Quite a while ago, I posted this item on police uniforms: Lex Anteinternet: Standards of Dress. The police. A semi topical post.
In that post, I trace that topic, and I touch upon the uniforms worn by sheriffs departments.
This turns out to be a currently popular human interest story around the nation, and as I just learned from some of my friends in Latin America, the story has spread overseas. More specifically, the story of Sublette County Sheriff's Deputy Gene Bryson has received widespread distribution. He's retiring over a disagreement with Sublette County Sheriff Stephen Haskell about uniforms.
Bryson is a 70 year old deputy. That's way up there, and if he was a Federal law enforcement officer he would have had to retire a decade ago. At one time at least law enforcement officers employed by the State of Wyoming also had to retire at that age, i.e., 60, but a lawsuit filed by a Game Warden some years ago resulted in that being changed by judicial fiat. That's not really relevant to this story, however. I'm just noting it.
What motivated Bryson to retire is that Haskell mandated a change in the Sublette County Sheriff Department's uniform and eliminated cowboy boots and cowboy hats in favor of duty boots and baseball caps. Bryson, whose worn cowboy boots and hats his entire career, declined to go along with the change and opted to retire.
Frankly, he has a bit of a point, although Haskell has one too.
The point Haskell has is with the boots. Cowboy boots make poor duty boots, and even though many sheriff's officers have worn them over the years, they're more appropriate as dress items for law enforcement officers and other agencies than they are as duty boots. I wear them a fair amount (and there's a draft thread on them in the hopper that, like many draft threads here, has been there for eons), but as far as field use goes, they're only really a good item if you intend to ride a horse, or might have to. Even at that, "packers" are a better choice for a mounted service boot. Cowboy boots are slippery in wet or slick weather, they're difficult or at least unnatural to run in, and they don't provide much ankle protection to the wearer. Duty boots, although usually law enforcement agencies choose the lightest doofiest ones going, are a better option.
Not baseball hats.
I own my fair share of baseball hats, but they're a crappy and sloppy looking uniform item. Indeed, while they're convenient for many things, that's about all they are. They have no insulation value, they don't protect from the snow, rain and sun like a broad brimmed hat does. And as a rule, when a uniformed officer is wearing one, he looks out of uniform.
Now, I do have my fair share of these, and some of them are pretty neat. But I'm not arresting anyone either, and in spite of the fact that some lawyers now do, I don't wear them into the courthouse. And if I'm in a role where I need outdoor protection from the elements, I go with a broad brimmed hat.
While on this, I'll note also that there's an interesting trend for law enforcement and fire personnel to be issued what we used to call "paratrooper pants", or more recently cargo pants. At some point that too is more than a bit over done.
Trousers like that weren't even worn by any army anywhere up until World War Two, but the fluid nature of that war, combined with the need for some soldiers to be carry loads of items, i.e., paratroopers, lead to the adoption of cargo pants by the U.S. Army for paratroopers in the early 1940s. In 1943 these were adopted for all soldiers in the European Theatre of Operations in the form of the M1943 combat pants, that were to be worn over the standard wool pants (any time you see a paratrooper, or other U.S. soldier in Europe with cargo pants, he almost certainly is wearing wool pants underneath them). After the war, the M1943 pants were retained, with new designations, as field pants, replacing other patterns still in use, and during the Vietnam War the same pattern was adopted for the Tropical Combat Uniform. When the Army adopted the Battle Dress Uniform in the early 80s, they became the standard cotton trouser for soldiers, and Marines, and have remained so ever since in varying forms. For some reason, police departments have gone to them too, even though most police patrolmen are motorized and really don't need a lot of pockets. Sheriff's offices have started using them, and even fire departments do. It's probably a bit much.
Anyhow, I will note that Haskell's actions aren't wholly without logic, regarding the caps, as most officers are vehicle patrolmen now days, and a cowboy hat is inconvenient in a vehicle. And this follows a recent tread of services, including the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, British Army and Australian Army, of issuing baseball caps for patrol caps. So, even though they lack insulation value and don't do anything other than provide a visor, I somewhat get it. But, countering that, a fair number of law enforcement agencies, to include the Wyoming Highway Patrol, have gone the other way in recent years and noted the value of brimmed hats. The WYHP, for example, went from wheelhouse caps, which it had worn since its inception, to "smokey bear", or M1911 style campaign hats, so they can be used even by a highly motorized agency.
