a question for Kelly Marks

Rhino...."One of the main posters on here only ever comes onto HHO to criticise MR and his associates,"

You keep referring to me as a "main poster"? Why don't you just use my name? I really don't mind!

Great posts Tess, and agree 100%.
 
tess1 said:
Deal!! :D
Click to expand...

silenced.gif



















Nah, I only said might :p
ETA LG because it was a general reflection on this thread and previous threads, I don't see any benefit in calling anyone out in particular.
 
Last edited:
tess1 said:
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".
Click to expand...

What it all boils down to is this: Monty Roberts believes that the use of the buckstopper is justified, you don't. You have questioned his use of the buckstopper, he has explained to you why he uses it (more than once). You are not happy with his answers and I doubt you will ever be happy with his answers. So what is the point, from Monty's perspective, to keep on answering your questions?
 
Monty has attempted to explain to me why he uses buckstoppers on horses who have ingrained bucking habits, and he is their "last chance".

Monty has not attempted to explain to me why he uses buckstoppers on young horses at the start of their ridden career when they have no threat of death hanging over them, and they are involved in a study to prove how kind his methods are.

What is the point, from my perspective, of not asking the questions.
 
Last edited:
leogeorge said:
Oops, sorry! You don't need to answer that if you'd prefer to shut up. *smiley face*
Click to expand...

: + ) = :)
: + D = :D
; + ) = ;)
: + ( = :(
: + p = :p
: + o + :o
: + eek: = :eek:
: + rolleyes: = :rolleyes: (my favourite)
: + cool: = :cool:
: + mad: = :mad:
: + confused: = :confused:

And I did answer, I don't have an issue with any one poster, just the way this thread and others are worded. It's easier to learn from what 'can' be done than just discussing what 'shouldn't' be done :cool:
 
tess1 said:
What is the point, from my perspective, of not asking the questions.
Click to expand...

You could use the time and energy you invest in asking these questions doing something a little less futile. For example, if you care that deeply about the use of the buckstopper why not raise it as an issue with an equine / animal charity? Alternatively, you could perhaps do some voluntary work for an equine charity?
 
the most boring HHO argument ever, because I agree with both sides - no time for MR/KM and find some methods distasteful, but also don't care for the tone / wording of some of this thread. How dull :(
 
Why do you assume that I don't already do things to help people and animals?

I have already said I intend to write to the scientists concerned, and other folk involved in research and welfare. I don't believe this is futile. I believe it is valuable that people recognise that the "man who listens to horses" doesn't listen carefully enough to understand that they need to be brought on at the correct pace, not rushed, and not have pain inflicting devices used on them to ensure they "behave" so that he can prove what he set out to prove in his science study. I believe we must all use our energies as we see fit. I do not question why you are expending your time and energy questioning me!
 
tess1 said:
Why do you assume that I don't already do things to help people and animals?

I have already said I intend to write to the scientists concerned, and other folk involved in research and welfare. I don't believe this is futile. I believe it is valuable that people recognise that the "man who listens to horses" doesn't listen carefully enough to understand that they need to be brought on at the correct pace, not rushed, and not have pain inflicting devices used on them to ensure they "behave" so that he can prove what he set out to prove in his science study. I believe we must all use our energies as we see fit. I do not question why you are expending your time and energy questioning me!
Click to expand...

I agree the problem is even if you have evidence people won't believe you, I have been studying meadow management and have given my advice many times on here to keep the horse healthy through feeding, one such post accused me of saying the woman didn't look after her horse properly, which I was actually saying if you change what your growing in your field you can prevent many health problems like laminitis. But people believe what they want scientific or not.
 
rhino said:
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
Click to expand...
Oh I dunno... unethical use of phosphate-buffered saline is a pretty serious matter! :eek: :D
 
See, now, kaylum, I have not heard of your research before seeing this thread and would be interested if you could point me to further reading on it.

Bit like I had not heard of this monty report until reading this thread.

So now, for me, this is not a wasted thread at all. It is a shame tho that we can't find someone in here to post for monty's side of things. Presumably he must have a rationale for his actions? This is a widely read forum so I can't blame anyone for hoping to find out on here what the rationale was. Such a shame that this thread has then stopped being about its original point, which I would love to get back to now, if possible?
 
Well, read through the whole thread.
Amazed.
I really don't like the fact that MR is referred to as a Natural Horsemanship trainer. He is blatantly not.
The Be Nice and Dually halters I really don't like.
As for the buckstopper, not what I'd want to see being used when backing a horse.
To me MR is fear, too much pressure and if that don't work, pain.

