Hey, lot's of mule talk, love it.
But first the "unquestionable" Miller......I raised the point with James Hanson who wrote back and said he thought the Miller artwork was highly accurate. Hanson obviously knows a lot more about the issues, etc than I- but I still think Miller needs to be put in proper light, one trip in 1837 after the heyday and on a caravan rather than a trapping outfit on their own hook. His work is good but some of it just doesn't jibe with a lot written in the journals of the mountain men.
So mules,,,um... This guy says the cavalry used horses because a horse will charge mindlessly into the enemy rifle and cannon fire while a mule might think it would be better to head off in some other direction. This same guy claims that a horse will always jump at the same thing, like a waving bandana, etc but once you show a mule it's okay, then no more problem. Now I've got to admit, like like the look of a horse a might more but mules are starting to look a little better.
On the saddle issue, never thought about it. If the angle of the back is different then do you need a saddle made for a mule?
Dave
Wynn <wheels@???> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: David Scott
> Everyone says the Miller work is unquestionable but to
> me the rifles always look more slender than they should be
> and you never see any saddle bags/trap sacks on any of the
> horses/mules.
I have never heard anyone claim Miller was unquestionable. Even guys who are big Miller fans admit his weaknesses.
>
> There's another mule book, I think the title is "The
> Superiority of Mules" by John Hauer. He claims the mule
> is smarter than the horse and won't blindly follow orders
> and that accounts for a stubborn reputation that doesn't
> really exist. For example a mule may freeze if danger is
> present until it figures out the best option is to run. A
> mule wouldn't run itself to death or overeat/drink itself
> to death. My grandfather had a great horse that
> unfortunately ate itself to death. Got into the oats.
I like it stubborn equals inteligient. I feel smarter already. Have you guys ever heard that border collies are the most inteligient dogs? The reason they get so much press is they are highly trainable. By that definition mules are really stupid. You can train a quarter horse to be so light that you can not see the reins move and they will cut and slide stop and spin on a dime. Maybe pitbulls are really the smartest dogs because they have the most self preservation instinct that makes them bite more people.
David, no offense, I am just having some fun with this. These are just silly statements that are printed and spoken so often that I wonder if anybody even thinks to question them. What is the definition of inteligient and do we use the same definition for dogs and horses or even people?
I had a kidney stone last summer. I wanted to kill the next person who compared it to the pain of giving birth. Why don't they compare it to amputation or constipation? I loved it when the fire service guys came down to help get me out of the back country, not a single woman anywhere, and some guy pipes off with the birth thing. Like any of us know how painful giving birth is!
So on a practical side. Mules can be trained to trust people and get themselves into trouble they would be smart enough to avoid on their own. They can also be to dumb to know that the mud puddle will not kill them. They will shy from perceived danger, I near hit the ground when a couple dogs came happily running up to me last summer. They will also freeze when the Indians are attacking as Joe Meek confirms.
They are a lot more lovable than a canoe but you can still want to kill them.
Wynn
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
