a question for Kelly Marks

tess1 said:
yes, me too! And I am guessing the reason that the buckstoppers got used in the study was because the horses were being pushed too fast and they got frightened/resisted. After all, the goal of the study was to have the horses complete a dressage test and an obstacle course after ten hours of training.
Click to expand...

Who was responsible for setting up the study/challenge ?
 
tess1 said:
yes, me too! And I am guessing the reason that the buckstoppers got used in the study was because the horses were being pushed too fast and they got frightened/resisted. After all, the goal of the study was to have the horses complete a dressage test and an obstacle course after ten hours of training.
Click to expand...

No - the goal of the study was to publicise Monty Roberts!! Anyone who aims to have a horse complete a dressage test and an obstacle course after 10 hours of training doesn't give a flying ******* for the welfare or future of the horse! It makes me downright angry that people indulge in these self-promoting, horse-destroying exercises! You CANNOT put the basics in place in 10 hours - and horses without the basics established who are asked to work beyond themselves will likely have problems for the rest of their lives!

If you can't work at the horse's pace, leave the poor bloody thing for someone who will!:mad:
 
JanetGeorge said:
No - the goal of the study was to publicise Monty Roberts!! Anyone who aims to have a horse complete a dressage test and an obstacle course after 10 hours of training doesn't give a flying ******* for the welfare or future of the horse! It makes me downright angry that people indulge in these self-promoting, horse-destroying exercises! You CANNOT put the basics in place in 10 hours - and horses without the basics established who are asked to work beyond themselves will likely have problems for the rest of their lives!

If you can't work at the horse's pace, leave the poor bloody thing for someone who will!:mad:
Click to expand...


JanetGeorge ... I think I love you :D
 
Agree with Janet if a horse bucks there is something wrong doesn't matter how old the horse is and 10 hours of training. Wow thats a real patient trainer for you.m
 
tess1 said:
yes, me too! And I am guessing the reason that the buckstoppers got used in the study was because the horses were being pushed too fast and they got frightened/resisted. After all, the goal of the study was to have the horses complete a dressage test and an obstacle course after ten hours of training.
Click to expand...

That any ever thought that was a just and fair way to treat a group of young horses amazes me and it's even scarier that MR organisation thought they might positive publicity from it amazes me, speed has no place in progressing babys they all learn at different speeds and vary so much what one finds easy to 'get' another finds hard and vice versa that's the fun of it ,learning about them and with them .
 
Thanks Rhino. I will email her, but won't hold my breath for a reply. Experience tells me she doesn't respond to anything other than things like "Kelly your amazing and so inspirational! Can I come on a course please?". Tbh, I doubt a tricky questions such as " Please can you explain how Monty can justify using a buckstopper on a starter?" and "Why are you taking peoples money to teach learning theory, when you don't even know it yourself" will even get past the IH office. I'll let you know though.

Couldn't agree more Janet George!!
 
leogeorge said:
Tbh, I doubt a tricky questions such as " Please can you explain how Monty can justify using a buckstopper on a starter?" and "Why are you taking peoples money to teach learning theory, when you don't even know it yourself" will even get past the IH office. I'll let you know though.
Click to expand...

Well no, if anyone wrote anything that rude to me I doubt I'd deign to reply either :rolleyes: Again suggests that you aren't interested in hearing why it is used, you just want to continue to condemn its practice on your public soapbox. Sad really.

'Learning theory' encompasses widely different viewpoints and stances, so again your 'I'm right you're wrong' attitude wouldn't really make it worth a reply tbh.
 
Rhino, I will be very polite, don't worry. (wish I knew how to do smiley faces on here!??)

You said..."
'Learning theory' encompasses widely different viewpoints and stances "

Actually, no it doesn't. Classical conditioning is what it is, and operant conditioning is also what it is. Kelly doesn't know the difference, evidencing this recently by giving an example of what she described as classical conditioning, that was actually an example of operant conditioning. Very basic stuff tbh, that she really should know.
 
rhino said:
Again suggests that you aren't interested in hearing why it is used, you just want to continue to condemn its practice on your public soapbox. Sad really
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think we are all on the edge of our seats, waiting to hear a justification for needing a gumline on one newly started horse, let alone that percentage!
 
JanetGeorge said:
No - the goal of the study was to publicise Monty Roberts!! Anyone who aims to have a horse complete a dressage test and an obstacle course after 10 hours of training doesn't give a flying ******* for the welfare or future of the horse! It makes me downright angry that people indulge in these self-promoting, horse-destroying exercises! You CANNOT put the basics in place in 10 hours - and horses without the basics established who are asked to work beyond themselves will likely have problems for the rest of their lives!

