Natural Horsemanship. Is it just a circus act?

Tinypony said:
Isn't it always going to be an issue though that one person's view of unduly coercing a horse will be absolutely fine for someone else?
I wince at the way some people deal with horses in fairly simple situations, such as maybe twitching just to clip, or walloping and shouting when they think a horse is being "rude". However, others will think I am too coercive because I will use a rope halter, and will flick a bit of my horse with the end of my rope (I use the word flick advisedly there, I don't mean a "phase 4" contact). Even people who use methods that are thought to really lack coercion, like clicker trainers, will disagree. For some anything other than working at liberty is coercion, whereas others are fine to have a halter or headcollar and rope and thefore restrict and guide the horse's options a bit.
So, whichever trainer you say you like, someone else will leap in and go off on one saying they disagree and that that trainer is coercive or maybe even abusive.
I think all we can do is set our own limits and make our personal decision about what sits right with us. Then work with trainers who enhance that. Also be prepared to agree to disagree, even with our trainers. I disagree with a couple of things that my main trainer is OK with, but that doesn't mean I dismiss everything he does. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
Click to expand...
Yes great post. Tinypony is talking a lot of sense in my eyes.
 
What is wrong with circus tricks anyway??? isn't jumping just taught tricks???? dressage is just tricks, cross country, lots of trick jumps in that. Some not very nice methods used in All forms of horse training especially English traditional. I would say natural horsemanship is brilliant when done correctly.
 
Morgan123 said:
Pale Rider said:
Sorry - you said: I will continue to support NH and Parelli as I believe that this will benefit horses, and thats what this is all about.

So for benefitting horses you must think it's "better" than Traditional methods. I just wondered why. As this question is surely at the crux of this discussion, i think it's a great shame to ignore it?! If you didn't mean 'kinder' what did you mean?
Click to expand...


I believe that NH opens the door to a greater communication between horse and handler, much of what is perceived as bad behaviour by horses seems to be just a basic lack of communication and understanding. Using traditional methods I could get so far with horse training but there appeared to be a ceiling through which I couldn't get. Problems all seemed to result in another peice of tack or a different bit, most trainers were worse than useless, and got less out of my horses than I could. I started thrashing around doing my own thing, 'thinking outside the box' I suppose. When I got into NH in the mid 90's this ceiling disappeared the Dorrances, Ray Hunt and Pat Parelli. Parelli was putting out a lot of information and it made sense to me and more importantly my horses.

Now I see no limits on what I can achieve with them, apart from my own physical limitations.(I'm knocking on a bit now). People who visit my yard see happy well balanced horses, all working at fairly high levels who appear to enjoy their life and relationships with each other and us.

I cannot go back to how things used to be, it would be like turning all the lights out. Thats why I honestly believe that NH and Parelli benefits horses. You cannot train a horse in NH and hand it over to someone else, they have to study it and understand it. When the handler understands it is so much more beneficial for the horse.
Click to expand...
 
OK thanks for explaining that! I absolutely absolutely agree that watching, understanding and leanring from the individual horse is paramount and that not enough of this goes on. However I am not sure that's NH as such - I think that is just what should always be done, traditional stuff included. The bits of Parelli and MR etc etc that encourage this are of course beneficial, so there we go - some synergy :-)

However, in line with Tinypony's excellent comment about everyone seeing things differently re: pressure/what is and isn't on etc etc - I think that there's lots of stuff in both PArelli and MR that is completely coercive, so yes you may be looking at the horse's body language and so on but that doesn't mean you're then using it in a positive or 'kind' way or that it's any better. For example in join up - you're using the horse's body langauge and your own, to send it away and essentially telling it that it mustn't come back until it's going to play by your rules. I don't want to start my relationship with my horse like that, and I can't see why anyone would.

Actually, I feel that there are other schools of thought, such as Positive reinforcement programmes and clicker trianing, that encourage this FAR more than parelli and MR etc etc. But we could be here for years discussing that now, so I'll pipe down....
 
