Join up?

[Persephone]

I'm interested!

 

[fburton]

Tess, it is interesting to hear your opinion but there are several factual inaccuracies going on there.

Hello! I'm interested in this issue, having been intrigued by Join-Up for many years now. It would be good to know exactly which of Tess's points you believe are factually inaccurate, rather than just differences in opinion. I think that would help to clarify the discussion for everyone.

Join up done badly is bad (as is anything else done badly) but as other posters have said, used in a sensible manner it is a very useful tool.

I guess we need to be sure about what Join-Up actually achieves, and then we can talk about whether this is desirable and, assuming it is, whether it is the only or best way to achieve it.

Join up is a sequence of actions which basically used to be known an "advance and retreat" - google that if you want to find the best way to catch difficult horses. Joinup puts these actions together in a specific way to make a "conversation".

Yes, this is exactly how Monty used to describe it - "advance and retreat". Is there any dispute then that we're talking about a process of learning (or behaviour modification) through a combination of punishment and negative reinforcement? The contract is: "if he joins up with you, you are kind to him; if he doesn't join up with you and wants to go away, you are not so kind to him and you put him to work". The reinforcement part comes with taking the pressure off when the horse shows signs of switching from flight to stopping and to following.

Personally I'm not interested in who said what first etc etc . . horses like it so I like it.

Hmmm... that's an interesting and provocative claim! Do horses really like someone getting aggressive with them and putting them to work? Of course, they like being relieved of this imposition, but that's not quite the same as enjoying the whole package, is it? Although they are of course making choices throughout the procedure, they don't have much choice about complying! If the horse is really more relaxed (say) at the end of the procedure, then you could say it's a case of "being cruel to be kind" - a bit like twitching a horse who hates clippers in order to clip him so that he will feel more comfortable in the long run. But it does raise the question of whether there might be better ways to get a horse more relaxed and/or whatever else Join-Up achieves.

If done correctly, the behaviour is generalised outside the round pen, and not only to the person who did the joinup but to anyone else who behaves in a consistent manner.

I'm afraid Tess if it's not generalising for you, then you are probably just chasing a horse around a round pen, I wouldn't stay with you after that either! Join up has a lot more to it. Are we to assume that you are not a fan of Monty by any chance . . I wouldn't call myself a "fan" either but let's get the facts right!

I agree it's important to get the facts right. The question of generalization is somewhat vexed though. Konstanze Krueger found that horses learned to "join up" in a riding arena when she used a very similar procedure to Monty Roberts, but then found that "following did not occur on a pasture even after several successful trials in the riding arena." Maybe she wasn't doing it correctly. I'd love to know in which ways she deviated from Monty's method (if indeed she did) - I'm sure there's a devil in the details! My own gut feeling is that the motivation for a horse to follow a person in the pasture would be less (given all the distractions) and that attempts to "remind" the horse of the previous lesson in the round pen by driving away would result in the horse either following the person as before or simply buggering off - depending on the horse and the competing motivations provided by the environment.

When Joinup is taught, students always learn that it is not recommended with stallions, very frightened horses or bottle-reared horses. This is not because they do not understand "equus"! lol It is because there are better ways of dealing with these particular issues. Stallions need very precise body language so Joinup with them is only recommended for experts.

Problems arise because the Join-Up procedure involves the person using aggressive body language to drive the horse away initially, and stallions often don't take too kindly to that. I have done Join-Up with three stallions myself. However, with two of them especially, the reaction was - if you'll permit a touch of anthropomorphism - a mixture of surprise, indignation, irritation and a definite feeling of conflict being aroused. Despite a "successful" outcome, I felt that nothing had been gained by doing this (apart from a bit of insight) and previously good relationships had been strained (though fortunately not lastingly damaged). It's definitely not something I would try again.

Very frightened horses are better helped by advance and retreat in a smaller space. Bottle reared horses are best turned out in a herd to learn how to be horses naturally.

I think this is very good advice.

Btw Joinup should never take more than 2 or 3 minutes, if you are not getting the signs by then, your technique is not quite right.

Would I be right in thinking that, while you should start to see signs within that time, driving the horse away can continue for a minute or so after that? In Monty's video where he demonstrated Join-Up with an 18 month old TB filly, the first sending away phase lasts 3 minutes 50 seconds (yes, I took notes - sad, isn't it? ) and later, when the filly makes to leave again, he makes her run round for a further two lots of roughly 30 seconds. My notes don't mention whether he gave a maximum time for driving the horse away, though he did say that the whole first session, including follow-up, body-patting, long-lining, saddling and riding can take up to 2.5 hours with untouched mustangs. I would be interested to know how long the flight and driving phases typically last with them. (Added as afterthought: Could untouched mustangs come into the category of "very frightened horses"? The one's I saw waiting to be auctioned in Louisville were certainly very easily upset by any kind of approach from humans.)

