Backing the young horse - NOT the MR way!!

[AMH]

I do think this is a very interesting thread and don't feel the OP is promoting her services.

However, I do think it's a shame that it's pitched in the context of 'this method is 'better' than that method'.

Why not just celebrate that time and patience reap their own reward?

As others have mentioned, NH does not hold the monopoly on poor practise. There are many who break by the 'traditional' method who cause discomfort and distress as a means to a 'quick-fix' end, and also use gadgets to facilitate that.

And, for the record, I have no NH agenda - I'm not an exponent and have never encountered it other than at the odd demo.

 

[Caol Ila]

What a great post, TarrSteps. You said what I had been trying to say, only you said it much better!

The problem I had with this thread from the outset was how it was phrased as an "us" v. "them." I've said, repeatedly, that Janet's methods looks really nice but then it became this whole "British" v. "American" thing, which was a load of tosh. I am American. I learned how to train a horse where I grew up in Colorado, so I'm familiar with what goes on out there. Time and patience were indeed celebrated and the one-day colt starting clinics were not the norm for the average horse owner.

In any case, NH-style trainers like Mark Rashid and Buck Brannaman have stated explicitly that they will not do "colt starting" clinics. Mark wrote in one of his books that a horse only gets once chance in its life to have its first ride, and he doesn't think a busy, stressful, noisy clinic is the place for that. So even amongst trainers who can be broadly placed underneath the same umbrella, there are disagreements and differences.

 

[FairyLights]

slightly OT but I wanted to ask Janet if she takes cients horses for backing and then selling on. I have a 2 yr old who wont be big enough for me. I am thinking about next year.

 

[TarrSteps]

I'm not British or American. Maybe that's why it bothers me so much.

Yes, as I am fond of saying re starting horses "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." This is both the interest (and joy) and the concern (and potential tears) in the proceeding!

As someone mentioned above, though, the sitting on the horse, even the trotting around a bit, is generally not a massive problem IF people are sensible and calm about it and the horse is well prepared and genuine. I think one of the problems can be, though, that people THINK this is the important part, when in fact it's teaching the horse how to GO properly that has the biggest effect on its soundness, happiness and, like it or not, marketability. (I use a similar set up to JG's cavesson although I originally learned it from a western trainer. Starting horses in sidepulls and moving on to combination bridles before going wholly on the snaffle, to protect the mouth - and the mind - is quite common in that sphere. I had a brilliant bridle designed specifically for the task but it's long gone - I keep meaning to get myself one made.)

I always joke that good initial training is health insurance for horses!

Not to get tarred with the same brush, but I quite often now "help" people start their own horses. We have regular booked sessions but they also know they can all if they have a problem or a question and can leave it for me to sort if need be, even if that just means being there to supervise. I'm not shy about saying if I think a horse is suitable for this program or not but generally, given time (more than would be spent by a professional) and patience, it can get the job done. The advantage, too, is that the horse always has someone on the ground who knows it and is experienced. I did a lot of "cannon fodder" work when I was younger and then have mostly done horses on my own, for lack of good help, but it's not really the person on the horse the first few times who has to be experience, it's the person on the ground. The REAL gem in JG's video - even given the nice horse - is the fellow doing the "driving".

 

[Wheels]

Lol I think horsesforever has just shown what free advertising on hho is all about...

Maybe that would have been better as a pm chuck!

 

[Pale Rider]

It always makes me a bit confused (and sad) that these discussions about how to start/train horses are based on an adversarial premiss - "we" are doing it right, "these other people" are doing it wrong. I just haven't seen that in my travels. I've seen good and bad horsemen in every sphere, producing lovely horses and damaged ones respectively. I haven't generally found it matters much which hat they wear, so long as their principles are sensible, empathetic, take into account the horse's long term health and happiness AND recognise that most horses will have to live in the real world with the rest of us and you're not necessarily doing them any favours by making things too "perfect" or adhering too strictly to a relatively uncommon path.

Why does it have to be "Americans are bad, British people are good"? I don't think because I've met a few people here who seem to assume being British makes them inherently good horsemen (when evidence might suggest otherwise) everyone here feels or acts that way. Nor do I think because you see people hammering driving horses down paved roads here (something you hardly ever see in North America, perhaps outside of Mennonite/Amish etc areas) means everyone thinks that's desirable behaviour. Even saying "cowboys did this" isn't wholly accurate as there are certainly respected trainers with huge following from that school of thought who are brilliant horsemen.