Morgan123 said:
in join up - you're using the horse's body langauge and your own, to send it away and essentially telling it that it mustn't come back until it's going to play by your rules. I don't want to start my relationship with my horse like that, and I can't see why anyone would
Click to expand...
Same here, I just couldn't do it, although I appreciate the theory behind it and that it's sound and that it works. Monty is an amazing horseman and I have the greatest respect and admiration for him. To see him do join-up is amazing. He has such empathy with horses :)
 
Golf Girl said:
Same here, I just couldn't do it, although I appreciate the theory behind it and that it's sound and that it works. Monty is an amazing horseman and I have the greatest respect and admiration for him. To see him do join-up is amazing. He has such empathy with horses :)
Click to expand...

Is it sound theory though?! Wild equid studies didn't show any exmaples of similar behaviour (except one time when a zebra was being chased by a lion and finally turned to face the lionin exhaustion. Mares do chase their foals out of their vicinity, but they do NOT then keep moving them off and ‘chasing’ (I’ve put that in inverted commas because I know join up isn’t JUST chasing) their foals until they act submissively. They chase them off once and ignore them.

Similarly, when I went to see a Monty Roberts demo a while back (a few years ago) he was talking about a scientific study that was ongoing into the heart rates of horses doing join up and whether it was stressful. Since it sounded like this study was done by a pro-MR team, I find it really interesting that it doesn’t seem to have been published anywhere (though I would be really interested in being corrected if I’m wrong! Please do let me know! But I can’t find it!).

I don’t know how much sound science there is behind it. Sure, they can get results – but then so can a lot people! :-)

Personally I think there are much nicer methods but I know many will disagree.
 
Morgan123 said:
OK thanks for explaining that! I absolutely absolutely agree that watching, understanding and leanring from the individual horse is paramount and that not enough of this goes on. However I am not sure that's NH as such - I think that is just what should always be done, traditional stuff included. The bits of Parelli and MR etc etc that encourage this are of course beneficial, so there we go - some synergy :-)

However, in line with Tinypony's excellent comment about everyone seeing things differently re: pressure/what is and isn't on etc etc - I think that there's lots of stuff in both PArelli and MR that is completely coercive, so yes you may be looking at the horse's body language and so on but that doesn't mean you're then using it in a positive or 'kind' way or that it's any better. For example in join up - you're using the horse's body langauge and your own, to send it away and essentially telling it that it mustn't come back until it's going to play by your rules. I don't want to start my relationship with my horse like that, and I can't see why anyone would.

Actually, I feel that there are other schools of thought, such as Positive reinforcement programmes and clicker trianing, that encourage this FAR more than parelli and MR etc etc. But we could be here for years discussing that now, so I'll pipe down....
Click to expand...


I understand what you are talking about completely. Firstly I would caution against using what Parelli offers in the same vain as MR. to my mind they are very different forms of training. Here we are getting into quite complicated areas, and I know a lot of people have seen Parelli demonized on these forums and think that MR is a more acceptable form of training. I believe that the levels of pressure used by MR are way higher than in most other schools of NH, so I don't use his methods or gadgets. The aim and objective should be the correct application of the appropriate level of pressure, and more importantly the release of pressure at the appropriate instant. When you are truely communicating with the horse, and don't forget it is pressure that they communicate with, then the application becomes a suggestion and eventually a thought.

I don't do 'join up' with my horses, we are joined, at least thats how I see it. I think the phrase is, you don't want a horse to join up, you want them to sign up.
 
I let out a bit of a sigh when I saw this thread pop up again, but it's turned out quite interesting. Thanks folks. :-)
 
Morgan123 said:
Is it sound theory though?! Wild equid studies didn't show any exmaples of similar behaviour (except one time when a zebra was being chased by a lion and finally turned to face the lionin exhaustion. Mares do chase their foals out of their vicinity, but they do NOT then keep moving them off and ‘chasing’ (I’ve put that in inverted commas because I know join up isn’t JUST chasing) their foals until they act submissively. They chase them off once and ignore them.

Similarly, when I went to see a Monty Roberts demo a while back (a few years ago) he was talking about a scientific study that was ongoing into the heart rates of horses doing join up and whether it was stressful. Since it sounded like this study was done by a pro-MR team, I find it really interesting that it doesn’t seem to have been published anywhere (though I would be really interested in being corrected if I’m wrong! Please do let me know! But I can’t find it!).

I don’t know how much sound science there is behind it. Sure, they can get results – but then so can a lot people! :-)

Personally I think there are much nicer methods but I know many will disagree.
Click to expand...