20 comments:
I think baseball caps would be a bit comical in combination with a uniform. They do have two purposes: the visor shielding the eyes from low-angled sun, and a slight value of warmth. (I wear a baseball-style hat sometimes when I'm hiking in cold weather because it provides protection against sun and also rain, while in times of strenuous exertion a heavier wool or fleece hat quickly becomes overkill.) But if these are officers mainly operating from motor vehicles, I would think the broad-brimmed hat would look more appropriate (which does count for something) without the silly goofball associations of a baseball hat. Regarding cowboy boots, I admire them from an aesthetic point of view, but gosh they are uncomfortable and impractical.
I actually have a sizable number of baseball caps, so I wear them a fair amount too. I wore one down to work today.
I will say that they've improved since the bills grew a bit, compared to the "trucker's hat" type, but I still very much favor a broad brimmed hat for outdoor use. In cold weather I wear a "Stormy Kromer" type cap, although not the one made by that company.
For uniform use they just look sloppy. Perhaps because they are a light cotton hat, they can take on disheveled look pretty quickly which is okay for kick around civilian use, but not for law enforcement offers or military servicemen, as a rule.
I actually find cowboy boots comfortable, but I have a high arch. They're really a riding boot designed for wooden stirrups of course, and it's always amazed me that they're so popular as a dress or even casual item, although I will wear them a fair amount. But they'd be a lousy uniform boot for nearly any occasion, indeed for any occasion, even if a person was a mounted officer. They do see a lot of use still for cowboys, and I'll wear a very traditional high pair when doing that, but that's mounted worked.
Your comment about cowboy boots for riding shows the difference between western and English-style riding. I take it the high instep of the boot is kind of notched into the wooden stirrup. I have always ridden English-style, and there the whole method is to put the weight of the foot onto the stirrup at the ball of the foot, not the instep, with the heels down in a very pronounced way. This enables the rider to quickly rise up from the stirrups and lean forward, as for a jump or fast galloping.
While some riders do ride the way you mention (with the stirrup up against the heel) it is not a good idea and is actually dangerous. The better technique, and the one I think more common, is exactly as you describe for English riding. I have a little experience with that style, although it's not the norm.
I haven't done a post on riding, but Western riding has evolved enormously since World War Two, and for the most part, while Western riders still use long stirrups, they've evolved towards more of a style that would be recognized by English riders, save for the longer stirrups and the use of neck reigning rather than English reigning. The SMH page has a great deal on that that's well worth reviewing.
Anyhow, on the boots, the use of higher heels contemplates the large wooden stirrups, sometimes very large, that stock saddles typically have. The heel operates as a bit of brake against the boot going through the stirrup is something really bad happens, although as Western riding has evolved toward English riding in some ways the heels have grown smaller.
By the way, contrary to what is sometimes asserted, both the high heels and the scalloped shape of the heels actually wasn't an innovation unique to cowboy boots, but had existed for a very long time, and in more than one culture. It seems wherever the riding conditions, and perhaps the materials, were the same, boots of that type have existed.
I would be very interested to hear more on this subject. Which cultures used that type of boot? I understand the importance of not having the foot slip through the stirrup, but on the other hand riding with shorter stirrups with the heels down usually prevents that. I'll bring in my favorite subject of the Boers--I think of them as paramount exemplars of riding skill in a military situation, and they certainly wore boots, but not of the type with the (in my mind)exaggerated heels. (And they used saddles similar to the standard English saddle.) ---Just my opinion about the skill of the Boers---Littauer might very well have disapproved of their technique. You have probably covered this topic in the Society for Military Horse forum and may be tired of the subject. Actually, I'm also curious whether the Boers used a neck-reining technique or a bridle-oriented technique---whatever you want to call it. They did have to do a lot of riding one-handed. If you don't mind going over these subjects in this forum, I would be interested and I suspect others would be as well.
Jenny, I'd be happy to visit on those topics. I'll probably link in SMH threads when I do, as there's some very good information there.
You raise a question I don't know the answer to, the riding and reigning style of the Boers, but I know who will. I may post a SMH thread on that.
On high heeled scalloped boots, I've seen a photographic example of an American mounted officer wearing them during the Civil War, before the cowboy boot type was supposedly invented, but frankly I think the general histories we see on cowboy boots are inaccurate. Anyhow, high heeled boots existed for many decades prior to that in both the United States and Europe, although wherever steel stirrups predominated lower heels were more popular.
