Correspondence

An exchange with NCEC Event Secretary Jacqui Knobel in the days before the club's Christmas dressage event (7 December 2025). Paula requested permission to ride Freya and Leo bitless — either HC or to be eliminated after the test so feedback could still be received. The committee declined on the basis of EA rules and insurance obligations. The exchange includes a notable inconsistency: the event notice permitted boots and bandages (usually prohibited in dressage) as a Christmas concession, while refusing the bitless request on regulatory grounds.

Following receipt of the club's March event schedule, Paula wrote to NCEC Secretary Lisa Pluis requesting permission to ride HC in the Prelim and Novice tests in a plain leather direct-pull bitless bridle. The request was framed as a contained, low-risk step: judges to assess the test under normal criteria, stewarding unaffected, and the bridle available for inspection. Paula noted that a formal proposal had already been submitted to Equestrian NSW and Equestrian Australia for a broader HC pilot project.

A formal proposal sent jointly to Equestrian Australia, Dressage NSW, and NCEC Dressage, setting out the case for a limited HC pilot to allow bitless combinations to be observed under standard judging conditions. The proposal drew on the Dutch federation's rules (KNHS Article 147), which permit dressage tests bitless up to ZZ-Zwaar level, and argued that judging based on the training scale is hardware-neutral. EA's Sport Development Officer Caiwen Cusworth replied on 10 March advising that approval could not be provided under current rules, even for HC participation.

Following EA's refusal to grant an exemption, Paula submitted a formal rule change request to the National Dressage Committee. The submission argued that the mandatory bit rule lacks a welfare basis proportionate to the evidence of bit-related injury, that EA already permits bitless bridles in jumping and eventing, and that international precedent (notably the KNHS) demonstrates that dressage can be judged without reference to specific equipment. The submission requested that the Committee review the Equipment Annex, amend the definition of contact to be hardware-neutral, and publish a substantive written response addressing whether the bit is accepted as a welfare risk.

A follow-up to the rule change submission raising a specific interpretive question about EA's stated policy that "any attempt to alter the normal sensation of the horse for performance enhancement will not be tolerated." Paula argued that without a defined baseline, this principle is unenforceable — all ridden equipment interacts with the horse's sensory system, and the prohibition on bitless bridles sits in direct tension with a rule that nominally restricts the alteration of sensation. The letter asked how "normal sensation" is defined, how stewards assess the distinction, and what evidence supports the current equipment rules.

A further follow-up to the National Dressage Committee requesting confirmation that the rule change submission had been formally received and tabled, an expected timeline for review, and whether a substantive written response would be provided. As of the date of this letter, no response to the March submission had been received.

Dressage NSW (including Vireena Peacock, Equestrian NSW) was a co-recipient of the 6 March pilot proposal alongside Equestrian Australia and NCEC. The proposal set out the welfare case for permitting bitless bridles at competition level and requested that the state body consider supporting a structured pilot or consultation process.

A formal submission to DAFF seeking clarification on how animal sentience is operationalised under the National Statement on Animal Welfare (2024), specifically in relation to bodily integrity and control methods involving mucosal sensory tissue. The submission argues that mucosal and densely innervated regions — the mouth, eyes, nostrils, and related tissues — are neurologically distinct from external skin and must be treated as such in welfare frameworks. It asks four specific questions: whether the Statement recognises mucosal tissue as ethically distinct; whether bodily integrity is assessed beyond visible injury; how measurable welfare outcomes are defined where control methods involve sustained pressure on internal sensory anatomy; and how sentience materially affects the permissibility of invasive control devices. The submission is species-neutral — it addresses the structural ethical framework, not equestrian practice specifically.

A letter to the RSPCA NSW Campaigns Team following a phone enquiry, seeking clarification on whether the use of bitless bridles in dressage is consistent with RSPCA welfare principles, whether permitting riders to choose bitless equipment would be viewed as a positive welfare development, and whether Paula could accurately represent this position when engaging with governing bodies. The letter was not a request for RSPCA to take on a campaign, but for welfare guidance relevant to ongoing correspondence with Equestrian Australia and Dressage NSW.

A letter to the FEI's veterinary and dressage departments (addressed to Göran Åkerström, cc Ronan Murphy and Caterina Termine) asking whether the FEI has any formal standard for bit height — specifically the degree of lip tension or wrinkling at the commissures considered acceptable at competition. Given growing research into oral lesions at the lip commissures, bars, and buccal mucosa in sport horses, the letter asked whether stewards are trained to assess bit position, and how current FEI guidance on bit use aligns with emerging evidence on rein tension and tissue injury.