I will say - and this is me being hugely reductionist and judgemental - there do seem to be a lot more defensive people here. I just never hear Americans (or Germans, or French etc) give much time to saying "Those British people are doing it wrong." Maybe it's a New World thing - there is simply not "an American" school of thought - but I am curious why successful people steeped in such tradition of horsemanship feel the need to define themselves externally. What does it matter what other people do if you're doing a good job? And why does other people doing something differently - and successfully - negate your own efforts? I agree it's annoying to see people doing something you love and are good at in a "bad" way but that's hardly limited to one school of thought! People can choose how they progress with their horse - why would we want it to be different?

The "problem" with MR, Parelli et al is the publicity, no? Monty, to give him his due, does not recommend that people break a horse in a day and consider the job done. I agree there's a disconnect in actually DOING that for performance purposes but I guess his original purpose was to prove such a thing could be done without violence (even though he's hardly the only person to think that). Quick "colt starting" is a real tradition in the cowboy world (originally practical, obviously, but now mainly competitive) so I guess his point was you can get that done without tying the horse down etc. Now, whether you agree or not with the basic idea (I do not, because I do not live in a world where the rewards of it outweigh the risks) is a different story but there is a context for his original point.

Should people who have their own horse seek to emulate that? No, of course not. Why? They are not constrained by time AND they don't have the experience to make the right calls that quickly. (Yes, experience comes with practice but if you are going to learn to do something you learn to do it right, then you learn to do it quickly.)

Also, as has been said above, horses are individuals. The guys doing demos do pick and choose appropriate horses. And they admit this but perhaps not firmly and loudly enough.

Starting horses in a day is a "trick", really it is. I guess it comes down to responsibility - is it the responsibility of the showman to explain why the audience cannot/should not do as they do? On the other hand, as also discussed, if someone goes to a Oli Townend demo or buys a Tim Stockdale DVD do they instantly think it makes them an expert at eventing or showjumping?

I would have to agree though with RuthM and her suggestion that GOOD professional starting of horses is underrated. Which is not to say that people can't or shouldn't start their own, but why is it assumed it's "easy" or that every horses would be suitable for every novice to learn on. Learning, by definition, means making mistakes and ANYONE starting a horse does have to at least acknowledge that their mistakes might cost a horse for a life time. If they accept that, if they are humble and make it about the horse, not themselves, then they will probably be all right or at least will get help when they need it.

The minute it becomes about ego, about proving you can do it/do it better, when it stops being always about asking the questions, "Does the horse understand? Is the horse progressing? Are we both safe?" then there are far more likely to be problems.

It's a trick. We all need to work in a proven system (novices and professionals alike) but at the same time, the horse has to always be more important than slavish devotion to ANY system.

Excellent post here TarrSteps, as usual.

You are right, a lot of what goes on here does desend into adversarial arguments, which is often a pity as most of the really good stuff gets overlooked.

I have to say, that I was attempting, in my last post not to fall into this trap but, just to say 'we do things a bit different' Whether we are right or wrong wasn't really the issue for me, I'm not trying to convert or subvert anyone.

When you look at some of the colt starting competitions in the States for example, they are often starting horses which have to be tamed before any real starting, or backing in the UK sense takes place. Very few horses in the UK start from the position of having little or no positive contact with humans. Yet, they can be started in a couple of days. Now, whether or not you agree with the 'competition' and for many reasons on a personal note, I don't, the application of technique and level of skill has to be admired, and no one in their right mind would even attempt this without proper training themselves.

I take the view that a horses education starts as a foal, and progresses through its early years to the point where actually getting on its back and transfering all the ground skills it has learned to the saddle, happens as just routine for the horse. I feel that the concept of turning young horses away, is wasting their most valuble learning years. Equally, care must be taken not to make a young horse stale, by constant repetition and drilling the horse. That though is in the skill of the trainer who has a duty to keep things fresh and interesting for the young horse.

Taking on a young horse that has been newly started is in my view a massive responsibility for a horse owner, and for someone taking on a 4 or 5 year old as their first horse is not ideal. The first horse you own should have been there and done it, because whatever you are taught or whoever teaches you, nothing compares with what you learn from a horse. It's unfair on both you and the horse to both be learning at the same time.

 

[kimberleigh]

I had zero idea who JG is (and still don't either, except for getting the impression she may back/break horses for a living!) - to me she is just a name on here; I don't feel any need to go getting into petty arguments on an internet forum or searching someone's name for what they may have/have not posted on or about...I'm not 12 after all!