Additionally, the traditional riding boot of Afghanistan is a very high topped, very high heeled, boot. They used an extremely high scalloped heel which was still in use as late as perhaps the 1950s, although they appear to have fallen casualty to the long protracted conflict there and they are never seen in photographs now.
I would love to see any information you have on the subject. We have raised several aspects here, having to do with foot position and also having to do with reining technique. That's interesting about the Afghanistan riding boot. Since I always rode with short stirrups and boots with shallow heels, I can't quite understand why anyone would want these high-heeled boots. Perhaps there is something here I'm just not seeing.I hope you don't mind if there's a bit of duplication between here and the SMH site. Regarding the reins, in English style, even with double reins (either Pelham or Curb plus Snaffle, it is possible to guide the horse by using reins on either side on the bit and not by neck reining. I must admit that neck reining never made sense to me, but maybe you can explain that.
I think the heels on the boots had a lot to do with the length of the stirrups, essentially in my opinion the distinctively heeled boot in long stirrups replacing the shorter stirrups which actually substituted knee pressure on the horse's sides, a better contact with the action of the horse. I won't even bother you with the current phenomenon of long tourist horseback rides where the whole idea is for the rider to have the security of the saddlehorn or pommel or whatever you call it. I hope you think that is as stupid as I do. The whole idea is for riders to grasp the pommel whenever they feel insecure. XXX@@###!
Grabbing the horn is a dangerous thing to do, for the most part, if a person is feeling insecure. It becomes a pivot point and puts a person immediately out of balance. Unfortunately, it's very difficult for novice riders not to do that.
I've never actually understood the widespread popularity of stock saddles (what most people call "Western" saddles), for the hobby rider. I use one, of course, but I have a reason to. That type of saddle has direct application for working stock, and is also useful if a rider might have to drag something with the saddle. Otherwise, however, they're a very heavy saddle if made correctly, and most of their features are never used by a casual rider. I realize that people feel more secure in them, but that's really an illusion. When my son was starting out, we started him out in a McClellan saddle. . . no horn. The saddle I normally use has a very large post horn for that matter, which wouldn't be suitable for grabbing. Anyhow, if a person isn't going to rope or drag something (and a person shouldn't be doing that unless they really know how to), the stock saddle is a curious choice, in my view. I guess they're just so bulky, with high pommels and cantles, that people feel more secure in them. Perhaps they actually are, but the horn is dangerously attractive to novice riders.
On the high heeled boots being a substitute for shorter stirrups, that's an attractive thesis and perhaps there's something to it. With a shorter stirrup, the flat of your foot should be more easily properly placed.
Having said that, the short stirrups that are generally used now are somewhat a byproduct of the "military seat" that was advanced by various armies following adoption of the seat advocated by Caprilli. The U.S. Army went to the short stirrup following World War Two when a Caprilli influenced military seat was adopted by the Army. The system features more than just a short stirrup, of course.
Prior to that, all riders used longer stirrups than they currently generally do (excepting Western riders who retain the American stock seat now, and the many who used it then). That is, while the stock seat always used a forward stirrup position and a long stirrup, generally most riders used longer stirrups, or at least not short stirrups, prior to the 1920s.
Steel stirrups are generally smaller than wooden stirrups, and they generally have less tread as well. There seems to be some connection there. I'd note that Australian stock riders used a seat much like the American stock seat but used small heels. I can't say that they never used steel stirrups, but at least modern Australian stock saddles feature them.
"I would love to see any information you have on the subject. We have raised several aspects here, having to do with foot position and also having to do with reining technique. That's interesting about the Afghanistan riding boot. Since I always rode with short stirrups and boots with shallow heels, I can't quite understand why anyone would want these high-heeled boots. Perhaps there is something here I'm just not seeing.I hope you don't mind if there's a bit of duplication between here and the SMH site."
I always ride with high heeled boots, even though I do have a pair of M1943 Cavalry boots that I acquired that have small heels. It's probably in part because I'm used to them, but also because I'm pretty small and my stock saddles have large wooden stirrups. On rough stock, I'd worry about getting hung up, even though I've never had something like that occur.
I've worn that type of boot with McClellan and even flat saddles without any problem, and I note that polo boots are likewise somewhat high heeled in some instances, so you get used them pretty quickly.
I'd also note, fwiw, that I have a really high arch, and as a result high heeled boots are really comfortable for me. The most comfortable pair of shoes I have is a pair of Whites packers, which feature a mid height heel.
