Talk:Bronc riding

Untitled

Please please please someone update this page! Horses are not prey animals. Broncs are bred for this purpose, not failed work animals. The flank strap is no where near the animal's genitals. When a horse and rider rear up like that, it's more closely compared to a "wheelie" on a motorcycle; control and freedom and excitment, not chaos or an attempt to throw the rider! Bucking broncs don't rear like that, excited horse and riders do.

Shouldn't there be something in here about what makes the horse buck? Isn't there a band around the genitals or something like that? Ortolan88

This page has the same content as Bareback bronc. Mcpusc 01:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bronc buster

Apparently, "bronc buster" seems to be the term for someone who does this for a living (see e.g. John Muir). Could someone write a bit about this, please? — Sebastian (T) 07:31, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

circular reference

There currently is a circular reference from this page to bronco and back. — Sebastian (T) 07:39, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

broncos

The commentators at the 2005 Wrangler National Rodeo Finals seemed to imply that broncos are specifically bred and trained for this purpose, not that they are failed riding horses...?12.174.149.185 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Grazina

biased

there is almost nothing about animal abuse and what is there is dismissed Dog jumper idiot100 20:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i fixed itDog jumper idiot100 20:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, but your edits did not 'fix' this article; instead, they added a strong bias by using emotionally loaded words and descriptions instead of neutral language. I've reverted your changes. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

they are still biased the bucking strap forces horses to buck and does hurt them it was biased and although i am slightly biased it still is biasedDog jumper idiot100 00:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, the changes you added made the article take a more biased point of view, which is why they're reverted. We all have strong opinions, but articles themselves need to be neutral. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well excuse me but i think the current article is biased and would you please stop reverting my reasonable changes becase you are biasedDog jumper idiot100 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

im gonna fix it this time and if it isnt up to your standards well then u have issues FisherQueenDog jumper idiot100 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

i believe i fixed it and i know the wording is akward but i will fix it if no one else does ALWAYS REMEMBER IMPROVE DONT REVERTDog jumper idiot100 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you, but will allow someone else to make the change this time, so that you will not think that I am just an individual with a vendetta against your point of view. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

well i added both points of view and the stuff dismissing abuse is longer Dog jumper100 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Flank Strap and Abuse Claims sections

These two sections are in need of references to support many claims made in them. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources if you need more information about citing references.)

The flank strap does not force a horse to buck, it is there to encourage the horse to kick up! Usually they are fleece lined and are very unlikely to rub a horse for the time they are used, as they are the first part to be released. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Myths and reality section

Deleted entire section. A biased, completely "pro-rodeo" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatAct (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While the article is far from "pro" rodeo, as it mentions and explains the controversy, even if you are correct, blanking an entire section and replacing it with an entirely pro-PETA argument is equally a violation of WP:NPOV. The fair resolution is to give equal time to each viewpoint, wording it with NPOV language. There is room to discuss both sides in a fair way, but it was probably a month ago the "truly" pro rodeo crowd went in and deleted any reference to animal cruelty, and started ranting about the animal rights activists and "bunny huggers." So, everyone has hot emotions on the topic, and it is no fun to have an article locked down due to an edit war, so please do not delete material. If you want to add, with proper sources, that is fine, but please read WP:NOT first. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A balanced presentation is needed - and we're not getting it. Your "pro rodeo" stance colors the entire section on abuse controversies. Rodeo-industry testimony is inadequate regarding a controversy about rodeo abuse of animals. It's a bit like "taking the word" of plantation owners in the America south c.1855 that slaves are well cared for, happy, and have no desire to be free. Animal rights activists HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GAIN in speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves while rodeo activists HAVE EVERYTHING TO GAIN in suppressing them. Please try to make this article a balanced, NPOV article. Citing rodeo industry testimonies that animals are not exploited or abused in rodeo is not NPOV. HatAct (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but PETA also has much to gain by promoting their POV. Just because the pro rodeo position is presented does not make the article inherently pro rodeo, particularly when considerable space is devoted to abuse controversies as well. I am not personally involved in the rodeo industry and as an editor I am attempting to keep these articles balanced. Please also note: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources PETA is a source as surely POV as the rodeo industry and with as much to gain (in memberships and donations) as the rodeo industry. I am serious when I say that the balance between the two viewpoints is a tricky one to maintain here. I urge you to stop blanking viewpoints you do not agree with and please reread WP:SOAP and WP:VERIFIABILITY. For that matter, also remember No Personal Attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead is something of a summary of the entire article. To mention the flank strap controversy in the lead is appropriate. No problem. Please, don't delete contributions that fly in the face of the pro rodeo stance. I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Wiki articles attempt to present "both sides of the story" -- controversies, opposing views, etc. Please stop deleting material with documentation and citations that do not support the pro-rodeo stance. Balance such material with documented and cited pro-rodeo contributions rather than undocumented, uncited factual-sounding statements. Perhaps you are very busy and cannot document or cite all of your contributions. Wouldn't it be wiser to refrain from making contributions until you can support them with documentation and citations? Just a thought. HatAct (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse issue

