Views on natural horsemanship?

I am never sure why it is labelled as Natural Horsemanship.

Common sense and being consistent is the key, both which are covered in both Natural and Traditional :)
 
Views? Pretty much unprintable, but that's more to do with the aggressively merchandised and marketed poppycock than any actual "horsemanship" that may, or may not, be in evidence with some of the more rational exponents. GOOD traditional training is pretty much the same thing as GOOD "natural" training.
 
The notion of horsemanship is always spoiled by hype. To make someone think they can buy something that really can only come from common sense, patience and good humor or a god given talent is wrong. Perhaps the difference is in the rider, If you want to dominate your horse then you are of one school, If you want to encourage your horse you're of the other. Which ever discipline you may follow is irrelevant, it's attitude that puts you one side of the fence or t'other. I am meeting more and more people that want something more from their horses than slavish obedience and are realizing albeit grudgingly, that Monty Roberts and his ilk may have something in spite of the hype. If join up is good enough for the household cavalry it's ok for me too.
 
Distilled to its basic principles, the difference between natural horsemanship and traditional horsemanship are relatively minimal. The only thing I think does stand only on one side is join up, which I have never seen in a traditional setting. Everything else though (desensitising, ground work, voice aids, bomb proofing and even ground trick training) sit both sides of the fence in slightly different guises. Whilst I do occasionally do a 'proper' join up with mine, I will more commonly use running as a consequence for unwanted behaviour and to get them listening to me in a safe environment, which builds as much on traditional training principles as it does natural horsemanship.
I think natural horsemanship gets itself a bad rap because of its implication that it is somehow more intuitive/mystical/ethical/effective than traditional methods. There are also a lot of big names who don't necessarily do it any favours. Parelli and his special saddles and schooling whip (carrot stick?) wind me up no end as I feel it is more about selling magic tools than understanding why and how they work, despite the fact that there are sound principles behind it. Coupled with all the cult like phraseology that makes his books almost impossible to read and I think he may be the single biggest barrier to 'traditional' horse people embracing 'natural' ideas.
Then there are the more general gimmicks, Monty Roberts I have heard say a number of eminently sensible things about a variety of training situations but all anyone thinks of him for is join up. Same with (I think it is) buck brannaman with his flags. I think part of the issue with this is the way clinics in America are publicised and run. You need your magic hook type activity to build a brand around. Even without join up though I think monty would still be an excellent horse trainer.
Another difference in use (and I think a reason why it is more commonly adopted by people with large western herds) is that much of it is built around taking a fully grown minimally handled horse and trying to get rapid results.!in many ways the traditional way of calmly and consistently handling a foal and guiding his behaviours and experiences from when he is young is infinitely more natural than taking a 3 year old and plunging it into a whole new lifestyle .

In summary, I love what NH brings in terms of new ideas or ways of looking at things, but think it is as silly to follow just one NH method (particularly from heavily marketed and entrenched regimes) as it would be to take advice from just one traditional trainer, and with the added risk that the experienced NH trainer is often in video in America rather than seeing you, your horse or your goals and being able to advise or intervene.
 
Having listed problematic NH people, probably only fair to cite an example of it done well! Stacy Westfall is the only one I follow with any regularity, though I'm sure there are other equally useful ones out there. She got famous by actually competing to a high level so understands what most people really want to produce in a horse. The training videos and advice are mostly free, and although I believe there is a product line I have rarely seen it pushed in the videos. Methods used so far as I can tell are a mixture of natural and traditional and the rationale behind both are clearly explained. I would follow pretty much any trainer of any field if the offered all those things.

Final thought that just came to me. In theory NH was developed in response to the tying up and sacking out methods old cowboys used. It is interesting to watch the film wild horse, wild ride about mustang makeover competitors to see how prevalent it appears to have become in that sector. Seems like it's effectiveness as a tool has been pretty well recognised now amongst that community. I would assume this is due to the speed and consistency of results produced in those circumstances though, and am still not convinced it is better or more gentle for training a young horse if you have the opportunity to build up gradually from birth.
 
gnubee, Whilst I agree with most of what you say, the cowboys of the wild west were by no means the developers of NH. In fact their methods were more closely related to those used in Europe at the time and were brutal as a result of economic necessity. The North American Indian was probably the inspiration for the more gentle approach (thinking Join up, Bloody awful phrase). And before them the Greeks, notably Xenophon, who wrote a wonderful description of classical Greek horse training from foal to war horse including use of the round pen and, yup, join up. He also suggested that the horse is never wrong and advocated pressure and release. I expect there were other earlier cultures who used the same NH methods but were less literate.
 