"Regarding the reins, in English style, even with double reins (either Pelham or Curb plus Snaffle, it is possible to guide the horse by using reins on either side on the bit and not by neck reining. I must admit that neck reining never made sense to me, but maybe you can explain that."
The reason that stock riders use one hand is that they always need the other one free. The reason for that is that they need to be able to work a rope. Generally, stock riders rope with their dominant hand, and rein with their non dominant hand, for that reason.
Given that, a horse used by cowboys needs to be highly attuned to being neck reined, and by the same token, there's low utility for a working stock rider to be able to rein with both hands. Indeed, when you see a stock rider rein with both hands he's "plow reinging", i.e., using heavy hand because the horse is somehow problematic.
Western reining as done by actual working hands is considerably different than English reining and the horse is usually taught to rein in a different manner. If done quite traditionally, and generally in this part of the country they are, they are started off with a hackamore rather than a bit, and then the snaffle is used as an intermediate bit until the horse is transitioned to the snaffle. Unlike English reigning, the horse is not typically "on the bit" for the most part while riding. English riders generally have a bit more pressure on the bit as they're in communication with the horse's mouth.
I learned at one time how to English rein, although I've never learned how to use bit and bradoon. I wish I did know how. However, as almost all the riding I do is in a stock context, I'm sure I'd be quite rusty if I tried to English rein today.
Also, fwiw, almost all working stock riders in North America use split reins. It is possible to use both hands with split reins, but it's less than ideal.
Split reins, as you no doubt know, are split, unlike other reins which are one long rein. This allows the working rider to rapidly dismount and hold the horse with a single rein. Working riders fairly frequently dismount when working cattle.
I'm babbling at some length here, but I should also note that U.S. Army horses were expected to be able to be direct reined (two hands) and neck reined, and an experienced trooper was expected to be able to do both. The reason for this is somewhat similar to the reason that cowboys neck rein, in that a cavalryman was expected to be have to be able to fire a sidearm or wield a saber while mounted. Indeed, they were also expected to be able to use a longarm in the saddle.
Prior to the Civil War American cavalrymen (which actually didn't have along pre Civil War history) used bit and bradoon in some instances, but this was rapidly phased out at the start of teh war in favor of the curb bit. Curb bits remained the Army standard for the most part for decades even though direct reining them is not easy compared to snaffles.
And I'll note up above, I meant to say that the snaffle is the transitional bit in Western stock use, prior to the curb being the finished bit. My apologies for that.
Anyhow, in the 20th Century the Army returned to bit and bradoon but found that green troopers couldn't work two bits in combat conditions. Therefore, generally troopers deployed to the field using only the snaffle, and not the curb.
I can certainly understand the difference between riding where you are roping stock versus riding without a heavy pulling force on you. Yes, you would certainly want to have longer stirrups and a heavier saddle in the roping situation. But in all other occasions I would want a lighter saddle. I just remember the joy of riding with a small, light saddle and short stirrups.It was the closest thing to riding bareback (which I also did, sometimes just with a halter and a leadrope). Well, we could probably talk endlessly about the way horses were ridden at different points of history. I happen to have a special interest in the Boers, and I know you have a special knowledge about the use of horses in different wars. I know they used something like English saddles. Obviously they rode one-handed a lot of the time as they fired their Mauser rifles with the other. Can you tell me anything more about that? Any details would be of interest, for instance what type of bridle/bits they used.
The answer on Boer riding styles from a person very familiar with them and the region:
http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12378
Some SMH Threads on Boer War Kit:
Boer Saddles: http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1398&p=10699&hilit=Boer#p10699
Bandoleers: http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=11273
Boer bandoleers: http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11288&p=100829&hilit=Boer#p100829
Boer War South African light horse:
http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10459&p=93825&hilit=Boer#p93825
Thanks for your input, Pat. I appreciate your putting out all those links. I have checked them out. But I'm still not sure I have the accurate picture for the equipment used on the Boer side. I've seen a good sharp photo of Jan Smuts with a horse that had an English-style saddle with a deep seat and what looks like a Pelham bridle. Just not sure if that was typical. I don't mean to put you to any further trouble, so no need to reply.
No trouble at all, I find the topic interesting.
Most Boers rode flat saddles as a rule, so his saddle isn't a surprise, but I'll confess ignorance on what they typically used for bits. I'll follow up on that.
Post a Comment