Please refrain from reverting my edits. I am making a good faith attempt to merge both viewpoints in a balanced way. Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it OK for you to revert my edits but it's not OK for me to revert yours? I don't understand. I'm making a good faith effort to edit this article in a balanced manner only to find my contributions reworded to tip the scales ever-so-slightly in favor of the gung ho "pro-rodeo" stance. For example, I cited a veterinarian by name, etc. and her testimony only to find it reduced to "a spokesman for animal rights". What gives? Just wondering! HatAct (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Extremist Groups

While I appreciate your hint about Extremist Groups, it would be difficult to tar PETA with such a label. Essentially, PETA and other animal advocacy groups speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. I want to be fair but, based on a thorough reading of your resume page, it seems to me you approach this page with a bias. The article is being swayed to the "pro-rodeo" position with unsourced, undocumented, and uncited claims, statements, and misinformation. If you don't have the time to source and reference your contributions, wouldn't it be wise to refrain from contributing until you can? Just a thought! No hard feelings! HatAct (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples

>>>> This information is MUCH TOO OLD to be cited in current controversies: "In 1994, a survey of 28 sanctioned rodeos was conducted by on-site independent veterinarians. Reviewing 33,991 animal runs, the injury rate was documented at .00047 percent, or less than five-hundredths of one percent."

If there is a more recent study showing a higher injury rate (or a lower one, for that matter), feel free to cite it as a contrast. This may be the ONLY study that has been done. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be! You should mention that in the article: "In what may be the only survey (1994) taken of animal injury and death in rodeo ... etc."

>>>> "The same is not always true for rodeos in other parts of the world, particularly in third world nations." This sweeping statement needs to be sourced. It is a "claim" -- not a fact. It is not a fact until a source is cited and until then, the statement is misleading and should be deleted.

I don't see why you are upset at the claims that third world rodeos DO have animal abuse issues, the Mexican rodeos have some horrifying events (horse-tripping being one, you want to know about something where animals have broken legs...!) But if you want to delete a reference to actual abusive practices, whatever, be my guest. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I guess it's OK with you if I delete some statements but not others. Right?

>>>>> "A proven bucking horse can be sold for $8000 to $10,000, making "rough stock" a valuable investment that requires proper care." This statement is POV. Valuable? To who? To what? Why? In comparison to what? $8000 doesn't make something valuable to everyone. "Valuable" is POV.

Well, horsemeat goes for between 30 and 50 cents a pound, so take a 1000 pound horse and do the math. $8000 to $10,000 would get you a pretty decent animal in any discipline, and in some would get you a potential champion. I'll look over the phrasing, though. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to return the flank strap controversy sentence or two to the lead as an appropriate. Please don't delete it.

I rephrased the flank strap statement because the issue is cruelty overall, spurs are also an issue, so is the slaughter issue. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

True. But the article has a section about the flank strap. It's mentioned briefly and specifically in the lead as something of a "prologue" for what's to come. While horse slaughter and horse meat is an issue, no sources are cited for the issue. We just have unsourced statements which are seemingly presented as truths everyone in the world already knows.

