Idea for Tribe

[Sayprìsä]

I never said they were necessary I said that they would make it easier. I really don't see how they would be a problem as long as we managed their grazing and breeding.  Since you said there will only be 10-15 of us, then there will only be 10-15 horses.  That's not enough to dramatically throw off an ecosystem

[sezawte]

Whilst I can see a few potential scenarios where horses would be useful I think on the whole they wouldn't be that helpful. For example: when hunting it is practically impossible to take an accurate shot from horseback. Another point to consider is actually transporting the horses to the final location. Take for example New Zealand, which is currently looking like a promising location, getting even humans out to the middle of nowhere in New Zealand is going to be difficult, now bearing in mind how tempremental horses are think about all the transport required.

[Sayprìsä]

Uh, no it's not.  I've tried 

And obviously if someone wanted to bring their own horse, then they would be in charge of transportation for it.  Otherwise we could buy horses in New Zealand or wherever we end up. 

[sezawte]

Yeah when using guns it's not too bad, but we've already voted against bringing guns.

I can't remember the exact figure but it's something like every half a centimetre out at the draw point results in about 2 metres or more out at 20 yards, and we could potentially be hunting at 100 yards. So whilst it is theoretically possible to hunt on horseback, it's an un-necessary complication. I think most likely the type of hunting we'll be doing is stealth hunting anyway, so horses wouldn't benefit us.

Furthermore, it's been decided that the type of environment we're looking at is along the lines of a forest now correct me if i'm wrong but horses graze which makes a forest environment inappropriate because the appropriate type of environment would be more along the lines of plains.

Well that's all I have to say Gaia ngahu

[Ikranä mokri]

I ride horses (mostly cross country) and the amount of movement you have to do will put you aim off even more. also the fact that you have to fire with both hands and sometimes from strange angles. you wont be able to hold on (even if you grip with you legs) and you wont be able to direct the horse (no reins) and training a horse to move by  using your legs takes a lot of time and effort.

during trot, canter and gallop you have to mover your whole body and if you stay seated (for and as a guy) it can hurt like hell which will put you aim off even more.

the sound of arrows and bowstrings could frighten a horse causing it to shy or rear, and if your only holding on with your legs then there is a high chance your gonna fall and hurt youself.

I would love to bring my horse, but its wouldnt be fair on him and it would be too much hassle.

(the fatality rate for horses traveling abroard is something like 30% and i dont want that to happen).

[Sayprìsä]

I still think we should have horses.  Look at any native people in almost any place of the world, they had horses

[Levrrtepa Menari]

What was basically going through my head is that I envision us to be living like some sort of Native American tribe.  

Which is unfair to everyone voting in the Location polls and threads if you're just going to start making assumptions on the locations you think we should be at, and then basing your arguments off that.

I think you are overestimating your feet.  We're not going to have good shoes with rubber soles.  More likely it's going to be a piece of animal skin or something.  So unless you want a new pair of shoes every single week, I think horses would be better in that way too.

*blink*
*blinkblink*
Did you even read the two articles I cited? I didn't cite them for my health, you know. They're there so that you would read them. In the New York Times article, it says "But now a best-selling book has reframed the debate about the wisdom of distance running. In "Born to Run" (Knopf), Christopher McDougall, an avid runner who had been vexed by injuries, explores the world of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico, a tribe known for running extraordinary distances in nothing but thin-soled sandals."
So no, a new pair of "running shoes" wouldn't be necessary. Like Ikranä Mokri said, you develop calluses on your feet, like animals have pads on the bottoms of their feet.

Since you said there will only be 10-15 of us, then there will only be 10-15 horses.  That's not enough to dramatically throw off an ecosystem

No, but it's enough to create trails in the environment. And in order to create a trail, you need to trample the vegetation under your (or the horse's) feet. There's a reason there are signs in National Parks that tell you to stay on the paths. If you venture off the path, you could trample something rare. When we're living out there, there obviously won't be much we can do to avoid trampling things, but horses would make the damage so much worse.

I still think we should have horses.  Look at any native people in almost any place of the world, they had horses

Hmmm, this sounds familiar... Oh, yeah: Appeal To Popularity Fallacy: "because so many native populations have horses, we should, too." And the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy: "Appeal to tradition, (also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the 'is/ought' fallacy,) is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of 'this is right because we've always done it this way.'" (So "we should have horses because it's been done that way in the past.") Gotta love them logical fallacies.

