Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then

[rosiejones]

Just to add sorry for the typos iPhone! Also meant to add that I think licking and chewing is not just one thing going on, I think there are potentially various things it can mean so can't really be analysed out of context with the rest of the body language and behaviour.
Also should add, young horse with tractor nothing happened, I felt out of control as not training but was of course in a safe space and the tractor only came in enough to see he that he was worried then went away again, etc etc so no real danger to horse human or deep sea whales!!

 

[eahotson]

Just to add sorry for the typos iPhone! Also meant to add that I think licking and chewing is not just one thing going on, I think there are potentially various things it can mean so can't really be analysed out of context with the rest of the body language and behaviour.
Also should add, young horse with tractor nothing happened, I felt out of control as not training but was of course in a safe space and the tractor only came in enough to see he that he was worried then went away again, etc etc so no real danger to horse human or deep sea whales!!

Pleased about the deep sea whales Rosie I did wonderhttp://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[eahotson]

Got the smiley icon wrong. Sorry.On the whole though, I don't think the comments have been negative.People are just saying what they have observed and what they think about it.They could be wrong they could be right but I don't think its healthy for people to be totally uncritical devotees.A lot of people will find a lot they like about the IH organization and some things they don't.I personally think that is good.

 

[Morgan123]

Hi all - back from moving house - wow this has moved on a lot. Just saw that someone on the IH forum has said that RosieJones took the time to reply and I dind't have the decency to say thank you, whihc is of course true but just wanted ot explain that it's not lack of decency I've just been moving house - Thank you RosieJones, I have lots of furhter questions whihc I will come to when I have a second.

AMAZING article by Kelly on the IHforum, thansk for posting that, she manages to completely not address any of the points being raised and dismiss anyone who is doing any research into this area as not thinking about the horses' emotions and just not understanding. WOW. I think that's a real shame since that is completely not the case, and if we all talk about this rationally and try and understand eachother's points of view surely we'll have a much more useful discussion than this 'oh you just don't understand' view point.

anyway back later....

 

[amandap]

I don't think its healthy for people to be totally uncritical devotees.

Chopped your post but I wholeheartedly agree with this about IH and all other thinking and belief systems and even science.

In the end we do all see things differently and in these discussions there is a fundamental difference of opinion, so complete agreement will never be reached until we all think the same. God forbid that!

 

[Natch]

Having read Kelly's post on her own forum I have decided to try to speak to Kelly openly on a forum in order to discuss the questions I put forward to her in a PM some months ago, and put on this thread a few pages back.

I have asked to join IHDG boards (membership pending approval from staff) and have asked TFC to clarify advertising rules.


I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly that science and horse trainers need to "join up," indeed, many have already. I would also like to point out in response to her post that there are good and bad scientists just as there are good and bad horse trainers, and I suggest that she examines wording closely. Science should not be saying that the horse is not a conscious animal with the capacity to trust, love, exhibit cognition etc; however it will, justifiably so, say that there is currently no scientific evidence to support a hypothesis. In order for science to be valid, it must deal with the measureable, and therefore it does not (yet) deal with animal emotions; how can it, when we can't currently scientifically measure animal emotion? It is, however, interesting to note that join-up can be explained wholly with reference to learning theory.

That human to human join up experience.Fascinating!

I really would recommend anybody interested does this simulation human to human, to try to experience it from the horse's point of view. Also to experience being led around and asked to perform various tasks by a mute human through only a hold on a headcollar and rope.

You would love kellys books as actually some of what you are saying is coming from a very very similar place! It's almost a catchphrase of kellys to say "set the horse up for success".
Did you notice that in recent demos the loading horses work over wooden boards, under tarpaulin tunnels and through narrow spaces before trying to load? It's a clear example of incremental learning, which is a massive part of ih training.

I also think your overcomlicatibg join up to refer to it as mind games! That's very anthropomorphic, it's just using body language to encourage the horse to engage positively with you, and to set up a line of subtle communication that will help to establish aids without any stress or evasion from the beginning

I personally DO enjoy reading/hearing Kelly's words... its just watching the practical stuff which I find doesn't reflect the words.