>>>>"Animal rights groups sometimes claim that the flank strap forces a horse to buck even if it doesn't want to, arguing that it restricts the horses' genitals (which are located beneath the tail on females and between the hind legs on males).[3]" I have read the citation and there is absolutely nothing in it regarding the claims as stated in the article. This statement and its source are false and misleading. I am going to delete the statement because the citation is invalid. If you find a valid source about animals rights groups claiming the flank strap forces a horse to buck when it doesn't want to and/or restricts the horses' genitals, return the statement. HatAct (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not blank material because you don't like the source. That is against wikipedia guidelines. Use the {[fact}} tag to mark what you question. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the source, it's just that there's nothing in your source to support your claim. I'll use the nowiki tag in the future. Why are you rewording my contributions? Are my grammar and spelling off? Just wondering! HatAct (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewording for an "encyclopedic" tone. Neutral language, a "just the facts, ma'am" approach. You're getting it, I can see that in your edits. Wiki guidelines say to avoid peacock words, which usually means overly flowery wording, but also can be used to describe excessively emotional language too. Montanabw^(talk) 10:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shooting for a truce here

Please note that I am trying to make a serious effort to provide balance here. Please remember to read Assume Good Faith and remember that wikipedia guidelines do strongly urge people to begin with the notion that the other party is well-intentioned. Montanabw^(talk) 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do something neat for this article, you could explain to Wikiusers exactly HOW a flank strap causes a top notch bucking horse to kick out straighter and higher. If some horses are specifically bred to buck and want to buck, then why are flank straps and spurs apparently necessary? Wouldn't the scent of fresh carrots do the same? Please explain. HatAct (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Top prices for bucking horses are paid for a) spoiled riding horses that have learned to buck off riders, and b) offspring of champion bucking horses. Just FYI. They really DO breed horses for bucking ability. You can't round up wild horses any more, they are protected, and the average mustang is too small to be a modern bucking horse anyway. Most modern broncs are usually big-boned, strong animals, the saddle broncs often have a touch of draft horse breeding. And they have to be trained--they need to allow the equipment to be put on, they have to learn to come out of the chute properly, etc., you can't just put a feral horse in a chute, they'll "run through" the bucking strap and just bolt for the nearest fence. Panicked horses will not give cowboys a good score. Follow the money and do the math. No financial incentive to be cruel to these animals, they won't put in a good effort if they are broken in spirit. Remember, most of the time, the animal thinks it "wins" because the rider is off in more or less 8 seconds! Now I'm going to go to sleep now, hope this clarifies things some. Montanabw^(talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed here

"However, a bucking strap has to be an incentive, not a prod, or the horse will quickly sour and refuse to work."

An "incentive"? An incentive to what? To potential injury or death? I'm confused, please clarify. Such statements are misleading for the average reader. If a horse wants to buck, and some horses are bred specifically to buck, (as has been stated in the article, I believe) then why would any horse need a flank strap as an "incentive" to do what he loves to do? I'm truly confused. Please clarify. HatAct (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would probably require original research (see WP:NOR) (grin). I don't really have the time to dig into that one, but the deal is simple: Horses are ticklish in their flanks. Truly, you don't have to hurt a horse in the flanks to make it buck. They feel anything there and it is considered an excuse to kick out unless trained NOT to. In ordinary riding situations, I have seen normal riding horses get something wrapped around their flanks, a back cinch on a regular saddle, a harness strap, a couple kids riding bareback and the kid in back kicking the horse in the flanks, whatever, some horses will just come unglued. It takes very little irritation in that area for a horse who is looking for an excuse to decide to kick up its legs or buck. At the same time, an old gentle horse can get something around its flanks or under its tail and it will get cranky, stomp its feet, kick at its belly, but not buck. It's a training issue and a major safety concern in mainstream riding.

The spurs are mostly a style thing to make it harder for the rider. The techniques used don't really make the horse buck or not buck at all. You see, in the old rough-breaking "bronco-buster" horse-breaking tradition that bronc riding came from, the old-timers had this notion that if you punished the horse by whipping or spurring it every stride it bucked, that would make it QUIT bucking sooner--or the alternate theory was that by forcing the horse to buck by spurring, it would break their spirit faster...but in both cases, the idea was to use the spur to ultimately make the horse STOP bucking. It was brutal training, but that's where it comes from. Obviously the method had to be modified; you hurt a horse too much and it WILL just quit on you, that was the secret to those old guys...horrible and rough, but you hurt a horse bad enough, it will just stop dead with its head hanging between its knees. That's why it's pretty clear that the rodeo broncs aren't all that miserable. They wouldn't buck hard if they were.

