Define Natural horsemanship

B

Brandy

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2010
Messages
1,490
Visit site
Just wondering what people think really. Just been reading other threads that mention NH a lot and wondered what it actually means to people?

Am not after an arguement by the way.
 
I've always thought it was a horse and human partnership where the horse worked with (not for) the human without the use of artificial aids. This of course could be, and probably is, wrong but it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it :D
 
I think it is methods which try to mimic the natural communication of the horses. A way of training them in style that they readily understand and accept. I use quite a few of the methods myself, but mix them with a more traditional approach depending on the horse concerned. They are all very different and different things work with different horses.

Parelli is probably the best known of the regimes.

There are two main things that I dislike about Parelli though:

I think they are a money making machine and rip off many gullible people.

Some of their methods are cruel IMO. Too much seems about dominating the horse, even thought they would strongly argue against this.

I DO like some Parelli methods though, such as handling the horse on the ground and getting it to repsect your space. But sometimes I think it is taken too far and it becomes abusive if carried out by clueless handlers. There are good Parelli practitioners and bad ones, just like in traditional horsemanship.
 
Wagtail said:
I think it is methods which try to mimic the natural communication of the horses. A way of training them in style that they readily understand and accept. I use quite a few of the methods myself, but mix them with a more traditional approach depending on the horse concerned. They are all very different and different things work with different horses.

Parelli is probably the best known of the regimes.

There are two main things that I dislike about Parelli though:

I think they are a money making machine and rip off many gullible people.

Some of their methods are cruel IMO. Too much seems about dominating the horse, even thought they would strongly argue against this.

I DO like some Parelli methods though, such as handling the horse on the ground and getting it to repsect your space. But sometimes I think it is taken too far and it becomes abusive if carried out by clueless handlers. There are good Parelli practitioners and bad ones, just like in traditional horsemanship.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree!
I have always said I like some of the ground work and phychology that Pat Parelli uses but then I don't like the harsher methods.
I take the bits I like and mix them into how I would handle a horse. I like some of the Monty Roberts stuff too.
As Wagtail has said there are good and bad practitioners of every method.
 
I think I always thought that NH methods would mimic the way horses behave with each other - as Wagtail said. I saw Monty Roberts years ago and did think, well yes thats how I have always caught my difficult to catch pony. I did still eanr from watching and thinki prefer Monty Roberts due to the lack of promotion - I know you can buy the dvd and halter etc but its a lot less in your face than Parelli.

Re the way horses behave among themselves, when one of my ponies kicked me for no reason other than he didn't want his leg brushed, I smacked him with my hand - stung my hand, he probably didn't even notice. Was this a bad thing to do? I can;t say I thought it through before hand but I see it that if he was in the field with another of my horses and randomly kicked he would expect to be kicked back. I was certainly criticised by other liveries for smacking him. Don;t get me wrong, I am not a horse beater.

I do think that the use of sticks and other things to inflict pain is wrong and I do lump parelli methods in with this.
 
It's one of those terms that has ended up essentially meaningless because a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon and of course anyone can say they are practising "natural horsemanship". I think it was coined in America by a trainer who very much regrets ever inventing it now, I'm sure I saw quite a good article on it recently but I can't find it again. Quite a lot of people who might be considered NH are moving away from the term, Monty Roberts never uses it anymore, because they don't want to be associated or "lumped in" with everyone else who does. Also, it doesn't really make sense because when you come down to it very little in horsemanship can be termed truly "natural" (sitting on them for one!).

I would say the popular definition is a training method that emphasises the horses body language, training without punishment and the avoidance of gadgets / equipment that force a particular shape or behaviour (although whether everyone who claims to be NH really fits into this is another thing). It also seems to have expanded in the last few years to include horse-care methods that may be considered more natural (or are at least "alternative") such as barefoot, bitless etc.

Of course there is also "Parelli Natural Horsemansip", which is a brand name.
 
To me natural horsemanship should be a way of communicating/engaging with horses in a way that is 'natural' to them - i.e mimicking how they communicate with each other. It SHOULD be far less stressful for the horse - especially worried/tense/unconfident types - as what you are asking should already make a degree of sense to them.

However, as others have mentioned, it is every bit as easy to abuse as traditional horsemanship and as such can also cause a great deal of damage.
 
My old boss was massively into her NH, but wasnt very good at it, and both humans and equines alike had lots of fun laughing at just how badly she coped with anything other than perfectly behaved schoolmasters.

I'm reading up alot at the moment about the way horses behave with eachother and taking bits and bobs from that.

But the way i have always behaved is to be the boss after all and not take dicking about, but to have an understanding with the way horses see the world, and how they react with their own species and coming to a common ground where we both understand eachother, like on the other thread about horses viewing somethingthey dont trust with their left eye and a few members didnt realise this is why to work with a horse from the left.

My version of NH would be to be able to get a horse to do what you want it to, because it wants to. exactly the same principle with dogs. I want my horse to feel good for pleasing me but not feel forced into it (especiacially forced with pain).
 
To me it's an holistic approach to horses based on learning from, about and what horses 'are' as opposed to what we humans might think they are.

I'm in a rush so will think through carefully.
 