The official MR position on join-up seems to describe it as a mind game though - "staying with me is easier than not wanting to be with me" - that's a mind game, wouldn't you agree?

As I say, whether or not a leadership/respect/other process is going on during join-up is unproven, but what happens during join-up can be 100% explained using learning theory. Specifically negative reinforcement, punishment, positive reinforcement and shaping.

I'd like to thank Rosie Jones, Sarah Weston etc. for taking the time to explain to others

...

"You will make mistakes, your horse will make mistakes, as long as you work through them together as a team all will be well".

Just picked out two quotes which I wholeheartedly agree with. Thanks from me for taking part in an open and challenging debate.

2) your description of join up is slightly off in terms of timing. You don't release the pressure after you see the signs, the horse will only show the signs if you have taken enough pressure off first. Similarly, you don't release the pressure when he stops ( why would he stop while you are 'chasing' him? You use body language to invite him to you then he turns in. These small details re timing add more weight to the argument that it isn't learning theory and the horse is not forced. He could very easily not come in or not follow or not be caught.

To put another point of view across; horses show the signs because there is only a certain amount of time they can run for. Evolution dictates that it doesn't make sense to exhaust yourself if you're not actually going to get eaten. Learning theory applies in the form of negative reinforcement. Pressure is on, horse offers behaviour a) run to escape it. Pressure is still on, horse tries behaviour b) kick, fight, whatever they try next. In the meantime pressure changes in order to keep the horse's focus, but it stays on. Horse is motivated to find a way to get the pressure taken off, and eventually gets around to trying behaviour c) circling smaller/ear locked on, licking, head lowering etc. Pressure relents a bit, horse stops exhibiting c), pressure goes back on . Horse has eureka moment - exhibits c) some more - pressure relents more. Horse finally does what the trainer is looking for, which includes stepping towards human, and all pressure is released. And, if you're like me, I believe the environmental atmosphere changes - human smiles with heart, rather using the stern harder energy they used to drive horse away - postive reinforcement for the horse to continue to behave desireably.

I really must go and stop coming back as I can tell there will always be one more negative comment... Only had time to come back today due to weather meaning that this mornings appointment doing the first sit on a baby in an outdoor arena was not a good idea! But the next week is hectic so please don't take my absence as avoidance, I just don't have time anymore!!! Rosie

I'm sorry you feel that this board has only offered negative comments. Speaking for myself it wasn't my intention, but I am frustrated at the lack of communication in response to my enquiries to Kelly. If people have a position then unless you convince them otherwise they will not change it, but I for one enjoy having my views challenged and being able to challenge other people's views - I find it a useful way to learn about the world.

Either way perhaps if you come on here again you will see my thanks, if not and anybody knows Rosie personally then please thank her on my behalf for contributing to an interesting and mostly civilised debate

 

[FairyLights]

amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.

 

[Pale Rider]

.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.

Wow, thats a bit of a sweeping statement, lol.

 

[amandap]

amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.

I did state horses should be properly trained to start with. I disagree about the bridle but having a bit in the mouth for 'control' and training is your choice, it would not be mine.

"What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do."
This is simply not true. I have been in many robust discussions with some on this thread and they are adamant that IH is cruel...

I may well be uneducated and ignorant by your standards but that is a very sweeping statement and you may well be insulting some very experienced, knowledgeable people with those words. IH doesn't
'target' anyone in particular and I believe Kelly is working with the BHS a bit so I assume you don't mean them?

 

[FairyLights]

oh dear I seem to have upset some.
I hold steadfast to my opinion and thoughts on the matter of IH. I will agree to differ from the opinions and statements of some others on the board.
I now consider my input on this subject closed, Taditional BHS methods have worked for me and my horses very well over the years. I will not change for fashions sake nor to I think targeting vulnerable unsure people with psyco-bable is a good thing.

 

[neelie OAP]

amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.