But the way modern bronc riders spur, it has nothing to do with making the horse buck, it's all a style thing and makes it harder for the rider to stay on...no one in real life spurs horses up on the shoulders like a bareback rider does! The horse's shoulder is one of the toughest and least sensitive parts of its body. And on Saddle broncs, they have to "sweep" their spurs from shoulder to flank every stride, also not the way a real rider would use a spur. Also, the rowels are dull and they spin, they can't catch in and dig anywhere. Only the bull riders get to sit or spur in a manner anything close to the way the old bronco-busters actually did it- in one basic place, just in front of the flanks. And bull riders are on animals with much tougher hides than horses. They really think the cowboy is just an annoyance.

I also know that at rodeos, the flank strap is not all that tight, it really is just an annoyance. It's snugged up just as the horse leaves the chute (else they'd be cranky and kick the chute while waiting their turn) and the pickup men usually pull it right off the horse at the end of the run before the horse even leaves the arena. It's basically a reminder to the horse that now is the time to buck.

But where someone else explains that so it can be cited? Beats me. Would take an archive search of 50 years of Western Horseman mag, plus skimming dozens of books, digging out the flotsam of a lifetime with horses...and wiki says I can't do that. All I can tell you is that there's no reason to hurt horses with a tight flank strap because just having one on at all is enough to really annoy them.

Frankly, there are a lot of show horses that have it rougher than bucking horses. Tennessee Walking Horses and the soring thing for example. Now that is just plain sick. Montanabw^(talk) 09:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be explained. Qualified veterinarians and other animal welfare advocates indicate the flank strap torments rather than tickles. From what you have noted above (the strap is loose, etc.), it appears the flank strap is unnecessary. Naturally, the next question is: why use it? The answer appears to be: because the horse won't buck. But I read somewhere these horses love to buck. Hmm, I'm confused. But thanks for trying to sort things out! HatAct (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ONE veterinarian, who appears to be a spokesperson for one fairly emotional animal-rights group. Dozens of equally qualified veterinarians say otherwise, at least four or five just on the PRCA site alone. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed "spokesperson". We don't know if Larson is a "spokeperson". I don't believe writing one article for an animal welfare organization necessarily makes one a spokesperson for the organization. A spokesperson for animal welfare, perhaps but not necessarily for one particular organization. Writing one article for Wikipedia does not make one a "spokeperson" for Wikipedia. Writing one article for the PRCA does not make one a "spokesperson" for the PRCA. If you can find some evidence that Larson is an official "spokeperson" for SHARK, please bring it here and we can return the statement to its previous wording. Also, I would be pleased if you would leave the paragraph as is. Citing the author's name and credentials is appropriate. If Wiki has a policy on citing names and credentials, please let me know. I removed one statement that was unsourced. HatAct (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "career" from one sentence. It's a "loaded" word. It implies that horses make decisions about such things as "having a job." They can't. Horses are forced into rodeo and exploited for the purposes of human entertainment. They don't have "careers". I used the words "rodeo usefulness" instead, which more accurately reflects the reality of the situation. HatAct (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this paragraph: "Nonetheless, a proven bucking horse can be sold for $8000 to $10,000, making "rough stock" an investment worth caring for and keeping in good health for many years.[1] While some rough stock animals are slaughtered for horsemeat at the end of their rodeo usefulness[citation needed], bucking horses are no more or less likely to wind up shipped to slaughter than other domesticated horses[citation needed]. Some of the best bucking horses are retired at the end of their rodeo usefulness and allowed to live into old age.[7][8]The issue of horse slaughter is not correlated directly to the rodeo industry, any unwanted horse can meet this fate, including race horses, show horses, or even backyard pasture pets. It is an issue that crosses all equestrian disciplines." The first sentence implies that extending health care to rodeo horses is only worthwhile if the horse can be sold for $8-10,000. I'm not sure what the argument is in this sentence. I'm not sure why the sentence is in this paragraph. I want to move it, rewrite it, or delete it as not germaine to the issue. It implies "People won't abuse expensive horses only inexpensive ones." The "horse slaughter" issue is suddenly introduced here. It's jarring. I think it needs further research, referencing, and perhaps its own subsection. It should perhaps begin something like this: "Animal lovers, horse enthusiasts, and animal welfare advocates have excoriated rodeo for shipping horses to slaughter ... " with appropriate references from animal lovers, horsepeople, etc. HatAct (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough

