Traditional Horsemanship

[amandap]

traditional horsemanship involves more actual sitting on the horse and less
" stuff "

dons helmet & heads for the hills

lol. I got distracted by this before replying to fburton.

This is one big short coming (imo) I read about and see so often with some traditional people. They get on and ride when the horse isn't ready for what they wish to do, they take scared horses out on roads with no preparation and daily subject both themselves and their horses to fear, frustration and a level of danger that could be so much less if they took the time and prepared a horse more fully. This begins as a traditional person wrote earlier... on the ground.
To me taking a scared and reactive animal time bomb out is an adrenaline rush I don't want, never mind what the horse may 'feel' about it it can't be pleasant.

Also there seems to be a perception that if you can ride a highly strung (scared and reactive) horse you are a good rider or horse person. I do think there are many 'dopes on ropes' who are just bored or even resigned but for me a good horse person is able to train and prepare a horse well, so the horse, even if it isn't enjoying the activity can easily cope without too much stress.

 

[amandap]

Ok, I was a bit opaque there, sorry. It was an indirect reference to the idea of 'conditional anthropomorphism' that Marthe Kiley-Worthington advocates e.g. in her book Horse Watch: What It Is to Be Equine - a limited form which allows for assuming that horses do indeed think and feel and would therefore think and feel certain things about us - but not necessarily the sort of things we would think and feel if we were stuck in a horse's body!

I do find MKW a strange mix of ideas. Sometimes, when reading her books she makes statements or conclusions that make me think... 'whoa, where did that come from?' So I pay much more attention to her findings and observations than any conclusions she has made or terms she uses, so didn't get the term.
I also have a very selective and bad memory for stuff that doesn't seem relevant or make sense to me.

What about lungeing vs roundpenning as a concrete example on traditional vs NH activities and interpretations? They both involve a horse running around a human, but the purposes are different. There are at least some NH people who would explain roundpenning in terms of the way horses communicate with other horses, and that it involves emulating the actions and body language of another horse. (Interpretations in terms of human as predator also exist, of course.) I don't think many traditional people, when they are lungeing a horse, feel that they are communicating with it in a way that bears any relation to how one horse would communicate with another - it's strictly human and horse, with human voice aids. Again, if I have got this completely wrong, I am happy to be put right.

For a start I've never done either. I did try to lunge once years ago but my horse just cantered and trotted round me and I had no way of even stopping her never mind doing anything useful. lol It was back in the days before I did some things because that's what you're told to do but without having any understanding of the goal or method.

By round penning, I assume you mean chasing a horse round and round in a circle till it's exhausted? Or running it round a pen even? I've never done that either. I do believe round penning, as in chasing a horse round a pen until it is exhausted is used a lot in USA.
I have however used Monty Roberts ideas on using horse and other animal gestures and sensitivities to stimuli to communicate with my horses. I have even in the past emulated the 'claw' to increase my energy. It works. The principles of join up have helped me tremendously with learning how my body position, intention, gestures can influence a horses movement. Great for long lining and not blocking a horse, moving a horse at a distance etc. etc.
I do not of course want the horse to be afraid of me or think I'm a predator and tbh thinking that a horse views me as a predator because I use a gesture is alien thinking to me. I think horses are more intelligent than that. I suppose the idea can lead many to act in an aggressive and predatorial manner to horses which I don't believe is useful or fair on a day to day basis.
Also the instinctive flight/fight response and possible feelings of fear or aggression could easily be invoked in the horse which may be very negative for horse and handler if extreme or sustained. So if one is to use JU then I believe it should be under supervision until the handler is more proficient.

If you take the view that emulating and adapting predatorial gestures will cause fear and extreme fear automatically in the horse then it would be totally against your views of what is ethical.

I have no idea whether Monty believes that having a horse believe I am a predator is essential, necessary or even desirable to his methods, I have taken my interpretation of it and used what makes sense to me.

If moving away from a stimulus or gesture always involves fear then I may have to think again.

I am not a member of that clique, or any clique for that matter. I try to think for myself. In any case, I don't think I was speaking from a specifically clicker training point of view.


Ok, I concede the grumpy old sceptic side of me overcame the polite, considerate side of me a bit too forcibly, but I also think you were perhaps a bit over-sensitive. (You did know there is a grumpy old sceptic inside me struggling to get out, didn't you??)

Glad to hear you aren't a member. Your post just brought back memories and a familiar sinking feeling from the past.

I'm sure I am too sensitive but especially so when certain feelings are evoked.
I am working on this all the time and I'm sorry you have been at the end of it.