[some paragraphs skipped]

I am sure the Tess's of the world will come back with all sorts of interesting allegations, which they are entitled to do, but if you want to know the facts from someone who has actually been trained to use Joinup and has long experience of using it, you're very welcome to ask me.
EMMP

Well, I'm grateful that you are willing to do this. I do hope the tone of the discussion stays civil - personal barbs and nastiness aren't helpful at all.

Hopefully, we can sort out the factual points at least - if not the differences in opinion!

 

[AengusOg]

I think we have to avoid giving the message that anyone can do join-up. Not everyone can create a piece of art, or reverse a trailer into a small space...so why would it be assumed that join-up is a valuable tool which should be in everyone's toolbox?

Successfully working a horse in a round pen, to the point where the horse responds by approaching the trainer, then 'bonding' with him, then following up, is an art. The fact that it can be dissected and explained in print makes in no less difficult.

I have attempted join-up with half a dozen horses, some young and some older. A couple of them reacted exactly as it says on the tin, but the others were unsettled by it, and could have been damaged by any persistence on my part to achieve the 'full Monty', as it were. I declared myself not very good at it, and set about finding a way which would allow me to bring horses to the same place without putting them through the experience of being sent away so firmly.

The other 'extreme' is to sit in the middle of a field, book in hand, and wait for the horse to decide you are safe enough to be with...I don't have time for that.

If we accept that join-up is an extreme form of 'advance and retreat', then we can see where the need to drive the horse away, and round the pen, to such an extent, can be reduced or dispensed with altogether.

The use of 'advance and retreat' creates knowledge and experience for both horse and trainer. The horse (hopefully) learns that the trainer will approach him to within a distance at which he feels comfortable but has no desire to flee, and then will retreat. He also (hopefully) learns that if he does feel threatened, the trainer will immediately become passive and will again retreat, allowing him to avoid taking evasive action. He also learns that he can trust the trainer and accept his advances.

The trainer (hopefully) learns how far he can advance before creating potential for flight in the horse, and (hopefully) how he can use this to teach the horse, by increments, that he has no intention of harming him.

By this process, the horse learns to be approached and touched, and the trainer learns how he must progress and at what pace.

So, why is it necessary to send the horse away so forcefully and with such intent? Why not just meet the horse in the round pen, and work away, advancing and retreating, in and out, and round about, until both come together? After all, that's what Monty does after he has run the horse around until he saw the signs, which he says exist, that the horse was willing to sign a contract or whatever he says that means.

Don't get me wrong; I've seen MR, and I can see where he is coming from, but why not cut out the bit where the trainer does all the 'eyes on eyes' and 'shoulders square', and the horse runs...and just quietly begin with the 'dance' which is 'advance and retreat'?

The essential component in work of this type is space. The horse needs to be able to flee to a safe distance if the trainer puts too much pressure on him. Of course in a round pen, the horse can only run in a circle. However, in a rectangular school, where the horse can truly put a comfortable distance between himself and the trainer, he will run away in a straight line and stop. He stops when he feels safe and confident that the trainer cannot harm him.

To me, allowing a horse to use distance to feel comfortable is a much more effective tool than the restrictions of a round pen, where the horse is obliged to run many times round and cannot really feel physically safe because of the lack of space.

The round pen obliges a horse to face his fears. Giving a horse space allows him to choose to trust the trainer, and to want to be with him.

Therefore, I disagree to a point with the statement that very frightened horses are best worked with in a smaller space.

In a small space, where the horse has no ability to put himself at a distance at which he feels safe from the trainer, he may be put in a position where he uses defence as a survival mechanism. Given space, he will instinctively flee, but without space he will be inclined, through fear, to defend himself or, in extreme circumstances, become aggressive.

Working with very frightened horses in small areas demands that a trainer is very astute in his observation of the horse, and very skilled in 'advance and retreat', as well as patient and compassionate.

Anyone who is not those things should not be in a small space with a very frightened horse.

 

[fburton]

Working with very frightened horses in small areas demands that a trainer is very astute in his observation of the horse, and very skilled in 'advance and retreat', as well as patient and compassionate.

That goes without saying, of course - but I am very glad you said it!