Come on guys, JG posted a good video as an example of how she backs horses - the horse looks to be happy and relaxed with the methods used (which surely is the most important part of backing a youngster?!), so really is it worth all the 'he said/she said' playground bickering?

For what its worth if I were JG I would happily post a video of my happy, newly backed horse and be accused of advertising (shock horror, the worst possible crime in the world I may add!!), if it was of eductional value to others who may actually learn something from it!!

Kim

 

[JanetGeorge]

Why does it have to be "Americans are bad, British people are good"? I don't think because I've met a few people here who seem to assume being British makes them inherently good horsemen (when evidence might suggest otherwise) everyone here feels or acts that way. Nor do I think because you see people hammering driving horses down paved roads here (something you hardly ever see in North America, perhaps outside of Mennonite/Amish etc areas) means everyone thinks that's desirable behaviour. Even saying "cowboys did this" isn't wholly accurate as there are certainly respected trainers with huge following from that school of thought who are brilliant horsemen.

That certainly wasn't my line (after all, I'm not British, I'm Australian!) Thething that gets on my wick is MR and PP coming over here and trying to claim that everyone ELSE (other than them) is wrong. PP is the worst in this regard and his 'disciples' can be even worse - a good friend of mine was literally driven off the livery yard she'd been at for years when it was taken over by Parelli followers who tried to brainwash her into playing games with her horse!

And I agree TOTALLY that there are good and bad in EVERY 'camp'! I have NO time for MR or PP because they exploit horses for publicity and profit. There are NH trainers who I think are 'good' and BHS trainers I wouldn't let NEAR a horse of mine! (And vice versa of course!)

 

[tristar]

my opinion is that the backing and riding away process is a crucial moment in a horses life, that first impression that you go forward properly when asked, can make or spoil a horse, i think it accounts for many horses that are not properly forward, almost hanging back, which is the worst fault in the early training , yet i've seen horses like this win dressage comps! when i got one like this i could hardly make it move! i felt like i could'nt be bothered to ride that every day.

the only thing about the video, and this is not meant as critisism, is, i would like to see the young lady rider using her legs not so far back, but nearer the girth.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I would have to agree though with RuthM and her suggestion that GOOD professional starting of horses is underrated. Which is not to say that people can't or shouldn't start their own, but why is it assumed it's "easy" or that every horses would be suitable for every novice to learn on. Learning, by definition, means making mistakes and ANYONE starting a horse does have to at least acknowledge that their mistakes might cost a horse for a life time.

Have separated these two quotes as they are very different subjects (and an excellent, thoughtful post TarrSteps!)

I have often considered writing "The Dummy's Guide to Horse Starting" - after all, backing a horse is NOT rocket science and any reasonably competent, confident rider working to a sensible 'guide' could back 9 out of 10 horses successfully - or even 19 out of 20 if they were lucky! The problem arises with that ONE horse for whom a standard programme just doesn't work. There ARE professional trainers out there - who have good reputations and do a good job with 9/10 or 19/20 - but make a pig's dinner of that ONE (either wrecking it totally - or sending it home as 'unbreakable'!

But the existence of that one horse stops me doing it - because I just couldn't write a guide to recognising that ONE horse early on - or deciding which extra tools have to be pulled out of the tool box to enable you to deal with it. And if you get it wrong, the horse is wrecked - or you are dead or in a wheelchair - or both!! That's TOO big a responsibility!

As I mentioned in an earlier post - until last year I had NEVER considered sending a horse home as 'unbreakable' - but last year I had TWO where I came very close to it! They were both very different, with different problems (although both had physical issues that had to be sorted first!) Both horses were potentially dangerous and I spent literally hours discussing the options with my two senior riders (and between us we have probably backed more than 2,000 horses) And there was no easy answer - it was trial and error! And that's the risk of 'The Dummy's Guide' - and why I'll probably never write it!

I did a lot of "cannon fodder" work when I was younger and then have mostly done horses on my own, for lack of good help, but it's not really the person on the horse the first few times who has to be experience, it's the person on the ground. The REAL gem in JG's video - even given the nice horse - is the fellow doing the "driving".

VERY true!! The lass on the mare is a novice at backing horses - she is learning and this is about her 4th horse with me. Phil is the senior partner - and he is on the mare now getting her hacking out. I am fortunate to have two VERY capable and experienced 'lads' (Phil and John - although John is well past being a 'lad') and each of them works with one of the girls who are learning the ropes. The two girls trust John and Phil NOT to put them at risk - and KNOW they still have an enormous amount to learn before they could take the senior role. I wish like hell I'd had a job like theirs when i was just starting - I learnt the hard way!