Xenophon is an interesting read indeed!

I think NH is more about intuition and knowlege gained from all spectrums of horsemanship....you pick and choose from them what you feel is right.
Any 'genre' promoting any 'training aids' for sale is a marketing excercise to me. Speed is never the essence when dealing with any animal IMO.
 
I have had a parelli lesson and a couple of natural horsemanship lessons but was trained in the 80's by a rider who had been trained in Germany on a dressage yard-so possibly what most people think of as traditional, I watched Monty Roberts in the 80's and attended the natural horsemanship competition last year (cant remember what it was called now), I have stabled with avid top level (whatever that is) parelli followers and natural horsemanship fanatics.
In all ways of working with horses I see common sense and lack of common sense. Parelli and natural horsemanship appears to often be turned to by those that have a breakdown of communication/trust with their horse, I hate the hype and for me I will take anything from any source that works for me and the horse I am working with at that moment in time, there are things I see that I don't like from each source but that is the individual not the background.
What I dislike is many NH and P followers believe they are open but many are the most closed people I have ever met and are very closed to anything they see as traditional.
 
Last edited:
LJR said:
I am never sure why it is labelled as Natural Horsemanship.

Common sense and being consistent is the key, both which are covered in both Natural and Traditional :)
Click to expand...

This, its like calling a feed "Best for Jumping", means nothing.

Went to a place where the guy had learned it all from DVDs as far as I could see,
He smacked his own horse with a rope for a tiny fidget, when I would either have ignored it or told it to stand.
Both his horses feet were badly balanced and the mare recently shod was sore on stoney tracks, he told me this would occur every time she was newly shod!
The mare had all the symptoms of ulcers.
She would not lunge for anyone but him.
She would only do what she was asked when he was watching from the ground, she was a lot trickier when he was out of sight.
Their feed was coarse mix dark with molasses.

What is natural about all that?
 
Bonkers2 Their are many as many fools as horses out there Xenophon advocates all of the useful NH techniques and attitudes and is recognised as the Father of dressage. :)
 
IMHO Natural horsemanship means working with the horse's nature - accepting that they are prey animals who have certain instincts and behaviours. Good old fashioned BHS derived from the army and their starting point was what the humans required from the animal. Not mutually exclusive of course, and there are good and bad in both. Just my two pennyworth, having had experience of a couple of horses for whom old fashioned to the point of cruelty did not work, but understanding and seeing it from their point of view did bring huge improvements. I think most of us these days incorporate some of that?
 
As others have said, the differences between traditional and natural horsemanship are hard to define....

But, seeing as you are studying people's views, rather than studying the actual content of the methods, I think you will find a difference in the attitudes of people who consider themselves wholly 'NH' and against traditional, and those who consider themselves wholly traditional and against 'NH', and those who occupy a middle ground.

I am studying for a PhD in Social Anthropology studying the way that people interpret their horses and form a 'theory of mind' about the horse. Particularly interesting to me is the way that NH obviously fills some sort of gap in the market that more traditional methods were not filling. This could be providing better training mechanisms, or different ways of explaining training and conceptualising the relationship to the horse. Whether it fulfils practical, emotional, social or ethical needs, natural horsemanship clearly offered something that a lot of people wanted.

What is interesting to me, is that while it seems like 10 years ago NH and traditional seemed worlds apart, now the two are seeming closer together - this is partly because the novelty of NH has worn off and it seems less like something totally new and strange. Also because people have recognised how much good training has some very major similarities no matter which discipline or system it comes from. Therefore, for example, good horsemanship has ALWAYS used pressure and release (as others say, including Xenophon). But, it has to be said, the vast majority of 'normal' horsemanship is really not that good - the use of pressure and release is often badly timed, poorly executed. NH came along and really emphasised some of those things, which probably has made a very big difference to the way a lot of people ride/handle their horses, even if they are thoroughly opposed to NH because you cant escape the way the language has infiltrated the whole equestrian scene. Now even very 'traditional' instructors will often talk about pressure and release (though the degree of sophistication they have regarding the skills involved obviously drastically varies!).

So it is easy now to say, it is all just common sense. Partly because once you see training working, it seems obvious and logical and like it would be daft not to know the basic principles of incremental learning, etc. However, the reason I think NH has enjoyed such a surge of support is that the 'common sense' really was not that common at all, it is only obvious with hindsight, once you are aware of these things, but plenty of people feel they are following 'common sense' when they use methods that do not maximise on the horses learning processes. Indeed, those people might well get just about enough success to continue reinforcing the idea that they are doing it the right way. They might not realise that it could be a lot EASIER and CALMER and SAFER and QUICKER using a different method, and they have no reason to go looking for different methods, because they believe it is all just common sense anyway.