Recently I went to the Equine Behaviour Seminar and Dr Veronica Fowler gave a presentation about this study. It hasn't been published yet, and a lot of the data is still to be analysed. In fact, it appears that resources and manpower needed to analyse the data are limited - which makes you wonder why someone would go to the trouble of collecting it all in the first place without the resources to process it :confused:

The main points that came up were:

There is a lot of focus on heart rates - and the heart rate monitors have been used as a 'selling point' on the Monty demos for some time, as 'proof' that the horses are not particularly stressed. However, as pointed out by Andrew McLean (who was also a speaker at the conference) decreased heart rate variability can actually be an indicator of stress, so that can't be used as a stand alone indicator of the horse's emotional state. It has to be taken alongside of behavioural indicators (displays of stress and conflict behaviour) and also analysis of cortisol. The cortisol samples were taken, but have not been analysed, and the manpower does not seem available to analyse the video footage to assess the behaivoural indicators. Hopefully this will happen at some point in the future - especially as this study is meant to be presented at ISES.

The study pitted Monty - the best (at his methods) - against a presumably competent but relatively unknown conventional trainer. Monty was adamant, apparently, that he alone would be tested in this study, rather than any of his RAs or anyone else, so there was some question mark over transferability of skills.

In the final 'round up' it was stated that Monty's horses performed 30% better in the final tests. However, Monty had tack and rider on his horses much quicker than the conventional trainer, and got on with practising the specific tests that would be used at the end to demonstrate the effectiveness of the training. The conventional trainer was slower at getting the riders on, and then worked on general exercises rather than practising obstacles etc. Clearly conventional training is slower than Monty's approach, which does disadvantage it in a twenty day study where speed was obviously to the advantage. Should speed matter, in real life, in horse training (within reason, obviously - nobody wants things to drag on interminably).

When the lists of equipment requested by each trainer were showed, Monty's list included the buckstopper. Many times we have heard that this gadget is a method of last resort to avoid a horse being shot - but it seemed to be in his tool bag to get young horses started in a 'scientific' study demonstrating that his methods were 'kind' :confused:

I think join up was used four times with each of Monty's horses.

It was suggested to me that at least one horse did not finish the study, but that is purely word of mouth and I have no evidence of this.


Morgan123 - I think there are kinder methods as well ;)
 
I should have added that, in my recollection, there were no significant differences in the heart rates between the two groups of horses - so the best that can be said at this preliminary stage is that there is nothing to choose between these two methods when heart rate alone is used as the measure in terms of stress, which is interesting if you think that the conventional trainer was probably working well outside of his comfort zone to get eight horses able to ride a basic dressage test and get round an obstacle course in twenty days, whereas Monty is very familiar with the 'fast results' approach.
 
Last edited:
AndySpooner said:
As already stated Natural Horsemanship is perhaps a mis noma, but, we're stuck with it, as Bill Dorrance himself said, 'It is not natural for horses to be around people, and its not natural for a person to sit on a horses back. When we use these words we speak about what's natural for the horse to do within his own boundaries.'

Regarding the question of the 'circus act', where people are critical of the demonstrations, which do sometimes resemble the circus, probably because of the use of the pedestal and or the big green ball.

Boil it all down and the basic art of NH is the application of pressure to the horse with the immidiate release of the pressure when the desired response has occurred.

This is totally understood by horses as it is by the application and release of pressure that they communicate. The pressure comes in phases, from the lightest, by way of a look, to actual contact.

This is the attempt to do what is natural for the horse within his own boundaries.

So what are these horses trying to achieve by the application of all this pressure? Nothing more than causing the subjected horse to move its feet. As soon as the feet move the pressure is released, and it is the release that teaches the horse to move.

We have all seen a horse move anothers forequarters by applying pressure to the neck, this may be as soft as a whisper or as harsh as a bite., depending on the willingness to move.

Asking a horse to place its feet on a pedestal is nothing more than the demonstration of what can be achieved by the appropreate application of pressure and the release. The fact that it may look like what we have come to view as a trick doesn't mean that that is what it is.

I've noticed that people seem to view the Monty Roberts approach to NH training, as perhaps more acceptable than that of Pat Parelli. My own view is that having watched both, Monty Roberts uses far more pressure than Pat Parelli and the release is often slow to come.