 

[Pearlsasinger]

That certainly wasn't my line (after all, I'm not British, I'm Australian!) Thething that gets on my wick is MR and PP coming over here and trying to claim that everyone ELSE (other than them) is wrong. PP is the worst in this regard and his 'disciples' can be even worse - ............................................................................................... I have NO time for MR or PP because they exploit horses for publicity and profit. There are NH trainers who I think are 'good' and BHS trainers I wouldn't let NEAR a horse of mine! (And vice versa of course!)

I commented on the fact that MR and PP are American, for the very reason that JG cites here. THEY are the ones who describe 'traditional methods of horse-breaking' as being to the detriment of the horse. This leads me (and many others) to assume that they must be talking about the traditional American methods that are linked to rodeos etc, as traditional British methods, when they are done properly, enable the rider to work in partnership with the horse, rather than dominating it.
I appreciate that not all British horses are broken sympathetically and would not support these 'breakers' any more than I support PP and MR. However I do not know of any such British 'breaker' who publicises their work in the way that these 2 'cowboys' (and I use that word advisedly with all its connotations) do.

 

[TarrSteps]

But they are just two people and nothing to you, are they? To be fair to Monty I haven't really got that vibe - he thinks his methods are BEST, but then surely that's true of all of us, otherwise why would we be using the methods we do?

I've done horses in quite a few systems now, both as a rider and on the ground, and generally found, done well, you get decent results from them all, given the usual qualifiers.

Two things that have been my experience though. . .one, systems are systems for a reason and are not as 'mix and match' as some people think. You can learn valuable things from studying different approaches, and there is a lot of overlap, but to some extent they have to be seen as whole cloth.

Two, different systems often work more directly towards specific ends, looking at the big picture. Knowing what the horse's eventual job is likely to be can make certain approaches more suitable than others because, as we've observed, the first time you pick up the rein or affect the way of going,.you are starting to teach the horse what people will want from it. Of course you can start one way then backtrack - it's better to use a good trainer from a different discipline than a bad one from your own - but I think it's an advantage if the person doing the initial riding had knowledge of the end goal.

One exception might be particularly difficult horses, although again, in that case you're just looking for a specialist!

 

[TarrSteps]

There are lots of people that are based in/come to the UK promoting similar systems and/or taking horses for training - Michael Peace, Jason Webb, Clinton Anderson (when I see him work perhaps my least favourite of the bunch), Mark Rashid, Buck Brannaman and many others who operate in the US and Canada - John Lyons for instance - but don't figure prominently here. There are also French and German 'alternatives' starting to publish in English.

Parelli has tried a couple of times now to ally himself with prominent trainers in other disciplines to make 'better' event and dressage horses, for instance. This has not been an unqualified success. Same with Monty addressing the Global Dressage Forum - the methods have limited application in other spheres.

Which is my long winded way of saying there is a lot more to it. There are things JG's people are doing in that vid which would be frowned upon in a BHS test. What does that mean? Who is 'wrong'?

 

[TarrSteps]

Btw, how come people who don't believe MR and PP's methods are right believe them when they say the other people in 'America' are doing it wrong?

 

[Tinypony]

There are lots of people that are based in/come to the UK promoting similar systems and/or taking horses for training - Michael Peace, Jason Webb, Clinton Anderson (when I see him work perhaps my least favourite of the bunch), Mark Rashid, Buck Brannaman and many others who operate in the US and Canada - John Lyons for instance - but don't figure prominently here. There are also French and German 'alternatives' starting to publish in English.

Parelli has tried a couple of times now to ally himself with prominent trainers in other disciplines to make 'better' event and dressage horses, for instance. This has not been an unqualified success. Same with Monty addressing the Global Dressage Forum - the methods have limited application in other spheres.

Which is my long winded way of saying there is a lot more to it. There are things JG's people are doing in that vid which would be frowned upon in a BHS test. What does that mean? Who is 'wrong'?

Blimey, I thinkthe people you've listed there would be horrified to be thought to be using similar systems to Monty.

 

[TarrSteps]

Really? Compared to the 'traditional' British system? All those mentioned use round pen work, disengaging the hind quarters and other common 'western' practices.