No idea what garble I've written, hope it's not too confused. I have to go out.

 

[Maesfen]

My feelings on this subject are that it dosent matter what approach of horsemanship you take with your horses.

The most important attribute is to have the ability of 'feel'.

With different approaches old and new, you very often see a lack of this important attribute.

Good horsemen/women wont preach to you what and what you shouldnt do with your horse, they tend to be the quieter people on the yard, or not the best 'people person'.

Summed up nicely.

FEEL, WATCH & LISTEN to the horse should be far bigger parts of the subject than they seem to be.

 

[chestnut cob]

I do find MKW a strange mix of ideas. Sometimes, when reading her books she makes statements or conclusions that make me think... 'whoa, where did that come from?' So I pay much more attention to her findings and observations than any conclusions she has made or terms she uses, so didn't get the term.

I've read MKW's What It Is To Be Equine book and am still not sure what I thought about it. Some interesting stuff but she tends to make rather grand and sweeping conclusions based on behaviour she has witnessed in 2 or 3 horses. I'm not sure you can extrapolate to an entire population based on such a small sample! The book gives you a lot to think about but IMHO her conclusions aren't reliable.

As for the original question, there are good and bad in both the traditional and NH camps. Surely the best of either are those with a big helping of common sense?

 

[Wagtail]

I see traditional horsemanship at one extreme and NH at the other. I do not favour either as I feel that both are too constricting and closed minded.

Traditional horsemanship I see as dominating the horse through force. Teaching it manners through negative punishment methods. Horses are horses and people are people. There is a lot of anthromorphising that goes on in Traditional horsemanship in that they will describe a horse as 'taking the p*ss' or being deliberately naughty.

Natural horsemanship (excluding Parelli) is a softly softly approach which tries to work with horses by emulating their natural behaviours and using them to create a cooperative 'team mate'

Parelli, I list separately because it is not at all softly softly and in fact works by domination and aggressive methods IMO.

Then there is that happy medium that I term as 'Modern Horsemanship' which I think many have described as traditional on this thread. It is a common sense approach showing an empathy and understanding of horses and adapting one's methods according to the individual horse. This is the type of horsemanship that I like.

 

[Megibo]

Michael Peace knows his stuff..the only one I respect.

 

[Wagtail]

In my mind traditional is the old school English ways,

However I think there is soon to be a new type coming around the "new age horsemanship" or whatever it will be named which is a mix of types, the old English, PP, MR, endospink etc, and I think that this will be the way forward.

***(runs for the hills)***

I agree with this. It is what I class as 'modern horsemanship'.

 

[Wagtail]

Michael Peace knows his stuff..the only one I respect.

I have to say that out of all of them he makes the most sense to me too.

 

[Cortez]

Traditional BECOMES traditional after it has been found to work over a long period of time. So perhaps the "new" way of doing things will become traditional after a while? However, this will only happen if these new ways are proven to work - and I'm not sure that will happen. Depends on what you want to be doing with your horses, surely? Also, traditional becomes ineffective if people who have learned things because "that's the way we always do it" don't understand WHY it is done that way.

 

[Marydoll]

My Grandfather took with him 6 stunning black, gun pulling horses to Flanders within the hull of a ship during WW1. All were killed in the first 2 weeks and when ever he spoke of it, he had tears in his eyes.

He was the best horseman in the world, who had a real connection with horses and taught me a lot about feel.

I have his words as my sig which just about sums it up for me.

Looking for the like button

 

[fburton]

Another difference between traditional and NH that occurred to me last night while I was watching a DVD called Top Rider, for beginners and novices...

In traditional (BHS/Pony Club), the voice is considered an important aid - the FBHS guy on the DVD, Jeremy Michaels, said it was the central one that the others connected to - whereas in some forms of Natural Horsemanship, the use of the voice is avoided, if not positively discouraged. I think it's fair to say there is less emphasis on using the voice in NH. I remember watching a video of Neil Davies, NZ horse trainer, and being struck by how totally silent with the horse. As one NH person said to me on an old bboard, "horses do not speak to each other".

 

[Wagtail]

Another difference between traditional and NH that occurred to me last night while I was watching a DVD called Top Rider, for beginners and novices...

In traditional (BHS/Pony Club), the voice is considered an important aid - the FBHS guy on the DVD, Jeremy Michaels, said it was the central one that the others connected to - whereas in some forms of Natural Horsemanship, the use of the voice is avoided, if not positively discouraged. I think it's fair to say there is less emphasis on using the voice in NH. I remember watching a video of Neil Davies, NZ horse trainer, and being struck by how totally silent with the horse. As one NH person said to me on an old bboard, "horses do not speak to each other".