I say this because, from the very early 'round pen' demonstrations by Roberts the horse was sent in circles by the application of pressure. The pressure came from the mans stance, the fixing of eye contact and very often putting a line out towards the horse. I would argue that this pressure on the horse is extream, as it was moving its feet often at a fast pace (the horse would expect that the pressure should come off at this point) , but the pressure does not come off until the horse shows signs of submission. The lowering of the head, the licking and chewing, submissive foal behaviour.

The horse quickly positions itself next to the man and mirrors his movements (join up), from this position the horse avoids the application of pressure. Were it not for the high walls or fences of the round pen then the horse would have jumped out and run off, this though is not an option.

The application of pressure by Monty Roberts has been refined by the use of the Be Nice and Dually head collars, which are nothing more than a way of applying harsh pressure to the horses face until it moves its feet forward, but even here in my view the release is not fast enough.

Parelli on the other hand does not ask for the submission of the horse and the pressure is released as soon as the feet move. Because the Parelli demonstrations always take place in an arena with a 4 foot fence, no real containment of the horse, illustrates that the horse does not feel under so much pressure that it wants to jump the fence and leave.

The application of pressure is not confined to NH, indeed all aspects of traditional horse training is the application of pressure to the horse. The riders legs and hands apply pressure to achieve the desired movement of the feet. When the desired movement is achieved the pressure should be released. The use of a snaffle bit, widely referred to as a mild or kind bit, exerts massive pressure on the horses jaw with its nut cracker action. How often is the pressure not released by the heavy handed rider.

My conclusion is that NH is not a circus act, far from it. The danger lies with the mis application of pressure and the lack of the release. All the horse can do for us is to move his feet either at a walk, trot or canter in the direction of our choosing. What some aspects of Natural Horsemanship are attempting to demonstrate is what level of pressure to apply and when to release that pressure.
Click to expand...

An interesting observation on 'join up'.
 
I find it both insulting and amusing at the same time that NH , to non-NH fans..means Parelli..or at least includes Parelli under the NH umbrella. I only use NH methods..which pre date the 'cult' known as Parelli by at least 40 years, if we are referring to MR. Personally I use modern NH/Classical methods such as Michael Peace, Kelly Marks and Tom Widdicombe, with a thorough grounding in MR methods. Imo Parelli is to NH what Plastic Surgery is to Natural Beauty..a complete misnomer.

NH to me just means using common sense,non- confrontational methods and treating horses with some respect. I don't slavishly follow any NH trainer, I read and educate myself and pick and choose what makes sense to me..and if it doesn't work, I use something else from my NH experience. The problem I have with 'traditional' methods is..what if the horse doesn't respond to initial methods, eg spurs/whip? Traditional methods are very rigid, and don't leave much scope to try something else that the horse may understand more easily. Which is why some 'traditional' people tend to shout at, then escalate to hitting their horse when he doesn't understand something. Instead of trying a different way, they just escalate the force. I had to spend a few months in the bad winter last year on a 'livery yard' run by an ignorant,'old school' traditional woman...who bullied her horses and shouted and screamed at them constantly , and her son at the yard,for every little thing. My quiet, NH trained mares' attitude changed and she became quite defensive with this person, understandably, as I did too!...the change in the womans horses when she wasn't there, and I was there just going about the chores quietly and asking the horses to move over firmly but quietly, was unbelieveable. From tense,miserable,'stroppy' horses who continually squabbled with stable mates over food and space, they actually relaxed visibly and became much easier to turn out etc. The owner would never ever even think of turning her 2 mares out at the same time, they were so spooky and reactive..and the more she shouted at them the worse they got...but she couldn't/wouldn't see how she was acting was the root of their problems...I did turn them out together on a loose lead rein, with my quiet mare following behind loose, as I always insist my horses can be trusted loose...and they can..but she didn't believe me, or allow me to demonstrate..'it was too dangerous' (the irony was lost on her!).

NH to me is about helping and allowing your horse to act as a horse, while getting their co operation and reducing their adrenalin levels at the same time, so they are less 'spooky' or reactive than non NH trained horses...nothing to do with 'Circus Tricks'

So, my point is...Parelli and 'Circus Tricks' are NOT part of real, common sense NH and experience.
 
I use the clicker as an aid or tool in training my horses. I don't follow a method although I adhere to classical dressage principles. I don't follow 'NH'.

However; I think we restrict ourselves as horse people if we stereotype and begin to condemn certain walks, I suppose I see it as the two big circles 'NH' and 'Traditional'.