My only point was that people are taking a tiny sample and extrapolating out from it, which isn't fair. I am not Monty's greatest fan, frankly, but even I would have to admit many people have had success with their horses using his methods and I've started horses similarly when the situation and facilities suggest it's the best choice.

Even Pat has brought interesting things to the party. Many of the ' Games' are quite standard ground work practices.

I am cautious of extremes. Anyone who takes a good idea and turns it into a religion is suspect in my book and anyone who only ever considers one point of view is missing out and, perhaps subconsciously, being judgemental by saying other views have no possible value.

I hate that horsemen fight! And, generally, the more experienced and talented people are,.the more interested they are in what other people are up to. But schools of riding have always verged on religion - usually with a strong nationalistic bent - so plus sa change, plus sa meme chose,.I guess.

 

[JanetGeorge]

There are things JG's people are doing in that vid which would be frowned upon in a BHS test. What does that mean? Who is 'wrong'?

Thankfully, the BHS doesn't examine on backing horses!

I have history with the BHS - and I support it. I came to England originally to do BHS exams - and then ended up working for the BHS for 3 years - initially as Head of Public Affairs and then as Acting CE for 8 months. But only one of my staff is BHS qualified - and I wouldn't let her NEAR a breaker.

The BHS 'rules' are a great starting point - teach people to do things safely when they aren't experienced enough to make their own judgements. But a lot of them don't work with breakers - in particular, things like standing still when lunging: it used to be a fail if you walked around when lunging. But with breakers you HAVE to - you need to keep them going forward with your body position - and have them on a short line for control - but a large circle to save their joints when they're unbalanced.

 

[TarrSteps]

That's kind of my point. It was a running joke that even though I taught people for the equivalent exams I'd most likely fail now as do all sorts of "wrong" things without thinking and because it works better that way.

It just goes back to the idea that it depends on whose standards you are using. I'm amused by most of the books on starting horses I've ever read because most start with a premiss - "first you get your round pen/two helpers/stock saddle/experieced lead horse/off road hacking" and offer no alternative ideas if you don't have whatever they consider essential. Again, I agree a system is a system and you can't just leave bits out but it does prove that there are many ways to skin a cat or most horses in the world would never get started!

I'd say what bothers me most about some of the "showmen" is they shy away from discussing the most important piece of equipment, especially if the horse is not straightforward - the people! I've seen videos of you and the fellow who works for you, JG, and a big part of why you are so successful is you're good horsemen and know what you're up to. Say what you will about people like Monty and how they use their skills, they are vastly experienced and know a lot about horses, much of it they don't even know they know anymore. For them to say "do as I do and you'll get the me results" is disingenuous at best and potentially dangerous at worst. No one thinks they are going to like Mark Todd from a few videos or clinics . . .

Which is not to say that inexperienced people should not start horses but surely there has to be some recognition that it's something people have to learn, that they will make mistakes doing it (in the same way that almost everyone has diminished horses in their ridden work through inexperience), that not every horse is a suitable starter model and that not every rider has the necessary time, patience and skill to do a good job.

 

[lizstuguinness]

BHS doesnt work for anything above riding school. I struggled like mad with one of my top horses I simply couldnt stop him or keep his attention. Had some training with Rob Hoekstra who promptly told me to forget everything id ever been told about riding. had my lunging with eyes closed, and riding eyes closed too - that took some confidence but teaches you alot. Thank God. Riding is now so much simpler and more intuitave.
I think its the same with the rest of the NH brigade, frankyl ive never understood the "games" why poke and wave a stick at your horse? just spent time with it getting it to trust you? surely its that simple? well its worked for all of the 30 odd horses that ive bred, broken and competed. hardly rocket science.

 

[Caol Ila]

There is something to be said for presenting horse training as more of concrete system. Not for the horses, but for the people working with them. Here is an anecdote which illustrates what I mean.

When I was 13, I got my first horse, a 10-year old appendix QH named Angie. I wasn't completely green -- I'd been in regular riding lessons since I was 7, had done care-for-a-pony day camps, that sort of thing. Nevertheless, it didn't take long before both Angie and I realised how little I knew and within a few months of buying her, I was faced with all sorts of behaviour problems. As a teenager in love with horses, I of course spent loads of time with her trying to get her to "trust" me. It just didn't bloody well work! Horse had my number. Same old story. Only this was in the days before internet forums, so I couldn't come online and moan about it.