So, I'd be interested in - *common sense - what that means to different people and how one comes by it. *why people are attracted or repelled from NH. *How the two are related - i.e. what was it about traditional methods that meant NH could develop as an 'alternative' option, how did NH market itself 'against' traditional and what effect did this have, how traditional has been adjusted by NH.




You might be interested to know that when you look back at horse mangazines from the 1960's you see a similar pattern of 'new' techniques pitted against 'old' and when you read horsemanship manuals from the 16th Century the writers often talk about the tension between new-fangled kinder methods and older, harsher more traditional methods.

Of course, good 'traditional' trainers are not harsh or cruel at all, but perhaps it is a timeless trait that some people will think some things backward and immoral when we compare it to something that seems shiny and new and that fulfils contemporary ethical/emotional aesthetics for the relationship in a novel way.


So sorry this is probably way more confusion than you needed!

Good luck on your project!
 
I like the Monty Roberts/Richard Maxwell theory. My horse goes wonderfully when ridden in his dually, long and flowly paces. He started loading after I decided to use Kelly Marks tip and walking him backwards everytime he stopped on the ramp. He joins up like an angel (Monty asked me had I done anything like this before after he joined up with his assistant in about ten seconds flat - the answer yes!). When you halt him and he puts his head skywards and you hold your hands high in the air he brings his head down thanks to Max and his book.

I think it has a place and recommend some of the things. Waving carrot sticks about and playing 'the games' isn't my thing but who knows I am sure this would work just as well.
 
Hi Rosiejm. Common sense is a rare thing. My job requires an understanding of many natural phenomena in the timber industry, Many of the skills I employ were once handed down Father to son, therefore ones education would be a matter of life absorption rather than learning by rote or limited to mere training. Hence the apparent rarity of common sense. Just a theory. For the growth of common sense one must keep an open mind, be generous with ones knowledge and allow the master to learn from the student, these things are sadly lacking in today's competitive world. The transient nature of family has, I think stifled the progression of what is regarded as old skills, horse management included and the reliance on technology has become a poor substitute for common sense.
 
Often people are taught what to do without an explanation of why it works - or, worse, with an incorrect explanation. I get the impression that sometimes it is only the 'what' that people are interested in: "when horse does x, do y" or "to load a horse, do z". My view is that being a good horseman requires a good understanding of the why's as well as the what's, so that one isn't merely applying techniques blindly and to allow one to adjust to the individual horse as necessary with confidence. I think that applies equally to natural and traditional horsemanship.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to add my views, have scan read what others have said.

If you haven't read monty roberts book i would read it (can't remember what it is called but really very interesting and certainly not wholly what you would expect if you thought of "natural horsemanship)

Can't say I agree with what is marketed as "parrelli" but I haven't studied it enough to counter argue, it just doesn't appeal to me on the surface.

I got asked a question I was unable to answer the other day by someone not very horsey when we were discussing breaking which was "how do you know what to do, who taught you?" & I didn't have an answer, no-one taught me how to break in, no-one taught me anything like that, I was taught to ride as a child & that's it.

Can't say my answer of "I just do it" was very helpful! Then I thought about it & I suppose although I break in the "traditional" way, I listen & react to the horses, horse sense is all I can call it. Its just instinct but I know from a since twitch of a muscle what is coming next & I don't think that is "traditional" or "natural" horsemanship, I think it is simply horsemanship. We couldn't do what we do without that horse sense or frankly I'd have been decked more times than I care to imagine !

I think the issues come when you try to label something rather than just doing what feels right at the time. These people who teach purely 1 method it is almost like they feel they cannot stray into other methods for fear of what people may think, rather than reacting to the situation that is in front of them in the most appropriate way. This is when issues arise in any "method".

Labels are the issue with a lot of things not just in horses !
 
It seems to me that there is never one reason why a horse does or doesn't do something so it probably follows that adhering to one school of thought or following one guru is a recipe for at best, frustration or at worst disaster.. The blinkers are for the horse. All horses are different as are riders and all have different days. The happiest or successful riders treat their animals with understanding, patience and kindness, their horses are healthy and obedient they allow themselves to be caught easily, enjoy being 'fiddled' about with and enjoy the release when they are turned away when the game is over. Bribery is corrupting yet some times necessary, Punishment is for losers.
A horse is never the wrong colour, yet a lot of people don't get past whats on the outside and are still content with their riding. Just as some look too deep and merely see a reflection of themselves. It is indeed the label that diverts the training and/or the understanding. The proof as they say is in the pudding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top