You need to understand that WIkipedia is not a soapbox for you to keep pushing a single viewpoint to the extent that it dominates the article. There is no need to cite long passages from various sources, particularly when all they really do is expose the lack of understanding of the various speakers. You are convinced that rodeos are cruel, but you fail to understand that there is in fact another viewpoint here, and that much of the material cited by the extremist groups you mention (and PETA is on the fringe) report isolated incidents in the thousands and thousands of rodeos held each year. I think it is time to take this issue to arbitration or something because you just do not understand that I am desperately trying to keep this article balanced and NPOV in tone. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"There is no need to cite long passages from various sources, particularly when all they really do is expose the lack of understanding of the various speakers." Are you referring here to Peggy W. Larson, large animal veterinarian, medical researcher, prosecutor, and former bareback bronc rider with "lack of understanding" regarding cruely to animals in rodeo? So why do you think she lacks understanding? Because she doesn't agree with your position? Just wondering. When I last accessed this article, it was a nicely balanced article with citations and documentation adequately presenting both sides of the issues. The article has been re-edited with inadequate (or no) citations and documentation and colored with POV to tip the balance to the "Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" camp. The article is locked. I would expect some people are very happy. No further comment. HatAct (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The ariticle has been protected due to edit warring. Work it out on the talk page per WP:DR. Dreadstar † 08:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to do so. (See notes immediately above). I was PMed that an "animal abuse in rodeo" page was created and I could go over there. Someone has a "proprietary" interest in this article. So be it. HatAct (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Settling the discussion?

I was the one who created a proposed red link for you to allow easy creation of a new article that explores this controversy, and I think it is a good solution to this situation because you can use it to fully explain the positions of the various groups (ASPCA has a different position from PETA and both are different from AHA, for example). It would be interesting. You haven't been a wikipedian very long and maybe didn't know how to create a new article. It was an attempt to help.

I also wish to make it clear that I have no "proprietary" interest in any of the rodeo article beyond a fondness for the wikipedia model and a desire to see production of a balanced article that respects the guidelines of wikipedia that I have repeatedly emphasized, including [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox], Neutral point of view and respect for the Manual of style. I am involved with these particular articles because I have a bit of knowledge on the topic, combined with some wordsmithing ability to smooth out the edits written by people with a vast amount of knowledge but iffy writing skills. What I also am is tired of rewriting and rewording and spending hours every day trying to keep this article encyclopedic in tone and in accordance with wikipedia's core principles. I want to point out that the "animal cruelty" section has been expanded a great deal since this discussion began, many of the statements in there are better sourced than they were, and in short, there does exist a balance to this article that is probably better than it was. "Compromise" means that everyone gets some of what they want but probably not everything they want. I think the article as it sits is reasonably balanced between the two viewpoints, though there is always room for improvement. Montanabw^(talk) 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary Interests

It appears to me that you have a "proprietary" interest in the article. I was willing to believe "good faith" editing on your part, but as work progressed on the animal abuse section, it became more and more clear to me that you have a proprietary interst in the article and you are not going to let any suggestion that rodeo abuses animals to stand. As soon as an edit is made to the article, you fly in to "skew" it to support your "Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" Montana horseperson stance. Here's an especially "sneaky" example your "pro-rodeo" "editing":

I quoted PETA: "During Rodeo Houston, a bull suffered from a broken neck for a full 15 minutes before he was euthanized following a steer-wrestling competition, which was described by a local newspaper as an event in which "cowboys violently twist the heads of steers weighing about 500 pounds to bring them to the ground." Nothing here but the truth. The quote was documented and sourced.

You skewed the quote to read: "a bull [sic] with a broken neck...following a steer-wrestling competition"[6][7]

You decided portions of the original quote should be deleted because they don't support your "Yee Haw!" position about rodeo. The Wikireader is left believing, perhaps, the animal was treated for his injury and then headed back to the ranch to frolic in clover filled pastures -- not killed. That doesn't look good for rodeo, does it? Grieviously injuring an animal at a public entertainment then killing the animal. Best to skew the quote to make rodeo look good, right? This is what I mean by your snake-like skewing of truthful, sourced material that doesn't toe the line with your "Cowboys are the Greatest! Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" Montana horseperson editorial position.

Secondly, you continually insist upon referencing a "survey" made in 1994 (duh!) regarding animal abuse in rodeo. You've stuck the stuff in every rodeo article at Wiki. While statistics always impress people, the "survey" is too old to be of any worth, and you do nothing for Wikipedia's credibility in citing such dated material. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to "pull a fast one" on unsuspecting Wikireaders. Your source for the "survey" is a sidebar in a biased, blog-type "Cowboys are the Greatest! Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" website. You should be citing the original "survey" -- not an unsourced sidebar at a "Yee Haw!" site.