Yes a very good point you have raised, I agree people with little experience with horses in the main are targeted mostly, ok fine, but if these people go away not fully understanding what they have seen, because maybe it has not been quite fully explained to them, or not had their questions answered in a way that they can understand, or being side tracked by some idle/story to detract their attention away from whats actually happening, there is always going to be some doubt !

 

[amandap]

Hang on a minute here, people have to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Owners are ultimately responsible for their horses and there is too much hiving it off onto vets, trainers, farriers etc. imo. IH certainly isn't for everyone (or many it seems. lol) and if you have doubts just walk away. We are all free to do as we wish and yes most of us have chosen bad or poor professionals at some point but I'm sure all of us do what we believe is best at that time. What we must do is learn from our mistakes and learn to be careful about who we choose to work with our horses or how we choose to work with them. We have to learn all we can and then try to make informed choices.

I've been through countless farriers and trimmers etc. but I keep learning so I can judge better the effects of their work. In all this people are individuals and there are good, bad and indifferent at their jobs in every walk of life.
Of course IH isn't perfect but it does try to offer help and guidance, to see it as going round searching out vulnerable people is frankly... well I am actually lost for words. lol You can say that about anything when there are people who are beginners.

ps. I am not upset just bemused at an educated, non ignorant persons view.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes a very good point you have raised, I agree people with little experience with horses in the main are targeted mostly, ok fine, but if these people go away not fully understanding what they have seen, because maybe it has not been quite fully explained to them, or not had their questions answered in a way that they can understand, or being side tracked by some idle/story to detract their attention away from whats actually happening, there is always going to be some doubt !

Aren't people who turn up at a riding school targeted, by the no nonsense stick up their a***, BHS approved types, who put them on some poor horse, dead to every aid and send them round in circles for months not learning diddly squat.

 

[xxMozlarxx]

amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.

...oh for a perfect world, of course youngsters shouldn't have been allowed, but it isn't as simple as that. Horses are horses and if you seriously think that they all can be controlled by holding a stick in front ( you must mean hitting the horse with it?) or by instilling 'stand' when a horse is reactive or, has learnt it's own strength as some breeds do then there is some experience you
havent had yet, and no, a bridle or lunging cavesson isn't always adequate.
Joanna and Roger Day embraced NH, and combined them with their traditional methods, would you call them ignorant or uneducated?
It's really arrogant of you to suggest that bargy horses or similar only come from wishy washy people handling them, or that NH is for nervous novices, it simply isn't the case

 

[Pale Rider]

...oh for a perfect world, of course youngsters shouldn't have been allowed, but it isn't as simple as that. Horses are horses and if you seriously think that they all can be controlled by holding a stick in front ( you must mean hitting the horse with it?) or by instilling 'stand' when a horse is reactive or, has learnt it's own strength as some breeds do then there is some experience you
havent had yet, and no, a bridle or lunging cavesson isn't always adequate.
Joanna and Roger Day embraced NH, and combined them with their traditional methods, would you call them ignorant or uneducated?
It's really arrogant of you to suggest that bargy horses or similar only come from wishy washy people handling them, or that NH is for nervous novices, it simply isn't the case

^^agreed^^

 

[Morgan123]

whatever I think of IH (would just like to note that, jsut like Naturally, my approval ofr joining their forum is also 'pending' which seems a bit of a shame since surely all reasonable discussion around the method is a good thing!?!?!), I do disagree with people arguing that it being aimed at novices and iexperienced people is a reason to dislike it,

1) because it's not true, REALLY - I can't really think of any way in which it's aimed more at novies than anyone experienced?? And of course there are also lots of experienced people who take it up.

2) While it is probably true that more 'average' level riders than Pros become IH people, that may well be that they haven't totally found their sort of trianing niche and style yet and are looking around more, which isn't IH's fault, it's just a fact.

I think it's more useful to think about the behaviours we're seeing and whether those are/aren't 'ethical' (minefield sort of word), natural, etc etc...

 

[debsg]

Hi all - back from moving house - wow this has moved on a lot. Just saw that someone on the IH forum has said that RosieJones took the time to reply and I dind't have the decency to say thank you, whihc is of course true but just wanted ot explain that it's not lack of decency I've just been moving house - Thank you RosieJones, I have lots of furhter questions whihc I will come to when I have a second.

