NOSEBAND RELIEF
Every year, I promote No-Noseband November as an alternative to No-Stirrup November. So imagine my delight when the Swedish Equestrian Federation announced new rules making nosebands optional for dressage next year! This is a significant step forward, and one I didn’t expect to see so soon.
The timing may be related to another recent development: the FEI has finally introduced an objective measuring device for noseband tightness after years of being pressured to do so. This is set to take effect in 2025.
This device, similar to one developed by the International Society for Equitation Science (ISES), is a wedge-shaped piece of plastic. If stewards can’t slide it under the noseband at the horse’s nasal bridge, the noseband is too tight.
Research from ISES and others has consistently shown that overly tight nosebands are a serious welfare concern, significantly increasing the risk of oral injuries, and causing stress and suffering to the horse.
The widely accepted guideline is that a noseband should allow space for two adult fingers on the bridge of the nose. If it is tightened beyond this - or if measurements are taken inappropriately elsewhere, such as under the chin - the resulting pressures on the horse’s jaw are both extreme and unacceptable.
Despite this, over-tightening remains routine in equestrian sport, making regulatory measures like this long overdue.
Backlash
While these small steps are progress, there are some caveats. The Swedish rule doesn’t apply to double bridles and is limited to Swedish dressage. (However, New Zealand adopted a similar rule earlier so perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of a shift.) And while the FEI’s tool isn’t as large as the one ISES recommends, it’s still a step in the right direction - something we don’t see often enough in equestrian sport.
While some celebrated change and others lamented that the change wasn’t enough, predictably, these changes have also sparked backlash. Many riders claim their nosebands are never too tight and that the problem is isolated. If that’s true, why is objective testing so controversial?
In the horse world, human safety is often used as a shield to justify practices that compromise welfare. The loudest objection has been the safety risk posed to riders and stewards. Some riders argue that inserting a tool under a noseband could provoke dangerous reactions from highly sensitive horses. Formal complaints have even been lodged to withdraw the new measure.
There are three ways to interpret these worries. First, riders are being honest - some horses may genuinely react poorly to checks to the point where they are a danger to stewards. Second, the concerns about safety are disingenuous and represent a knee-jerk fear response to the change. Or, most cynically, riders understand that this is a welfare issue but don’t care and are strategically trying to prevent change.
The truth is most likely that we are seeing all three types of objection. I have experienced first-hand how reactive some dressage horses are and I can believe that, for some, this kind of check would genuinely be a problem. But that’s a really, really concerning fact. It’s not something we should just accept as normal!
Afraid
Horses that react explosively to being touched are likely experiencing pain, fear, or both. Euphemisms like “hot and sensitive” or “head shy” do not change the fact that these horses are in a heightened psychological state which is fundamentally at odds with the suppleness and relaxation that dressage is supposed to cultivate.
How has a discipline that’s meant to promote harmony come to accept horses so tense they cannot even tolerate basic handling?
We could also imagine that some horses are just afraid of the tool, nothing to do with being dressage horses - like an Exmoor pony I know who was violently afraid of yellow gloves. But what does it say about top riders with highly trained dressage horses if they can’t instil basic handling skills?
If that’s true, we have a different problem: ‘trainers’ who lack an understanding of how horses learn and rely on cookie-cutter systems instead of true behavioural insight. Without this understanding, many default to escalation when things go wrong, leading to the relentless whipping of confused horses or running anxious animals into walls - the kinds of abuses we sadly hear about when questionable training practices are exposed.
Alternatively, the safety objection might simply be an excuse.
Some riders may fear riding with a looser noseband, believing it will compromise their performance. If that’s the case, the resistance to change reflects insecurity, not genuine concern.
When I encourage my clients to try No-Noseband November, a surprising number push back - not because their nosebands are cranked tight, but because of fear. They think that their horse could react poorly to any change. They don’t want to ‘fix’ something that isn’t ‘broken’. They have a superstition that the noseband is helping them stay in control… Similarly, riders opposing the FEI gauge may just be uneasy about trying something different!
One rider who railed against the idea at first was Australian rider Mary Hanna. She later posted a video showing her horse’s noseband being checked with a carrot. While the intended message probably wasn’t one of newfound support for the change, it certainly was a lot more lighthearted than her knee-jerk response had been. Maybe some riders just need time to process the changes!
Unfortunately, we then come to the other possibility: some riders may simply not care about welfare and are just trying to avoid scrutiny. They may know that their nosebands are too tight and accept the resulting suffering as the cost of success. For them, winning might outweigh everything else.
As hard as this is to accept, the evidence is difficult to ignore. Images of over-tightened nosebands and blue, oxygen-starved tongues at the highest levels of competition, including the recent Olympics, suggest that, for some, this may indeed be the reality.
Happier
Positive change isn’t always easy, but it’s necessary. Tight nosebands are a serious welfare issue that desperately needs to be addressed regardless of any objections riders may raise. The Swedish rule and the FEI’s device are small but meaningful steps toward better equine welfare.
Resistance is often rooted in fear - of losing control, of the unknown, or of questioning long-held practices. But I hope that embracing these changes can reveal that a happier, more relaxed horse isn’t the end of the world. It’s just the beginning of better dressage.
Dr Dee Mamuneas is a lifelong equestrian and horse trainer with a PhD in animal behaviour. She encourages horse lovers to explore kinder approaches to horsemanship that put welfare first. She advocates species-appropriate management practices, champions the individuality of horses and their humans, and promotes horse-friendly training methods. Dr Mamuneas is also the co-founder of Good Horse (www.good-horse.com), a website that promotes effective and ethical approaches to horsemanship.