I'm in neither, I'm an individual and I'm unique- just like my horses are. I don't like the way Parelli categorise horses into 4 categories and stick a TM label on it- and then cheekily say we're all different, something rings as weird?

I *think* we can get the best out of horsemanship if we listen to our horses, not Mr Cowboy Horse Whisperer or Mrs 'I take no *****' lady. I think that we have to use tools to aid our horses training and education (as well as ours), apposed to seclude ourselves from society because they aren't x, y or z.


Although I will say, a lot of people who would deem themselves as 'NHists' because it is kinder is unfair. I've seen a lot of bad work in NH (not just Parelli, but I don't like Monty either, I don't like Clinton, I don't like Cox, Lyons etc as PEOPLE) and I don't really like many of their methods, because actually I think they can use a lot of force and learned helplessness because they base their philosophy on the language of horses, although I'd argue that a lot of it is a flawed misinterpretation and only trains horses to submit, apposed to expressing themselves because it's all about being the 'alpha' mare (I HATE that!).


But hey, it's the equine world, nobody agrees, debate happens and we can't resolve it, we can discuss it and then make the individual decision to go from there. What we must remember though is our horses in all this, we have to be compassionate and try and show empathy and patience. This is something which can't be copyrighted and branded by someone, because it's something we all have within us and it's something we should all use as a standard rule in training.


MTA- when I mean tools, I don't mean gadgets etc, but our tools can be anything from our voice, body language, a clicker etc.
 
Last edited:
Leah3horses said:
I find it both insulting and amusing at the same time that NH , to non-NH fans..means Parelli..or at least includes Parelli under the NH umbrella. I only use NH methods..which pre date the 'cult' known as Parelli by at least 40 years, if we are referring to MR. Personally I use modern NH/Classical methods such as Michael Peace, Kelly Marks and Tom Widdicombe, with a thorough grounding in MR methods. Imo Parelli is to NH what Plastic Surgery is to Natural Beauty..a complete misnomer.

NH to me just means using common sense,non- confrontational methods and treating horses with some respect. I don't slavishly follow any NH trainer, I read and educate myself and pick and choose what makes sense to me..and if it doesn't work, I use something else from my NH experience. The problem I have with 'traditional' methods is..what if the horse doesn't respond to initial methods, eg spurs/whip? Traditional methods are very rigid, and don't leave much scope to try something else that the horse may understand more easily. Which is why some 'traditional' people tend to shout at, then escalate to hitting their horse when he doesn't understand something. Instead of trying a different way, they just escalate the force. I had to spend a few months in the bad winter last year on a 'livery yard' run by an ignorant,'old school' traditional woman...who bullied her horses and shouted and screamed at them constantly , and her son at the yard,for every little thing. My quiet, NH trained mares' attitude changed and she became quite defensive with this person, understandably, as I did too!...the change in the womans horses when she wasn't there, and I was there just going about the chores quietly and asking the horses to move over firmly but quietly, was unbelieveable. From tense,miserable,'stroppy' horses who continually squabbled with stable mates over food and space, they actually relaxed visibly and became much easier to turn out etc. The owner would never ever even think of turning her 2 mares out at the same time, they were so spooky and reactive..and the more she shouted at them the worse they got...but she couldn't/wouldn't see how she was acting was the root of their problems...I did turn them out together on a loose lead rein, with my quiet mare following behind loose, as I always insist my horses can be trusted loose...and they can..but she didn't believe me, or allow me to demonstrate..'it was too dangerous' (the irony was lost on her!).

NH to me is about helping and allowing your horse to act as a horse, while getting their co operation and reducing their adrenalin levels at the same time, so they are less 'spooky' or reactive than non NH trained horses...nothing to do with 'Circus Tricks'

So, my point is...Parelli and 'Circus Tricks' are NOT part of real, common sense NH and experience.
Click to expand...

I guess we will have to dis agree about Parelli, which is fine.

Reading your post though was excellent, a real good example of 'Your horse is your mirror'.
 