On the topic of horses, can I bring my little bay Arab?  He's my baby!

Horses are much more eco-friendly and awesome.

While I'm at it, I'm also gonna call you out on having an emotional bias. Your "little bay Arab" is your "baby," so you're arguing for horses because you can't bear to be separated from yours, no?

Spoiler

To anyone who calls me out on an Appeal to Motives Fallacy: you flatter me by taking the time to read my post that closely to notice it! However, it would only be an Appeal to Motives if I didn't show (what I think to be) the cause of her motives. I believe the cause of her motives to be her own ownership of a horse and her attachment to that horse, which she made quite clear.

And here's another logical fallacy in your argument, since I'm on a roll:

We need horses.  Because otherwise we end up going around in cars and stuff.

This is a False Dilemma ("We can either have horses or cars," implying that those are the only two options, and if we don't have one, than we'll have to have the other.)

Have a nice day!

[guest2859]

Walking/Jogging/Running/Sprinting are all options and much better on you if in the right terrain. I think we should have horses, if going long distances, but can still have them on hand.

[Sayprìsä]

It's not my attachment to my horse.  Even if I couldn't have him, I'd still want one. 

I'm pretty sure that where ever we end up, there will be other large animals that will already have made their own trails so we could use those and not have to make our own. 

Let me ask you something, if we control grazing and breeding, are there any negative affects of having horses?

[guest2859]

Well, in my pessimistic side, getting your skull crushed when you fall or tick one off.

In my optimistic side, none.

[Sayprìsä]

Well, in my pessimistic side, getting your skull crushed when you fall or tick one off.

In my optimistic side, none.

I've fallen off before. My skull is still very much intact.  (I think )
And they don't just randomly get ticked off.  There's warning signs like ears back that warn you to back off

[Ikranä mokri]

I've fallen off before. My skull is still very much intact.

you will have been wearing a riding helmet, in the tribe (or eco-village) you wont be, I have fallen off a horse without a helmet and you do crack you skull open (even on sand or soft grass)

And they don't just randomly get ticked off.  There's warning signs like ears back that warn you to back off

This is when your standing next to them, which is a totally different kettle of fish.

Ever been on a horse that shied ? there is no warning at all, on minute your trotting along the next your at full gallop with no control, or flat on you back winded with you horse disappearing off into the distance. and this is all assuming that if you brought a horse it would have a saddle and bridle which makes them easier to control.

[Fnua Atxkxe]

I know that there are some cultures that have learned to shoot very accurately indeed from horses, but it takes a special type of bow and years and years of practice to get proficient enough to hit small targets and when I say practice I mean day in and day out, the kind of time that none of us realistically have as we have so many more skills that need to be worked on meantime. Realistically in the time we have, we cannot get proficient enough to hunt like this. While it would be awesome and would make travelling (although I mean we're are hardly going to be going far) quicker, the drawbacks are huge, it is an unnecessary complication and bringing them is simply making life harder for ourselves, something that we really do not need to be doing here.

[Sayprìsä]

Yes. I've even been on bareback when he shied.  Some little kid was climbing up the hill through the bushes so suddenly there was a head sticking out of the bush.  Czar (my horse) leaped a few feet and did little half rear, but I didn't fall off.  

[sezawte]

Snip

Very logical and well thought out argument, I think that covers everything and leaves horses as a definite no. Karma for the post

[guest2859]

I think we should sill have something in reach... bikes, persay? Quick and usually don't have a mind of their own. Could be kept at the EV, but I wouldn't want to go flying off cliffs with them.

[Levrrtepa Menari]

I'm pretty sure that where ever we end up, there will be other large animals that will already have made their own trails so we could use those and not have to make our own.

Not necessarily. In the parts of the US Northwest that would be possible locations for us, the biggest animals are mountain lions and black bears, neither of which travel in groups, therefore neither of which would be creating any trails. Even if the mountain lions or bears were to make trails (as incredibly unlikely as that is,) they wouldn't be the sort of trails that a horse could use, due to the size difference between horses and mountain lions/bears.
- In jungles, there aren't any trails simply because the vegetation is so dense and unforgiving. We'd have to go through with machetes before we could use the horses, which sort of defeats the purpose of going out to live in the wild if we have to clear-cut trails first.
- And how do horses help us hunt if we limit ourselves to using trails? Our prey won't be sticking to the trails.

Let me ask you something, if we control grazing and breeding, are there any negative affects of having horses?

