19/06/2025
The article making the rounds right now on “the dangers of going bitless” is less a thoughtful perspective and more a jumble of vague generalizations, anecdotal bias, and outdated assumptions, strung together by what is clearly an AI output and barely edited after the fact. If you’re going to write about something as serious as equine welfare and biomechanics, the bare minimum is to bring an ounce of intellectual rigor to the table. This isn’t an Amazon product review, it’s the long-term physical and emotional health of a sentient animal.
Before we jump in, to be very clear, my thoughts aren’t about being “pro-bitless.” I ride with bits. I also ride bitless. However, what I can’t tolerate is sloppy logic dressed up as horsemanship, and this article is full of it.
“I’m not against bitless, but…”
This is a classic rhetorical move to appear open-minded while immediately dismissing the entire premise. The author sets up bitless riding as something theoretically okay only if it’s temporary, transitional, or reserved for “good horsemen,” positioning bitless as a lesser tool while elevating the bit as the standard. If the goal is open-mindedness, don’t quantify your acceptance into near-nonexistence.
“It’s not the tool, it’s the hand behind it.”
I hear this a lot., and it's a conversation for a different day. But...the article immediately contradicts itself by blaming bitless for causing long-term issues like hollow backs, disengaged hindquarters, and postural breakdowns. So which is it? If it’s not about the tool, then why is every problem pinned on the absence of a bit? Let’s also acknowledge that every tool affects the horse’s body in a different way. You can’t say “it’s not about the tool” and then spend three paragraphs outlining how bitless setups ruin biomechanics.
“Bitless riders don’t know what they don’t know.”
This is where the condescension really ramps up. The author implies that most people who ride bitless are naive and uninformed, that they’re doing it because it “feels nicer,” not because they understand biomechanics. This dismisses an entire group of thoughtful, educated horsepeople who have intentionally chosen bitless options for valid reasons. This line is projection. If your entire argument rests on assumptions about how other people feel, then maybe you’re the one who doesn’t know what you don’t know.
“The moment I pick them up in a snaffle, they’re lost.”
Right. That’s called unfamiliarity. Not brokenness. A horse trained in one set of cues won’t immediately understand another. That doesn’t mean they’re biomechanically broken, it means they haven’t learned your system. Would you say a dressage horse is ruined because he doesn’t neck rein? Would you say a reiner is incorrect because he doesn’t stretch into contact? Training language doesn’t translate unless you teach it. But hey, you don’t know what you don’t know.
“The bit is often the kindest option.”
The claim that a bit is “often the kindest” because it allows for more “subtlety” sounds good: but it doesn’t stand up to anatomy. The horse’s mouth is a highly sensitive, innervated area. Even soft contact creates pressure on the tongue, bars, lips, and palate. In contrast, many bitless designs distribute pressure across the poll, nasal bone, and sides of the face, areas with less nerve density. This doesn’t make bitless inherently better, but it does mean you can’t argue the bit is kinder without acknowledging where it applies pressure. Also, if your subtlety lives entirely in your reins, maybe it’s not that subtle.
Scare Tactics and “Sore Backs”
He suggests that long-term bitless riding causes stifle problems, uneven hoof wear, and lameness, without citing a single veterinary source. That’s a serious accusation, and it flies in the face of what actual vets and researchers have documented about the relationship between contact, tack, posture, and pain. If anything, forcing a horse into a frame via rein contact, bit or otherwise, creates chronic postural tension. True engagement doesn’t come from the mouth. It comes from lifting the back, activating the core, and asking the hind end to come forward. If you think that only happens through a bit, then you’re not riding with your body, you’re riding with your hands.
This isn’t about bits. Or bitless. It’s poor logic wrapped in half-truths and presented with a superiority complex. The original article talks about avoiding absolutes, but spends the entire piece painting bitless riders as uninformed and their horses as damaged.
I’m more than happy to keep this conversation going. It’s one we need to have, just with a little more humility and a lot more substance.