Why people cannot see that this is not NH is beyond me, it really is.
 
I am really surprised abut this thread and can see why Tess is asking questions. I thought that the buckstopper was included in the tools taken into the experiment but it has been said previously that it was not used. Which would be consistent with what has been previously said about the buckstopper ie that it is a tool of "last resort". (The last resort discussion having been had several times in the past).


Fburton's comment made me grin anyway...
 
tess1 said:
More serious than the unethical use of buckstoppers on starters in a study to "prove" how kind Monty's methods are? :confused:
Click to expand...
Look, it's not fair to expect everyone to be deadly serious all of the time, even when troubled by greater and lesser ills.
 
tess1 said:
More serious than the unethical use of buckstoppers on starters in a study to "prove" how kind Monty's methods are? :confused:
Click to expand...

Have you ever used a gum line? Because I have not read this paper and would like to know what, in your view, constitutes 'unethical use'.
 
I did indeed ask TFC if KM would be allowed to reply to questions, and his answer is in the feedback and suggestions section for anyone to read.

I joined IDHG and tried to put my questions to kelly on a thread that was stickied which clarified that demo horses were checked for physical conditions before a demo (it was one of the concerns I raised on the last thread on here). The thread over on IDHG got a bit weird; Kelly asked that I PM'd her so we could establish trust first, but I would have prefered it all in the open. She then made a post which made eroneous accusations about what I said on here, so I addressed that openly on the thread with links to my relevant posts on here, and after thought decided against my preference to respect kellys request that I pm her the detail on my enquiry. Which I did, all tge time being very careful to make it evident when something was stated as fact or my opinion. She did respond, but unfortunately her recollection of events is different to mine, including when the demo in question happened! (it was a year ago, and I found a reference to a newspaper article to back this up). In fairness to Kelly I don't expect her to remember the detail of every demo she has ever done, and it is unfortunate that she didnt receive my pm on HHO that I sent at the time, as it would have been in her recent memory. The thread on IDHG was unstickied and disappeared from the front page, and kelly has told me that she will not be back to HHO as she feels that the forum has a bullying culture.

Tess, kelly is highly ynlikely to come on here to respond. May I ask what the purpose of you contacting the scientists involved is? Any experiment must jump through ethics hoops, so it has been approved not once but twice, as anthrozoos would not publish if there was a problem with that.
 
This thread seems to be all over the place! I too LOVE Janetgeorge and agree with everything she says. I suppose , those of us ,like her,who have backed horses for years - with out force,fear,gadgets - can see anyone [ whether MR,PP or their million imitators ] for what they really are .
Usually the hype and ego overcome the best interests of the horse. I d never heard of a buckstopper , and read MT s easy platitudes on the linked thread. Ok, you may use such a thing for a confirmed bucker [who has had every physical check first ] or even a line around their middle , as I ve seen used by Aus N H ers , but WHY would anyone use such a thing on an unbacked horse? WHY would anyone want to quickly back a horse? Wheres the merit in that? Cannot be acheived without elements of fear , force or incomhrehension from the young horse. backing takes TIME. Every decent horseperson knows this. Have just passed our neighbour longreining a TB - a diffficlut youngster - but he is taking the time to get him through it.
Lets gwet back to good horsemanship as an ideal , and away from the self styled gurus - for the sake of the horses.
 
I get rather uncomfortable when a thread about a trainer, or something a trainer has done, somehow turns around into a promotion of someone else.

Just to demonstrate how something might seem wrong if you don't know the background:
I would use a "line" around a young horses middle to prepare them for the back cinch on a western saddle. I wouldn't just weigh in and put a rope around their belly though, I'd make sure they were used to ropes around them first, and then hold the rope on their body so that I could drop it quickly if they got worried, finally progressing to a rope that could be easily removed at the first sign of worry and working them with that in place. I might also use a rope around the girth area with a horse that has started to have problems with girthing, for whatever reason, as a gentle way to reintroduce the feeling of something in that area. Personally I can't think of any reason why you might put a line around a horse's middle to stop it bucking.
 
Fellewell said:
Have you ever used a gum line? Because I have not read this paper and would like to know what, in your view, constitutes 'unethical use'.
Click to expand...

Hell, no :eek: I've never used a buckstopper. But I've seen one used.