Dr Robert Millar has written a couple of excellent books on the subject which save us the bother of going over it all incessantly!

http://barefootandbitless.webs.com/books.htm

"Highly respected and internationally acclaimed veterinarian Robert Miller reveals the "secrets" of behavioural psychology that create the bond between horse and rider. By following the easy-to-understand steps to in this practical volume, any rider can create a unique bond with their horse, beginning with the understanding that horses are not afraid of predators, but only of predatory behaviour - which humans can often inadvertently display. Presenting readers with practical information and new insights, this volume uses case histories to demonstrate the success that can be found with natural horsemanship, as well as the latest techniques and innovations."
 
Last edited:
Had to threaten a weekend helper with the sack a few years ago as it took him forever to catch anything. Instead of just walking up & putting a headcollar on he insisted on sending them away & then looking down at the floor to encourage them to come towards him !
I think it is now a meaningless terminology used for anyone hoping to start a bandwagon big enough to make some money out of. This is unfortunate, because there are some truely gifted people out there, such as Richard Maxwell & Kelly Marks (both pupils of Monty Roberts) along with several others who are less well known.
 
To me it is training a horse using methods that mirror how equines behave in a natural, herd environment, without the use of force or artificial aids.

Which is all very well and good, but surely even a rope around the neck (or, god forbid, a carrot stick) is an artificial aid?
 
intouch said:
Dr Robert Millar has written a couple of excellent books on the subject which save us the bother of going over it all incessantly!
Click to expand...
Dr Miller has very conventional NH ideas about dominance and its importance which unfortunately are out of line with the current thinking of ethologists and behaviourists. He doesn't mention the alternative viewpoints in his books at all. They (the ideas) aren't particularly new, having been written about by the likes of Lucy Rees for many years, but perhaps he hasn't heard of Rees et al.
 
Last edited:
NH, in spite of all the high hopes we had for it, is nothing more than a bloke/woman in a big hat, with a patented whip/headcollar and an expensive series of books/DVDs to sell. They largely speak a form of psycho-babble and tell 'funny' stories whilst they quietly mentally and/or physically abuse your horse. They claim to have empathy and speak the language of the horse whereas all they do are parlour tricks. NH is an umbrella term that covers a lot of would-be trainers that don't fit in elsewhere on the spectrum.

Nothings beats commonsense, time and appreciation of how and in what situation a horse learns best.
 
fburton said:
Dr Miller has very conventional NH ideas about dominance and its importance which unfortunately are out of line with the current thinking of ethologists and behaviourists.
Click to expand...

Darwin had some ideas which were out of line of some people at the time, so did Hitler, so did Tony Blair, so does Alex Salmond, so does Prince Charles...need I go on? Some people choose to believe what all of those people say or said, yet some would do them down.

Current thinking is just that...current thinking.

Natural Horsemanship is the practice of horsemanship by someone who does it naturally. It becomes ineffective and open to much debate when attempts are made to teach it to any would-be horse trainer, via DVDs and other remote means, for profit.

That's my current thinking.
 
Last edited:
Natural Horsemanship, to me does not exist. I do not want to 'talk' the language Equus I want to listen to my horses.

Parreli and Roberts are probably two of the best known in the UK, both have something we can learn from even if it is how not to do something but I would not in any way call any of todays modern trainers, 'Horse Whisperers' that title should be reserved for the very, very few who can achieve total trust and understanding from a horse without the use of round pens and fancy tricks.
 
natural horsemanship is about understanding the way horses communicate and utilisng this. they use body language, not verbal cues or human body language.

Think about a mare putting her ears back at another horse, the first time that horse may invade her space and she may kick, the next time the horse will be more aware of her non verbal body language cues and avoid her or keep outside her space. The reminders each time become less obvious.

The carrot stick (or similar) is an extension of the persons arm that assists in making the body language cues.

People are a lot smaller and more vulnerable than another horse. (Think 13 yr old being trampled to death recently, not many horses get trampled to death)

Having an aid that can assist in blocking a horse from running over the top of you or respect our space can be useful, horses understand this, because if they run into another horses space, they can expect to get kicked/bitten and there is no way a person will inflict the force that another horse will on a horse.


Animal trainers and handlers have utilsed various tools like staffs, and crooks, whips, and stock whips, etc for centuries - think geese herders, pig herders, sheperds, stockmen, and so on because having something that can help guide stock, extend your reach etc is invaluable - normal horseman use whips and lunge whips, not sure why a stick is such an issue except people resent the marketing. The actual thing it self is a non issue


People learning NH including myself are a bit clumsy and useless, but such tools are only the 1st phase in NH, the aim is to become more refined. exagerate to teach, both the student and the horse, but eventually what you can end up with is magic

Do the horses that compete at Grand Prix dressage start out looking like that, or their riders, we all have a starting point where we look ordinary, it is not where we start from that matters but where we end up

I have an ISH that I was there when he was born, we have a bond, he recognises my car (by sound before he can see it, but also by sight) my mum knows when I am turning up by the way he behaves. Once I pull my car up he will call out and race up to see me. I do not feed him, so it is not for the food). He will always come when I call, he walks by my side whenever I am in the paddock for any reason, at a walk trot or canter. One day after we had been out for a walk, I let him go in the paddock, he started eating grass and I walked back to
 
computer glitch :eek:

I walked back to the gate and after I got about 30 metres away he cantered up to me dropped to a walk and just walked with me to the gate. It was just a lovely feeling that he wanted to be with me.

But a lot of normal horseman/women are natural horsemanship people without realising it. It is not the tools that you use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top