Anyway, there was a boarder (American for livery) at my barn who was doing a certification in a horse training method called TTEAM. It was all the rage in the 90s but seems to have gone out of fashion. She took me under her wing and using these methods, turned around my rapidly deteriorating relationship with this horse. The methods might look "gimmicky" to the outside observer. You have a 4' dressage whip called a "wand" that you use to signal and direct the horse, and touching it on various parts of its body is a cue for different things (you never smack it with the wand; it should never be seen in that way by you or the horse. If a smack is warranted, use something else). You have a "TTEAM lead," which is essentially a stud chain, but wrapped around the noseband of the headcollar so it does not apply direct, painful pressure to the horse in the way they're traditionally used. Could you use any other halter? Sure, but something about having these "TTEAM" things gave the whole process more focus. Most of the exercises involved using the wand to get the horse to yield different parts of its body and leading the horse through various obstacles: around barrels, over various configurations of poles on the ground, and practicing different ways of leading such as leading close to the horse's head, leading at the end of the lead, and so on. The exercises all had silly names (which I can't remember). There was also a "touch" component, wherein you learned various "TTOUCH"s which essentially played off the horse's accupressure points and helped them feel good and relaxed (I still use some of these to this day; they do work!).

The point of this rambling narrative is that as kid, I "got" this method because it was straightforward and concrete. A clearly laid out series of exercises, all with a specific, carefully laid-out goal, is something even a ditzy teenager can get a handle on. You have your special tools that make you feel more purposeful, which of course makes you seem like more of a "leader" to your horse. It enabled me to communicate with my horse and provided a fantastic foundation for understanding how horses think. As a fairly clueless teenager, I would have struggled with the more abstract writings of guys like Mark Rashid and would have been in real trouble if someone told me working with my horse was "common sense" and "intuitive." For me at the time and for thousands of other novice horse owners, it's not!

Should people rely on the tools and exercises as a crutch? Should they close their mind to other things because they have the "one right way." Of course not. They should absolutely expand their horizons and learn about all sorts of methods and philosophies and most importantly, listen to what the horse itself has to teach. But methods like TTEAM, or even Parelli's seven games (which I don't like very much, but hey ho) can offer a concrete basis for a lifetime's education. You can't do calculus until you can add.

 

[TarrSteps]

Excellent example and explanation, CI.

One note re the TTEAM stuff, a lot of the routines Linda promoted are standard physio/rehabilitation/proprioceptive exercises and, as you say, combined with "body work". All before it was common for every horse to have regular massage, chiro etc. I suspect at least some of the time there was a multipronged approach going on rather than it being a straight training exercise.

In fact, that's true of quite a lot of "ground work". Teaching a horse to move its body in proscribed directed ways is physical therapy as well as training and can provide the horse with "ah ha" moments about what people want from it and how to comply. Good riding should be yoga for horses, too. Which is another reason trainers have to follow "rules" - because if a horse is allowed to learn to move or behave in "incorrect" ways there can be repercussions way down the line. One of the things experience teaches is that it's not okay to let horses be crooked or rushed or tense because undoing the problem later is a heck of a lot more work. For inexperienced trainers it's easier to follow a system - the horse must do these exercises in these forms - than to continually assess quite subtle cues about how the horse is breathing, loading its legs etc. That will come later - and is one of those things I mentioned that experienced good trainers monitor without thinking - but at the beginning it might very well be best for people to simpy accept that for instance, a horse has to learn to move its hindquarters by stepping both in front and behind the stationary leg, or that it has to learn to do everything in both directions. Many first time trainers figure that sort of thing is just nitpicking and find out only down the line why it isn't. One benefit of the more codified systems is they make people pay attention to that stuff "just because" until they see why it's important.

 

[JanetGeorge]

One point about backing that I have become increasingly aware of is that too many horses are not 'fit' to be backed - and the owners are not aware of it! Just because a horse is a youngster and has never been ridden does NOT mean that it is sound and fit to work.

On top of the two real problem horses we had last year, we have had THREE this year already that were not fit to be backed. Two were sent home within a week, one with the recommendation that he be taken to a good veterinary hospital for diagnosics. He has been seen by Chris Colles and diagnosed as an old cervical injury - probably suffered as a foal. The other was a rescue job which was just far too immature, with its backside a hand higher than its wither and the back sagging between the two (owner was advised to do lots of walking in hand up and down hill once it levelled up - and to wait until it was at least 4 before considering backing.) Another we started with although we were unhappy with its way of moving - got to walk and trot under the rider and it was clear it wasn't coping - this one also looks like a long-standing neck injury that has left it weak and un-co-ordinated behind. So it's going home to be taken for diagnostics.