To my mind, it is unethical that a trainer who has made a name for himself by "listening to horses" and "speaking the language of equus" has chosen to use a pain-inflicting device on young horses at the very start of their ridden career, in a study designed to "prove" how kind his methods are. The other trainer in the study did not feel the need to use this equipment, and untold numbers of horses are successfully backed in this country every year by professionals without recourse to this gadget. It is "unethical" because this person has made a name for himself for a particular, supposedly "kind" approach to horses, but has now chosen to do something which, it would appear, goes completely against his own, frequently stated "code of ethics" which proclaims "no violence" and that "horses should have a choice".
 
Naturally, I am sure the ethics committees have looked at the study. I would just like to know their thoughts on the use of the buckstopper in the study. I expect I will be stone-walled, but I am not one to give up easily.

Shame you didn't get any further forward with your questions to Kelly.
 
tess1 said:
Hell, no :eek: I've never used a buckstopper. But I've seen one used.

To my mind, it is unethical that a trainer who has made a name for himself by "listening to horses" and "speaking the language of equus" has chosen to use a pain-inflicting device on young horses at the very start of their ridden career, in a study designed to "prove" how kind his methods are. The other trainer in the study did not feel the need to use this equipment, and untold numbers of horses are successfully backed in this country every year by professionals without recourse to this gadget. It is "unethical" because this person has made a name for himself for a particular, supposedly "kind" approach to horses, but has now chosen to do something which, it would appear, goes completely against his own, frequently stated "code of ethics" which proclaims "no violence" and that "horses should have a choice".
Click to expand...

So this is all guesswork on your part.
It could have been used as a twitch for short periods for all we know. I assume you're familiar with the practice of twitching.

This study was not designed to prove how kind he is. It was designed to demonstrate efficacy and technical performance and unfortunately for you he appears to have done rather well.

Why have you been chasing him since 2009?
 
Fellewell said:
So this is all guesswork on your part.
It could have been used as a twitch for short periods for all we know. I assume you're familiar with the practice of twitching.

This study was not designed to prove how kind he is. It was designed to demonstrate efficacy and technical performance and unfortunately for you he appears to have done rather well.

Why have you been chasing him since 2009?
Click to expand...

Efficacy over what time period? Unless a longitudinal study, where the animals are followed up at pre-arranged intervals, over years, is carried out, then I doubt the 'proof' of efficacy in producing a good riding horse.
This man claims that he does not use force and that his methods are 'kind', it therefore seems a little strange that he is using a method, which he claims is one of last resort, to demonstrate the efficacy of his tecnique, on none las resort horses. It does not sound as if it would pass any ethics committe to me. It is not demonstrating what it claims to demonstrate.
 
Fellewell said:
So this is all guesswork on your part.
It could have been used as a twitch for short periods for all we know. I assume you're familiar with the practice of twitching.

This study was not designed to prove how kind he is. It was designed to demonstrate efficacy and technical performance and unfortunately for you he appears to have done rather well.

Why have you been chasing him since 2009?
Click to expand...


Which bits do you think are guesswork? :confused:

Why would you use a "twitch" on horses within the first 10 hours of their training? I thought twitching was used to ensure horses stayed still for unpleasant procedures that they objected to such as clipping or treatment for an injury. Why would any of the horses in the experiment need that as part of their training to be ridden? Let alone why would it be used 10 or more times?

I actually tend to disagree that he has done rather well, as he has clearly had to resort to pain inflicting devices to get his results. It would appear that the conventional trainer did not. I don't think that horse training should be just about the end results - the process is equally important if not more so. Who cares if you can back and ride a horse in 10 hours if during that time the horse has had to wear pacifiers, dummy riders, pressure halters, buckstoppers and gone through numerous join ups to get the end result?

The study is heavily focussed on on displaying Monty's methods as kind and stress free - otherwise there would not be the focus on heart rates (problematic in their own right), and the heart rate monitors would not have played such a large part in his previous demo tours.

In 2009 I discovered he was using buckstoppers on horses in demos. Despite assurances that the particular horse I questioned about was not in pain, it later transpired the horse did have physical issues. I have questioned the use of buckstoppers on horses in demos since then, as I do not believe that it is appropriate to show the use of this kind of gadget to members of the public who are out for an evening's entertainment, and that the place to treat horses with severe behavioural problems is not in demos, but behind the scenes in a calm environment where decisions can be made that are appropriate for the horse without the "pressure to perform" on the trainers.
 
I would be interested to see the full article, if anybody fancies PMing me... My organisation subscribes to lots, but I know from recent experience trying to get Anthrozoos articles is particularly challenging for us :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top