AMAZING article by Kelly on the IHforum, thansk for posting that, she manages to completely not address any of the points being raised and dismiss anyone who is doing any research into this area as not thinking about the horses' emotions and just not understanding. WOW. I think that's a real shame since that is completely not the case, and if we all talk about this rationally and try and understand eachother's points of view surely we'll have a much more useful discussion than this 'oh you just don't understand' view point.

anyway back later....

Morgan123, 'lack of manners' comment by myself on IH forum was not aimed at you but at another poster on this thread who was making a huge fuss that her questions were being ignored. Hope your move went well xx

 

[amandap]

Ah what is ethical is a total mine field because it is so very personal.

I've done those discussions to death I'm afraid on IHDG including the biggie... dominance. The arguments remain basically the same and imo boil down to different personal ethics and philosophies. They invariably get nasty and insults get thrown when people feel they have put a compelling argument forward and there isn't total agreement or a mass cry of "I never thought of that you are so right and I am wrong". People start to get nasty/frustrated when they don't feel their questions are answered to their satisfaction.

Have a look at archived threads and hall of fame you will find pages and pages of it and recognize a few posters from here.

 

[Morgan123]

Morgan123, 'lack of manners' comment by myself on IH forum was not aimed at you but at another poster on this thread who was making a huge fuss that her questions were being ignored. Hope your move went well xx

Lol not to worry, I didn't take offence, it was a lack of manners on my part not to have got back to Rosie sooner to say thank you anyway!!

Amandap - absolutely, I agree it's all v personal and we've all talked about this A LOT - don't think this one's really got nasty though, there are a few heated moments but in general it's been nice to have a civilised discussion, so thanks all

 

[tess1]

One good writer albeit with horribly expensive books but worth it is Marlitt Wendt.www.pferdsein.de The website can be got in English as are the books.The 2 I have read are How horses feel and think and Trust instead of dominance.

Hi, thank you for the links to those books. They are not too expensive - one for 14.00 and one for 20.00 I think. I have some birthday money left and they look good! How do you get the website in English, please? I couldn't see a "translate" button anywhere?

I have to go now but would like to say thank you for an interesting thread and a special thank you to Tess (who I don't know and have never met despite the 'accusation' in the pm) who has both answered and brought up a lot of good points.

Oh, dear ... I can confirm that I do not know Hunting Pink, either from this forum nor any other, but I'm glad you enjoyed the thread HP

Many moons ago I used to post on IHDG. When i queeried the need for controlling type halters [ eg Dually] [ whats wrong with a decent ordinary leather headcollar----the many horses I have trained over the years have never needed more than a headcollar or bridle ] [ and lunging cavesson when being lunged, obviously] I found that my post was deleted. I persisted only to be eventually banned. Any post queerying MR methods was also deleted. censorship big time. And very childish.

yup

1)

You say that the horse is uneducated who does bot k ow how to lead safely, I'd agree but wonder how you would retrain a horse that pushed through you? I have found the dually extremely effective,/QUOTE]

I use positive reinforcement to teach the horse what I want them to do, as opposed to punishing what I don't want (which would be using the dually).

AMAZING article by Kelly on the IHforum, thansk for posting that, she manages to completely not address any of the points being raised and dismiss anyone who is doing any research into this area as not thinking about the horses' emotions and just not understanding. WOW. I think that's a real shame since that is completely not the case, and if we all talk about this rationally and try and understand eachother's points of view surely we'll have a much more useful discussion than this 'oh you just don't understand' view point.

Agree ... completely


Great post by "Naturally" and yes, definite thanks to Rosie Jones for her contributions. (Naturally and Morgan123, I think memberships to the forum are always "pending" until someone deals with them, it doesn't mean they might not accept you. I'd love to join the discussion you will have on there ... but I'm not allowed )


OK, so, I'm just going to ask this question one more time, to make sure that there is on one out there who would like to answer me So this is what I asked on page 11 ...