I have noticed this too, but absolutely hate it and disagree. Horses DO talk to each other. They wicker and snort and neigh. The mare talks to her foal. One mare on my yard has a whole repertoire of noises as she talks to both people and other horses.

I have watched one NH person on my yard get absolutely no where with her horse in over a year. In fact, I think she has gone backwards. The horse never gets spoken to and has no way of knowing he is doing the right thing.

I always teach voice commands and find that horses respond very readily to them. Of course they also respond to gestures. But to purposely stay silent, is wrong IMO.

 

[Dolcé]

Most of the methods mentioned in the OP are taken directly from the 'traditional' methods, just given a bit of spin to make them profitable! I think it is probably the way we keep horses in the main that has changed, probably more because of the way we use them has changed.

I was away from horses for quite a few years having started as a young child, at 9 I used to re school other people's horses, re break etc, and never a whip in sight. I used to ride one pony several miles on roads to the Chevin with a string around his neck, bareback, he followed instruction through little directional tugs at the base of his mane, he had been un-rideable when I took him on.

I don't know how but I 'forgot' everything I knew for a while when coming back into it and got all caught up in the 'natural' methods. Gradually as my own knowledge came back I realised it is not that different, things we did as standard are now 're-branded' as new and amazing.

Horses used to be creatures of work rather than pleasure for most, they were treated as such, fed well and cared for so that they could do the job they were meant for. They may not have got turnout every day or ever (but then many don't now) but they were well exercised etc because they had to be, it was just done.

 

[amandap]

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I know nothing about NH.

It depends what you mean by talk. Of course horses don't speak as we do but they do communicate and I believe we are not able to understand or even notice much of their communication.

If putting humans needs before the needs of horses as a foundation for horsemanship is where we are heading to or heading back to, then it's not for me. For me good horsemanship means striving to understand horses as a species (as opposed to just doing what we are told or is 'what you do') and doing our best to provide what they need to prevent problems and learning how to communicate with them effectively and in a way acceptable to them.
Of course this is a compromise and highly subjective.

I believe there is good horsemanship full stop. If we continually have to say one type is better than another NH will always be my choice because I believe in holistic horse care and learning from and 'listening to' natural horses and horses themselves. Traditional to me is either excellent or abusive to take extremes along a continuum, just the same as NH is (I believe) excellent or at the other extreme abusive. What is it that makes the difference? I believe it's the human in the equation.

Saying NH or Traditional is fundamentally flawed is great but my opinion is... it depends. There is such a huge range (or I thought there was) of thinking and of course the 10 million ways to skin a cat doesn't mean some are always right and some are always wrong to me.

Just to add, surely horsemanship should evolve and move with modern understanding? Traditional to me is often very against questioning and looking for ways to better life for horses. The barefoot movement which is still the last resort for many owners and many Vets is a good example of this type of Traditional thinking, the horse can't cope without shoes so shoe it. No problem until a horse is sore in shoes and then the owner starts to question and look for answers and learn that there are other ways and incidentally these ways might benefit the horse as a whole.

 

[fburton]

Just to be clear... in my last post, I wasn't saying one type of horsemanship is better than the other - I was just pointing out a difference. And I certainly wasn't saying either is fundamentally flawed.

It depends what you mean by talk. Of course horses don't speak as we do but they do communicate and I believe we are not able to understand or even notice much of their communication.

I think that's true. That's one area where NH has an edge over "traditional", imo - but that's not to say that traditional folk don't also strive to understand horses' communication.

I also believe the human voice can be very useful and shouldn't be dismissed simply because "horses don't talk English". They clearly are able to learn what different sounds mean, and there is no reason why this should be unacceptable to them. Where it could go wrong is people assuming that's all you need and therefore not making the effort to improve their non-verbal understanding and communication skills.

Is there any point to this exercise of identifying the differences between horsemanship styles? I think there is inasmuch as it gives an opportunity to highlight their good and bad points.

 

[Fellewell]

For some reason I've been pondering the fate of an auction pony and remembering one that came into my hands.
This little mare had probably been treated harshly and was very wary of the human voice. She reacted very strongly when she heard a voice convey anger or even a sense of urgency even if they were in the next stable!
With a pony like that there finally comes a day when as usual they start to panic and you try in as low a voice as possible with whatever words you may use to tell them that it's ok, everything is fine.
On that day when you see her energy levels drop and she calms and you know that she finally believes you, it's one of the greatest feelings in the world.
They've got those big ears for a reason

 

[fburton]

Traditional to me is often very against questioning and looking for ways to better life for horses.