If you can't work at the horse's pace, leave the poor bloody thing for someone who will!:mad:
Click to expand...

Hits "like" button :)

..... I'd not heard of this report before, but now that I have, I'm interested to know the answer to - why would anyone (let alone Monty) use a buckstopper on a young horse just being started?

Rhino, you seem to have taken offence at the question being raised here? To be honest, if anyone publishes a public report, surely it is reasonable for readers of said report to question aspects of that report? I don't see a problem with that?
 
Kelpie said:
Rhino, you seem to have taken offence at the question being raised here? To be honest, if anyone publishes a public report, surely it is reasonable for readers of said report to question aspects of that report? I don't see a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Not at all, if it had been posted here as a discussion I would have joined in with my dislike of the device. It wasn't, the OP was purporting that it was a question being directly asked at a specific person. If she had genuinely wanted to know the answers, wouldn't it have been better to contact her directly - her email/company address and phone numbers are readily available (it was apparent another poster hadn't even bothered to google which suggests to me she didn't actually want to ask directly at all) and it looks like she is an active poster on another forum and on fb.

I find it disingenuous to post a thread like this. One of the main posters on here only ever comes onto HHO to criticise MR and his associates, which I find very petty. Surely someone with such knowledge and experience could take a little time out to attempt to help people who are having problems, rather than purely being negative? I don't think public forums are the places for personal vendettas, and that is what I think this thread is, as previous threads have appeared also IMO.

It just comes across as a bit underhand to me, lots of calling people names and very little proactive discussion. Maybe I'm just really old fashioned :o but threads like this naming specific people/businesses etc always make me a little uncomfortable.
 
I simply cannot understand why any-one who knows anything about horses reveres these charlatans from over the water.
There are plenty of excellent horsemen and women in the UK who work with young and older horses with superb lasting results without resorting to inhumane gadgets. So why is it that expensive Dually halters/carrot sticks etc entice so many to follow these less-than-honest cowboys?
The answer can only be 'marketing'!
 
I have to say that I am also dissapointed that the theory of adrenaline response only discusses the raised heart rate/respiration rate. In most young prey animals (and people) there is a third response, not just flight or fight, but freeze, which protects younger and weaker members of the group. Couched babies and youngsters have a dropped respiration and heart rate and remain static, which makes them harder to detect by predators. If you extrapolate this to fear in a training situation, it may be a very frightened youngster indeed, which has a reduced rate of respiration and heart rate.
 
rhino said:
Not at all, if it had been posted here as a discussion I would have joined in with my dislike of the device. It wasn't, the OP was purporting that it was a question being directly asked at a specific person. If she had genuinely wanted to know the answers, wouldn't it have been better to contact her directly - her email/company address and phone numbers are readily available (it was apparent another poster hadn't even bothered to google which suggests to me she didn't actually want to ask directly at all) and it looks like she is an active poster on another forum and on fb.

I find it disingenuous to post a thread like this. One of the main posters on here only ever comes onto HHO to criticise MR and his associates, which I find very petty. Surely someone with such knowledge and experience could take a little time out to attempt to help people who are having problems, rather than purely being negative? I don't think public forums are the places for personal vendettas, and that is what I think this thread is, as previous threads have appeared also IMO.

It just comes across as a bit underhand to me, lots of calling people names and very little proactive discussion. Maybe I'm just really old fashioned :o but threads like this naming specific people/businesses etc always make me a little uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Rhino, the last time Kelly Marks came on here to speak to me she firstly accused me of reporting her to the FC (which I hadn't) and then she claimed I had a mental illness and had been warned off communicating with me by a psychiatric nurse. I have been banned from the DG, and had my posts deleted and been blocked from her facebook page. Maybe I should have started a new thread saying "Monty's use of the buckstopper in his study" - would that have made you feel better? The bottom line is I ask awkward questions to which there are no easy answers to. End of. But I believe these questions are worth asking, given the influence Monty now has over horse-owners in the UK, and his attempts to discredit approaches other than his own. If you don't agree with me asking those questions, obviously it is your opinion and you are very entitled to voice it. However, I will continue to ask the questions.
 
tess1 said:
Maybe I should have started a new thread saying "Monty's use of the buckstopper in his study" - would that have made you feel better?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would :p I did read the previous thread, and saw fault on both sides, neither was acting in anything approaching a professional manner, which made it all the more apparent that there was a 'personal' undertone to the thread, one poster was even told that they shouldn't comment if they weren't aware of everything that happened in the past between KM and herself/others

Careful [name removed]. If you are not privey to the discussions between Tess, myself and Kelly that span years, not just 22 pages of this thread, you might end up looking very silly defending Kellys comments in her recent post.

