and a flick of the dressage whip behind your leg on the horse's flank.

Horses are bright and trainable for the most part and if you rapidly apply this series of aids -- leg, cluck, spur, stick -- they will usually learn that if they want to avoid the use of the spur or whip they will respond before you get to that point. A rider with independent aids (the only sort of rider who should be using any artificial aids anyway) will be able to ride without letting the spurs touch the horse's side except for when they mean them to.

Briefly and simply -- I'd so much rather be able to ask a horse to do something one time, quietly, than have to nag. The choice of which option is kinder is clear to me.