(Because "holy crap, you did it again," I'd like to point out that this is a Negative Proof Fallacy. A Negative Proof Fallacy, or argumentum ad ignorantiam, is "a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true." So "if the negative effects of having a horse can't be proven, then there must not be any negative effects." Lucky for you, though, I can prove the negative aspects. So maybe I'm preventing you from committing a logical fallacy... ?)

Yes, there are negative aspects of keeping horses in the tribe:
Shoes
- Are you going to keep shoes on the horses?
- If so, what are you going to do when the horse throws one or just needs new ones every 6 weeks?
- If you're not, are you prepared to transition the horses from being shod in nice soft stables to being un-shod in the wild without trails? From what I've read, the transition period can take up to a year.
General Health
- What will you do when the horses get sick? I'm not sure if the eco-village will have funds, but I don't think we'll be able to afford veterinary visits. (Because unfortunately those two things are inevitable: living things will get sick and vets will be expensive.)
- How will you feed the horses? If we're somewhere with grassy plains, than that will take care of it, but once again, you making that assumption is unfair to everyone voting in the Location threads and polls. It's just as possible that we'll end up in a tropical or temperate rain forest, and there won't be much grazing room there. Sure, the horses can eat whatever they want and find, but there's a reason that wild horses stick to the plains; it's where they can find the most food.
Cost
- Where will we get the money to buy the horses in the first place?
- Veterinary visits and shoes, (as stated above.) They're expensive.
- Transporting the horses to the location. Live freight is expensive. Especially when it's potentially over seas transportation. Even if it's an individual cost rather than a tribe cost, that's a lot to ask of someone.
Danger
- Horses on uneven ground? As a horse owner yourself, you should know how dangerous that is for both horse and rider. The horses are so likely to break their legs that it seems almost cruel to use them in that sort of environment, where the probability of them getting injured is so high.
- As Ikranä Mokri said, we wouldn't be wearing helmets. You were lucky that when you fell you didn't crack your skull. But there are other dangers in riding horses, like falling the wrong way and breaking a bone or your spine. Since we'll be out in the forest/jungle and there are rocks and trees everywhere, it's even more probable that when you fall, you'll hit something (head, back, ribs. Or the horse falls into the tree, thereby squishing your leg between it and the tree. Take your pick), against a rock or tree. On the topic of trees, they happen to have branches going out everywhere so, like the movie gag, you could potentially ride into a branch, and get your self knocked out or swept off the horse. Or both.

Yes. I've even been on bareback when he shied.  Some little kid was climbing up the hill through the bushes so suddenly there was a head sticking out of the bush.  Czar (my horse) leaped a few feet and did little half rear, but I didn't fall off.

- You were very lucky then, that you didn't fall off. Luck isn't something to base an argument off of, though. Neither is a single (lucky) occurrence. If I understand you correctly, you're proposing that everyone in the tribe will have a horse, but not everyone in the tribe will be an experienced rider. So we'd have 10-15 people at the beginner/intermediate level (they'd be at the beginner/intermediate level only if they started training now, which is another unfair thing to ask of people, since horse riding lessons are expensive and many people can't afford them,) and they'd be going into the woods where there are no trails, the ground is unpredictable, and there are branches everywhere that have to be avoided. Not to mention that these people wouldn't have helmets. I think if our resident EMT-in-training (whose name I've forgotten. Sorry!) were to come in here and read your proposition, she'd have a coronary.
We're already taking a huge risk just in going out to live in the wild. It doesn't make sense to add another risk on top of that.


@Sezawte: Irayo!

[Sayprìsä]

I don't think that everyone should have a horse.  Only those that want one and have skills for it.  

Maybe then a compromise. Those who want to risk it and can provide for their horse can take one, but by no means should everyone in the tribe have one, especially the unexperienced.

[Fnua Atxkxe]

I think that taking a horse is simply complicating the matter far more than it needs to be. There is no real advantage other than you get to ride your horse which you want to do, personally I think that there are no SIGNIFIGANT real advantages to this so why make things harder than they need to be? I will create a poll for this but I really think that some need to accept the reality of tribal living, it is not easy and making things harder for yourself is like signing a death warrant for yourself. "Time to wake up"

[abi]

I don't think that everyone should have a horse.  Only those that want one and have skills for it.  

Maybe then a compromise. Those who want to risk it and can provide for their horse can take one, but by no means should everyone in the tribe have one, especially the unexperienced.

What about the horse's wants?