This is a good point. Traditional can be very prescriptive - think the BHS exam system - though I don't think it has a monopoly on dogma. OTOH, I would say most systems have an element of striving to improve, even if it isn't a stated aim.

 

[AengusOg]

I keep reading threads with this sort of subject matter in the hope that someone will actually give a definitive description of what 'traditional' horsemanship is, and what their objections to it are, but it never happens.

Let's talk specifics, so that we can get our teeth into a fair and open discussion.

It would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Fellewell]

Anthropomorphized, horses were imbued by the Romans with almost human characteristics.

"Horses harnessed to chariots in the circus unquestionably show that they understand the shouts of encouragement and applause. At the races in the circus forming part of the Secular Games of Claudius Caesar [AD 47] a charioteer of the Whites named Raven was thrown at the start, and his team took the lead and kept it by getting in the way of their rivals and jostling them aside and doing everything against them that they would have had to do with a most skilful charioteer in control, and as they were ashamed for human science to be beaten by horses, when they had completed the proper course they stopped dead at the chalk line."

Pliny, Natural History (VIII.159)



Were the Romans traditionalists

 

[amandap]

I think the big difference in using verbal stuff with horses is tone and ability and opportunity of the horse to learn an association with the word and even of the word in various tones as opposed to just saying or shouting something to a horse and expecting him to understand. A horse has to be trained or learn another way to associate voice with action, I don't believe horses know what we are saying or asking by just words and certainly with out learning.
That's my take on it simply anyway.

 

[Fellewell]

I think the big difference in using verbal stuff with horses is tone and ability and opportunity of the horse to learn an association with the word and even of the word in various tones as opposed to just saying or shouting something to a horse and expecting him to understand. A horse has to be trained or learn another way to associate voice with action, I don't believe horses know what we are saying or asking by just words and certainly with out learning.
That's my take on it simply anyway.

Fair enough, familiarity plays a part, their lives may depend on being able to read us easily and like all predators our eyes are on the front of our faces so they're taking a chance
On the traditional front, if we take tradition as 'handed down', do we need to study history and see who has had the most influence over the ages?

 

[Hippona]

You know in Charlie Brown....where the teacher is talking and it sounds like '''mwaaa mwaaa mwaa.....'

...that just happened to me reading that thread....only with my eyes.

 

[mik]

A combination of commonsense, understanding of equine behaviour, and being able to think like a horse is to me traditional horsemanship.

Totally agree.

 

[fburton]

like all predators our eyes are on the front of our faces

Crocodiles! (However, your point is well taken!)

 

[Fellewell]

Crocodiles! (However, your point is well taken!)

Blimey, that's a first (about the point I mean ) all except crocodiles, of course.

 

[fburton]

Blimey, that's a first (about the point I mean

A horse has to be trained or learn another way to associate voice with action, I don't believe horses know what we are saying or asking by just words and certainly with out learning.
That's my take on it simply anyway.

It's astounding that anyone would think otherwise, and yet all too often one sees people behave as if horses should be able to understand the words.

 

[siennamum]

I think there's no such thing as traditional horsemanship.

It is a phrase adopted by NH marketing people to create an us and them mentality. They have to have something to denigrate in order to sell a 'new' product. the product is generally not new, just some rehashed and bite size form of managing horses for people who are often failing.

It is denigrated, because how otherwise will they persuade people to do things their way. If they criticised Carl Hester, John Whittaker, Reiner Klimke or the riders of the Haute Ecole they would look stupid, so they ignore the fact that most people would aspire to ride like 'traditional' horsemen and claim that it is a cruel way of treating horses and ineffective.

In reality what is really traditional is everything from Xenophon onwards, with warts and all.

 

[fburton]

I think there's no such thing as traditional horsemanship.

[...]

In reality what is really traditional is everything from Xenophon onwards, with warts and all.

That's a reasonable pov. I have always thought of "traditional" as BHS/Pony Club (in the UK anyway) - but that could be completely wrong.

 

[frustrated]

I am tradtional, i am classical, i am old fashioned, I am me, someone who trys hard to learn from each and every horse i meet.
I sadly cannot market myself like the parrelli, monty roberts. Americans that in their country of origin have no history of classical equitation, only cowboys and indians
You cannot re-invent the wheel, some people would like to sell you the thought that they have.
Good horsemanship takes years, no short cuts, no end game.
Ask any one of the most talented horsemen on the planet if their method is the one, the chances are there will say the one what? Each horse needs its own approach, each horse will reach the same, but not be the same, its what i love about being with horses.