Watching novices (and some professionals too!!) handle foals makes me cringe!!!! Headcollars on and USED too young, foals fighting and pulling back - sometimes falling, people forcing foals to move by pulling their tails over their backs - and worse. I am convinced that rough, careless or ignorant foal handling is responsible for MANY unseen injuries that lead to problems later on. We NEVER lead a foal off a headcollar until it is around 3-4 months old: they wear them, but they also have a lead rope around the neck and a bum rope so there is no need to pull on their heads which encourages foals to pull back and go down - or over! (The rule at my stud is that if a youngster goes over on the yard, you'd damn well better be under it - cushioning its fall! )

 

[TarrSteps]

^ Absolutely.

I always find it interesting that once horses reach riding age people almost always claim injuries happen in the field and yet many people assume unbacked horses could not possibly have sustained an injury. . .clearly the truth is in the middle somewhere.

Related to that the idea that any problems that crop up early *must* be behavioural or, at most be related to teeth or saddle fit (lets not even start on the subject of saddle fitting and unbacked horses).

This is another thing people learn by experience - if the horse doesn't look or behave 'normally' (within quite a large range) then it is not coping and needs further investigation.

The same with when a horse is ready to back. I, personally, like to see young horses out with their peers on varied footing, developing physically and mentally, even if it means they don't get much handling. My PERSONAL experience is more long term problems result from keeping young horses like hot house flowers and substituting human work for horse play. I haven't even found it makes much difference to the backing process, so long as what handling the horse had had has been sensible and positive.

I find many people keep baby horses like grown ups under the excuse that it teaches then what they need to know, meaning the ways of man. But especially if we are going to ask our horses to push their mental and physical limits later on, what they really need to learn to be is strong, agile and physically brave. They also benefit from learning how to live in a herd and speak good Horse.

Again though, to each their own. But I do think people who are starting horses have to give some thought to the whole horse, even if that's not the most convenient path. (Btw, I'd also say leaving horses too long to back isn't doing them any favours either. I've certainly seen late backed horses succeed but it tends to be a tougher process.)

 

[Equilibrium Ireland]

Agree with watching people and foals. Cringeworthy. I put headcollars on and then off for turnout and vice versa coming in. It's not my intention to teach them to wear the headcollar. However, I do lead them before 3 or 4 months. You can be capable of doing so without risking injury. Mine need their feet done in that span of time and need to know about some pressure. To each his own but if I can break horses I should be capable of leading/teaching without doing damage. I also use slip through ropes on babies and not snaps.

And please stop generalising about how people break horses in America. As if all of America has only horseman capable of bucking one out to get them broke. Those NH guys sure have done a good job of portraying it that a way. Wrong.

Terri

 

[RuthM]

Another one agreeing with poor foal handling! I worked on a large set-up that saw a years crop of foals born, weaned and then turned out for years until ready to break. When they came in they weren't that well handled but were fresh and unspoiled, they did get moved and some handling between so weren't wild but not 'handled' as in people attempting to do more than hat was needed for health/welfare. They were fairly simple to break.

The other thing I think effects fitness at 3/4yrs is the lack of selection of brood mares. We would see between 100 and 200 come in each year to be covered (just before AI really took off, 3 coverings a day etc!). While stallions still seemed to be a rarity in the circles I worked in and very selected, mares - half the youngstock's genes, were not. Sentimentality might have it's place but it's place isn't in breeding, just because someone adores their lovely mare that failed to stay sound till she was 8 doesn't mean the reasons she did not stay sound are any less genetic. Also people are often poor judges of their own horses, ie, see them as more 'special' than they are. That's not a disrespectful comment because I think the favouring is just human nature, I do it too! Seeing swathes of mares pass through almost none were of the standard of the stallions and some were sent home as unethical to breed from.

But, as I alluded to earlier, if there isn't cash in the cure it doesn't get cured. If how to solve a problem (in this case - trauma to horses during breaking) isn't profitable, salable, merchandisable, then it gets left. Alot of what works is as dull as dishwater but still correct and functional.