Why did Roberts feel the need to include a Buckstop in the list of equipment he had access to during the study of his method? It has been previously stressed on his forum that this is a tool of last resort used only when all other techniques have failed and this is horse's last chance before being sent for slaughter or similar. I don't believe any of the horses in the study fell into that category (?).

 

[amandap]

ps. to you new IHDG joiners, it is a forum allied to IH not an open forum such as this. Kelly does not tolerate disrespect of MR. I was threatened with a ban on a CT forum for being challenging once. I decided to leave in the end cos it was bloomin hard work cos almost all they did was moan about Monty and IH. I hope they've moved forward to more constructive topics.

 

[Morgan123]

ps. to you new IHDG joiners, it is a forum allied to IH not an open forum such as this. Kelly does not tolerate disrespect of MR. I was threatened with a ban on a CT forum for being challenging once. I decided to leave in the end cos it was bloomin hard work cos almost all they did was moan about Monty and IH. I hope they've moved forward to more constructive topics.

I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.

Shame about that on the clicker training forum though, agree very unconstructive!

 

[amandap]

No, Catrin, the answer is far from simple. These were untrained young horses. In total they had ten hours of training from a standing start to completing an obstacle course and a dressage test. The justification given on the forum is that the buckstopper is a last ditch attempt to save a horse from slaughter because they buck so badly. Horses do not get sent for slaughter after ten hours of training, as part of an experiment to test the "kindness" of certain techniques. He would have used the buckstopper if he had a horse who had objected to the fast, intense training methods that were being used - for example - at least four join ups in the first three and a half hours of training.

I've no idea why you continue to ask a question to which you seem to know the answer to, but hey keep asking anyway if that's what floats your boat.

I'm signing of too now.

 

[eahotson]

I've no idea why you continue to ask a question to which you seem to know the answer to, but hey keep asking anyway if that's what floats your boat.

I'm signing of too now.

Tess I think wants them to admit this on an open forum.What I would like an answer too is What do you and the horse gain from this intensive and rushed backing.?

 

[irishcob]

I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.

Shame about that on the clicker training forum though, agree very unconstructive!

As a member of the IHDG, I can assure you that it's NOT true that only those in agreement with IH can join! The whole point of IH is to be open minded, and open to learning. There are plenty of discussions with people of all sorts of backgrounds and ethical view points. What isn't tolerated by the moderators is rudeness and disrespectful or slanderous comments -which I think is common sense on ANY forum!

To all those awaiting confirmation of their new membership on IHDG - I look forward to meeting you all there!

 

[amandap]

The only person that can answer that question is Monty Roberts. Oh and those who can read his mind.

Be it right or wrong to have a tool kit I wonder if that was it his kit... I couldn't make an assumption he would use it but what do I know being ignorant and uneducated?

 

[neelie OAP]

Aren't people who turn up at a riding school targeted, by the no nonsense stick up their a***, BHS approved types, who put them on some poor horse, dead to every aid and send them round in circles for months not learning diddly squat.

I did say in the main, not all, and yes the riding schools are there for the sole reason of teaching people to ride, but if the instructor isn't very good at the job, people will just not continue going, they will find somewhere else better suited to them,!

 

[debsg]

I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.

Shame about that on the clicker training forum though, agree very unconstructive!

I really don't think that only people who agree with MR's methods are 'allowed' to post. In the past there have been posts that appear to be purely provocative and abusive, and the poster has subsequently been barred. Lively debate has always been encouraged and enjoyed by all.

 

[amandap]

I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.

I missed this.

There are many who are not members of IH (including me ) and many who don't agree with some stuff... it is when people become abusive or severely disruptive bans are issued as far as I can see. Joining to question is one thing, joining to score points and question when you know the answers and don't agree with them is a bit pointless imo. On here joining to cause discord and you are called a troll.

 

[eahotson]

pferdsein.de If you get it on internet explorer right click on your mouse and it will offer a translation button.Not perfect but o.k Marlitt is not uncritical of IH.She doesn't actually name them but makes it plain who she is referring to and says they are ruthless in their application of psychological pressure.