Just saying!
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I think the vast majority of posters on here have the ability to assess the information and make their own decisions about it. That thread ended up in some really interesting, balanced discussion when the more personal elements were removed.
 
I always thought that MR and KM used only natural methods of communication, a buckstopper does not sound very natural or am i being naive?
 
Have these questions been brought up with MR or KM in person or via another means of contact? Or have the people in question just been discussed, and blown out of all proportion via slanderous posts on public forums?

I've skipped to the last page here....it seems to me that if you have a serious problem with the methods of KM and/or MR then the discussion should be held in an adult manner with them. If you feel they are cruel or causing undue distress and harm to horses then pass your concerns on to a relevant investigative body and leave it to them.

Some people may be given the wrong idea and have their judgement coloured before they have seen the work and methods of KM and MR, or indeed many other trainers with their own individual methods for themselves, which is very sad.
 
Fair enough, Rhino..... but seriously, I am interested in the answer and I think it's fair cop that the answer should be made public, given that the report is public.
 
rhino said:
Yes, it would :p I did read the previous thread, and saw fault on both sides, neither was acting in anything approaching a professional manner, which made it all the more apparent that there was a 'personal' undertone to the thread, one poster was even told that they shouldn't comment if they weren't aware of everything that happened in the past between KM and herself/others



Funnily enough I think the vast majority of posters on here have the ability to assess the information and make their own decisions about it. That thread ended up in some really interesting, balanced discussion when the more personal elements were removed.
Click to expand...


Yes, Rhino, and I was still there at the end trying to contribute to that balanced discussion, unlike you who, if I remember rightly, only criticised the thread. I do not doubt for a second the intelligence and ability of posters on this forum to assess information - however, in some cases, if the information is not put out for people to assess, there is no starting point. Comments on previous threads have made clear that people have swallowed the pr/marketing element of this study hook, line and sinker, without having access to the study to be aware of the methods used and their implication. All I have done here is commented on a research paper I have read - I answer questions if they are asked, and I respond to posters who are making personal comments to me. To be honest, I think your comments to me on this thread are starting to show a bit of a "personal vendetta" - but don't worry, I can dish it out and I can surely take it ;)
 
And Rhino, the person that you are referring to did call me a liar on a public forum with absolutely no justification whatsoever, and could not back up their comments afterwards - and neither were they "big" enough to apologise. Was that professional enough to avoid your criticism?
 
EMC said:
Have these questions been brought up with MR or KM in person or via another means of contact? Or have the people in question just been discussed, and blown out of all proportion via slanderous posts on public forums?

I've skipped to the last page here....it seems to me that if you have a serious problem with the methods of KM and/or MR then the discussion should be held in an adult manner with them. If you feel they are cruel or causing undue distress and harm to horses then pass your concerns on to a relevant investigative body and leave it to them.

Some people may be given the wrong idea and have their judgement coloured before they have seen the work and methods of KM and MR, or indeed many other trainers with their own individual methods for themselves, which is very sad.
Click to expand...

Well, Kelly ignores me, and the last reply I had from Monty regarding buckstoppers was a bit of whitewash, to be honest. But I think you are right. In the next week or so I need to sit down and do some serious letter writing, to the scientists involved in the study and others connected to equitation science and equine welfare. I genuinely feel that this study cannot be justified on ethical grounds - the gadgets used, the speed of the training and the expectations of the horses at the end gives serious grounds for concern. The focus has been on heart rates and results in a couple of ridden tests, and now I think it must be asked "at what price".
 
tess1 said:
And Rhino, the person that you are referring to did call me a liar on a public forum with absolutely no justification whatsoever, and could not back up their comments afterwards - and neither were they "big" enough to apologise. Was that professional enough to avoid your criticism?
Click to expand...

rhino said:
I did read the previous thread, and saw fault on both sides, neither was acting in anything approaching a professional manner, which made it all the more apparent that there was a 'personal' undertone to the thread
Click to expand...

Yes KM/MR etc have put themselves in the public eye, and under public scrutiny, however I think if we are able to separate the 'person' and the 'technique/gadget/whatever' it does more good. There are things I like about most trainers, and things I don't like, but I think that I can learn lots from them all.

We're not on different sides here, as said before (repeatedly :p) I'd just rather keep the personal insults and background (if not relevant to the discussion) to a minimum. That's not aimed at you in particular, just an observation on how these threads tend to develop. And if you stop asking me questions, I might shut up! :D

ETA my background is in biochemistry and veterinary/medical diagnostics - and if anyone wanted to question any of my published articles I'd much rather they contacted me directly in the first instance. Not that any of it is remotely interesting though :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top