Tinypony said:
From the age of 3 until my late teens I was steeped in the way that most riders in this country learn to deal with horses. I rode conventionally,.... ...I'd suddenly had a crashing attack of doubt about what I was being taught to do to the horse to get the results that would win the ribbons. I went to a Parelli Savvy Day (1998 I think) and as I walked in Pat Parelli said something that hit me to the core. He said roughly something like this: "Remember when you were a kid and you used to go down to the pasture to catch your pony, put the halter on his head, jump on and then gallop back to the yard without a care in the world? Where have those days gone?" ......I think what I'm saying is that nh and other approaches to horsemanship offer us so many choices and opportunities to look at different ways of doing things with our horses, that MIGHT be an improvement on what we do now. So it always makes me sad when people dismiss such a huge and varied philosphy as nh based on judgements made about the price of one programme, or a few horses they've seen that were badly trained. I've got news, there are badly trained horses all over the country, 1,000's of them. Not all of their owners wave orange sticks. Not all of their owners ride either.
OK, ramble over... back to work. LOL! and

Isn't it always going to be an issue though that one person's view of unduly coercing a horse will be absolutely fine for someone else?
I wince at the way some people deal with horses in fairly simple situations, such as maybe twitching just to clip, or walloping and shouting when they think a horse is being "rude". However, others will think I am too coercive because I will use a rope halter, and will flick a bit of my horse with the end of my rope (I use the word flick advisedly there, I don't mean a "phase 4" contact). Even people who use methods that are thought to really lack coercion, like clicker trainers, will disagree. For some anything other than working at liberty is coercion, whereas others are fine to have a halter or headcollar and rope and thefore restrict and guide the horse's options a bit.
So, whichever trainer you say you like, someone else will leap in and go off on one saying they disagree and that that trainer is coercive or maybe even abusive.
I think all we can do is set our own limits and make our personal decision about what sits right with us. Then work with trainers who enhance that. Also be prepared to agree to disagree, even with our trainers. I disagree with a couple of things that my main trainer is OK with, but that doesn't mean I dismiss everything he does. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
Click to expand...


gosh tinypony you are indeed in fine fettle today :D :D :D
agree wholehearedly


and as I am her friend there is no subtext there ;)



I am this friend ;)

A friend of mine who posts here came up with an interesting test of how you can check how much you and your horse rely on the rope (this would be useful maybe before moving to liberty). She tucked the rope loosely in her belt and then found out how it all worked. Oh, before anyone asks, what is the point of that? The principle of no pull from the person and no pull or lean from the horse is that it extends to ridden work. It's the foundation for having a horse that is light on your hands and has good self carriage.
Click to expand...


This is becoming a very interesting discussion in good spirits about the general use of the methodologies and ideologies rather than generally taking only the extreme / abusive / inept users of each "camp" and using them as examples of how "bad" each method is.



palerider
I don't think, in general, people put enough foundation into their horses. For example there was a post yesterday, about someone going to an 'event' and when umbarellas were put up because of the rain, a lot of the horses freaked out. The OP said fortunately most of the riders were 'good' enough to stay on. My point here is that these horses should not be at an 'event' until they were sound enough not to freak out at mundane things like umbarellas.

These horses cannot be ready to compete if they are as poorly prepaired as that, and as most people who compete, at the moment, are what you would call traditional, the fault must lie here.
Click to expand...

agree totally





I do not agree 100% with any of the trainers whos clinics I have been too either.... some I agree more with than others and one or two I really did not like.


ok I have run out of time for the mo and lost track as had severl interuptions too ...... gotta go deal with "life" stuff :rolleyes:



just a quickie last bit

When I look at a relaxed horse that is comfortable in its job / with learnig new stuff ...... that can cope with most of the things that life throws at it ( all of us jump at unexpected /scary stuff ) that is soft and responsive .... and see a handler / rider that is relaxed and using soft asks ....... then I am interested in whatever methodology got it there and dont really care what it is labeled at ( and if the big name that fronts it or the person down the lane that tries to do the same both get awful results or use force / abusive levels of the technique then I shall critique them !)
 