The entire animal abuse section from Steer Wrestling ....

---

Like all other rodeo events, steer wrestling is under fire by animal rights advocates. Modern rodeos in the United States are closely regulated and have been responsive to accusations of animal cruelty.[4] In 1994, a survey of 28 sanctioned rodeos was conducted by on-site independent veterinarians. Reviewing 33,991 animal runs, the injury rate was documented at .00047 percent, or less than five-hundredths of one percent.[5]

However, groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) notes incidents of "a bull [sic] with a broken neck...following a steer-wrestling competition"[6][7] Other organizations note that steer wrestling is not an event linked directly to actual ranching practices, stating, "It is an abusive event developed simply to amuse"[8] According to the ASPCA, practice sessions are often the scene of more severe abuses than competitions.[9]

---

In the second sentence "Modern rodeos in the United States etc.", it should be noted that rodeo is industry regulated. The Wikireader is left thinking rodeo is "regulated" by non-biased, "government inspectors" or some such people. It's not. Rodeo is "regulated" by rodeo. Ordinary ticket-buying, rodeo attendees are forbidden from videotaping or photographing animals dying and dead in the arena. I don't dare make the note because I know it will be "skewed" by those with a "proprietary" interest in the article and don't want contributions from "non-proprietors". I know that anyone contributing to any article about rodeo has to pass your inspection as self-appointed "guardian" of all Wiki articles about rodeo. You have a "proprietary" interest in the articles about rodeo and have written (in your own way now and then about spending hours protecting the rodeo articles) and demonstrated as much. While you think animal welfarists and animal rights activists are "extremists", an extremist tone has not been evident in my contributions. Your accusations of "soapboxing" are simply false. I resnt your personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Hope this helps! Keep up the good work! HatAct (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider the "yee-haw" comment to be a Personal attack. You are making a stereotyped assumption about me based on where I live. I am also not going to bother responding to your arguments point by point as we've been over this before. You have a point of view, I have a point of view, and truly "pro-rodeo" advocates have a point of view. The trick is balancing these points of view so that all sides have their views represented accurately, but without dominating the entire article with fringe theories. (And PETA is, by most measurements, a fringe group.) I consider myself a person of sufficient actual knowledge to be neutral, and I guarantee you that a month from now, some person with a truly pro-rodeo viewpoint will come in here and want to delete everything you inserted. All I am doing is toning things down. And you can discuss the steer wrestling issue on the steer wrestling page. Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd Merge

The first sentence is incorrect. "Bronc riding, either saddle bronc or bareback bronc competition, is a rodeo event". Saddle Bronc Riding and Bareback Riding a distinct events not a single event. These 2 events should not be combined into a single article. Sprint (race) for example has a main article and then articles for specific events such as 100 metres Hutcher (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It apparently was two different articles somewhere before I started working on the rodeo articles, and then they were merged, not by me. I don't know the reasoning behind the merge and I hate to get into edit wars, so I haven't cared to kick that particular beehive. I think that there may have been yet a third article that also had information on both events. I guess my feelings on the matter is that it's not a moral issue, but if you look at "what links here" you will see that there are a lot of cross-refs that will need to be analyzed and fixed if the article is split back into two. I guess my take is don't do the split unless you also want to do all the organizational cleanup, which in this case will involve a lot of article analysis to determine which places to link one event, where to link the other, and when both will need to be linked. I don't have the time to do it, but I would be willing to birddog it and offer suggestions. Maybe the thing to do is a draft version of each here on the talk page, or in a sandbox, and when they are ready to go, then plop them in. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow up Please don't create separate articles yet, especially poor quality stubs, it will mess up everything. Better we link to an oddly-named article but one with substantive material. I had to clean up several of your edits to various articles, too, correcting some incorrect information along the way, so please proceed with some caution and read the WP:MOS as you edit, OK? Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I love Broncs!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.11.98 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New merge

Yep, I'm Ok with merging now. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bronc riding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110002548/http://www.sharkonline.org/abuseinherent.mv to http://www.sharkonline.org/abuseinherent.mv
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bronc riding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320084011/http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm to http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608030150/http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3 to http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320084011/http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm to http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/Animals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bronc riding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201031127/http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=69 to http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)