 

[cornbrodolly]

It will probably annoy many on this forum , but I would say the words of wisdom are coming from those who have backed many horses over many years. Its no use saying 'x' method did a great job of mine , or that I backed one horse using a method therefore its great. I know horse magazines are constantly requested for acticles on how to back your own horse - some will get away with doing their own - depending on the horse s personality and the owners common sense. But really to back a horse you need the experience of having observed then worked with dozens of horses.
What DOESNT work - this is my opinion -
backing too quickly for unstanding and comprehension to take place - should never be less than 3 weeks minimum imho.
backing with fear and force
punishment ,roughness,shouting,'give it a pasting'
trying to tire a horse out to make it comply
humiliating the horse/ tie down with every rope and gadget
endless lunging/ boring it to death
using a whip to intimidate
inexperienced handlers that think love is enough
horse too young or unfit or physically unready for work

Horses treated to any of the above will soon become a problem , and as any restart expert will tell you , to erase a bad backing is SOOO difficult.[ Our most difficult restart was 9 weeks.]

OH backed horses for nearly 40 years - but we have stopped- [ so no I m not advertising - and JG probably wasnt either ]- because good horse people are always full of horses to back or reback - word of mouth is all you need , when you re doing the job properly.!
I helped back youngsters with an event rider many years ago, and obviously have helped OH. Until 1999 all our work was BHS , and can say it was done well, with every thought to the horse, no force,fear, gadgets. However, coming across N H led to even better backing - not a shorter lengths of time , but getting better results.
Like Pale Rider [ whom I think I know and have met - did you Dales ponies at one point?] we dont use voice commands . One reason would be illustrated by the gypsy cob we have; he was a driving horse for many years, but now only ridden. 'Whoa' 'Stand' etc were great for the first few months , but as we werent used to making voice commands , we often forgot. And guess what - within a few months he forgot them too! he s agood lad , so now we just laugh when he wont 'Whoa' on command!

 

[tristar]

tteam linda tellington-jones was slightly different in some respects to recent 'natural horsemanship' exponents,? she semed to look indepth at why the horse did what it did even down to anylising, (can't spell sorry,) personality through markings, and the relation of conformation and a horses ability in certain disciplines, and she was accepted and worked with some very high level competition horses.

 

[Caol Ila]

DIY backing has gained a lot of popularity. I remember more people using professional trainers to do it even as recently as fifteen years ago in the US. The trouble seems to be that there is a lack of education into how horses think and as a result, I see loads of confused and "misbehaving" youngsters. Horses acquire unwanted behaviours as easily as desired ones. A horse who has learned the wrong behaviours is labeled as "disrespectful" while one who has learned the right behaviours is labeled as having "good manners." But ALL of their interactions with humans are learned behaviours. That's where the horseman needs to be aware of everything he or she does, and the underlying principles supporting it, or risk inadvertantly teaching the horse the incorrect thing. You can sentence a horse to a lifetime of people shouting at it if you're not careful.

Linda Tellington-Jones is generally not considered to be in the "NH camp." The similarity lies in the fact that both she and Rashid, Brannaman, Chris Cox, et al are interested in and insightful about horse psychology and behaviour. I used her work as an example above because it was the first thing I learned when I got beyond the riding school stage, and the manner in which the exercises are presented as concrete ideas with a specific goal was exactly the kind of schooling I needed. It takes more education before the developing horseman grasps the "whole," and systems like TTEAM are one way of educating.

I also think her work on conformation is fantastic and should be more available. If you know something about that, it can have a positive effect on how you ride a particular horse to its strengths.

 

[Cortez]

I think that ANY system (that is not abusive, obvs) is better than none. I don't find the BHS way particularly insightful or effective, but at least it is a structure for otherwise uninformed people to start with. The best way to learn to break is to shadow an experienced, reputable person (the way I learned, millions of years ago). Also, NO SYSTEM works 100% of the time on 100% of horses. And every system (bar the abusive ones, as above) has something of interest to the non-closed minded, the trouble is with people who don't know enough to be able to sift out the nonsense.

 

[TarrSteps]

^ That's it in a nutshell.

I do think the proliferation of diy backing (and systems that are promoted as making that possible) had its roots in economic and social factors as well.

As more people come in to horses late in life and without a rural background, there has been a proliferation of people whose theory outstrips their practical experience. The internet and video has contributed to this, of course, and more people think they know what to do because they've seen it done when in fact watching a video and shadowing a good trainer are very different experiences.

Combined with the huge increase in the availability of custom bred horses targeted for sport, and you have a lot more people with high aspirations but perhaps fewer resources, both financial and in terms of a support system. So people see getting a well bred young horse and doing the work themselves as an easy and cheap way to end up with a super competition horse.

So there is a ready market for people who tell them what they want to hear