This has been an interesting thread, and tbh i'd have to say i have an eclectic approach to training, using, in my opinion the best bits from various people.
I agree with many traditional methods, but not all, and will use Richard Maxwell stuff to fill in the gaps as he's got such a common sense approach to training using the best of natural and traditional.
I have used Monty stuff with some success, but always come back to Max's approach as its never failed me yet.
Ive looked at Parelli and wont dismiss it out of hand, but it is not for me or my horses, i just dont like big parts of it.
I feel there are good and bad in all training systems, if it doesnt feel right dont do it. I came to this conclusion when a very prominent, famous trainer told me to use a chiffney on a rearer i'd have to say i was a bit shocked as it didnt match the methods they waxed lyrical about !! i must have missed that chapter in theyre book and dvd's
 
I am SO glad that people with informed opinions are still posting!! Such interesting views that appear balanced and arrived at through first hand experience. I couldn't disagree in particular with any of the last 3 or 4 postings and I believe that there are specific ingredients that work for some and not for others. I have never put a twitch on any of my horses ever and have also been shocked to learn that people "doing" my horses have reverted to one the instant there appears to be a problem. I don't use a chifney, any headcollars with studs or that tighten. My horses are kept in a herd, come to call and put themselves into their boxes without headcollars...although not always exactly as I had planned!! I suppose my horses probably like me more than respect me and this may result in problems in the future....who knows.
 
AndySpooner said:
The lowering of the head, the licking and chewing, submissive foal behaviour.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I don't think the licking and chewing one sees in JoinUp is anything like the foal mouthing gesture.

Which looks likes this... lips retracted, mouth opened and closed repeatedly.

yamm2.jpg
 
amandap said:
I value your opinion fburton, so I must warn you not to agree with anything I say. I'm mental apparently. :p
http://quarrystables.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=training&action=display&thread=704&page=2
Click to expand...
At least they are letting the deranged in. I wonder how they classify me, I clicked the link and got:
"An Error Has Occurred
Sorry, but you have been banned from this forum."

Nice that they can still offer an apology, even though they seem to know that if I read what they are saying they might all change into frogs!
 
Back on topic... I agree with Fburton, what is seen in Join Up isn't the same as the baby teeth that foals do is it? So what is it? Some form of displacement?
I got into a bit of a fix once saying that I thought Join Up was quite crude compared to some round pen work. Maybe crude was the wrong word. I meant that I could see that it worked in that it got the result that was wanted. However I have seen some lovely subtle round pen work with relatively untouched horses that has, on the face of it anyway, brought about the same results. The difference was pretty fundamental really, the focus was on encouraging the horse to stay, and if it left inviting it in as soon as possible. (Join Up doesn't reward the smallest and earliest signs, but waits for some pretty big changes in the horse ie the dropping of the head and the chewing). To my eyes the results looked different in that the horse was hooked on to the person, but in a more relaxed way. Hard to explain unless you've seen it really.
 
Tinypony said:
… The difference was pretty fundamental really, the focus was on encouraging the horse to stay, and if it left inviting it in as soon as possible. (Join Up doesn't reward the smallest and earliest signs, but waits for some pretty big changes in the horse ie the dropping of the head and the chewing). …
Click to expand...
I think of Join–Up as the first day at school. I don't expect the Headmistress to seem like my best buddy, but I want to feel secure and that I am safe in her presence. Join–Up is quite different when performed with the well-handled and socialised new pupil, from when performed with the recalcitrant youth.

Your comment "Join Up doesn't reward the smallest and earliest signs, but waits for some pretty big changes in the horse ie the dropping of the head and the chewing" generally applies only to the 'recalcitrant youth' or the hardened ASBO holder. With a normal starter - one where there have been a couple of weeks of despooking and in-hand work - the earliest changes are rewarded and Join-Up may be done only once, for example, when the saddle is put on.

Generalisations on Join–Up become difficult to make when the process that is used changes with each horse. It is, at the end of the day a formal conversation, so like an interview, certain formalities and procedures are observed, but the conversation is never the same for any two horses.

We need to bear in mind that Join–Up occurs at the very start of the training. Join–Up is only horse Kindergarten and is rarely performed more than four times, most usually twice - once to establish the formal relationship and second to ensure that the horse is happy with the saddle. There is a lot more we have to teach the horse before we have completed its education.
 
I'll agree to disagree on the earliest signs. I've spent time with RA's and been to demos and it has been quite clear that they wait for specific signs and they are not the early and subtle ones. I have heard this process explained clearly many times, and if that's the way they do it then I'm not going to get particularly wound up about it. Although I will be honest and say that I have been extremely uncomfortable about the stress I've seen some horses put under during the Join Up process by some expert users.
I agree that it is the start of the training and recognise that for some it is the best way to start training. Personally I prefer other ways of starting training, but variety is the spice of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top