Morgan123
Well-Known Member
Yes true.
Are there any 'MR people' able to address these things? Really interested in feedback on these points.
Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then
- Thread starter neelie OAP
- Start date
Yes true.
Are there any 'MR people' able to address these things? Really interested in feedback on these points.
amandap
Well-Known Member
Not me this time, I'm all discussed/argued out on these subjects after years of it.
I'll leave it to the experts on both sides and 'science'. lol
eatmoremincepies
Well-Known Member
Worth noticing that some detractors mentioned have competing training/behavioural businesses or philosophies - a shame as mostly they are heading in the same direction, ie better treatment for horses. I wish they would all acknowledge that they all have stuff to learn from each other, and more in common than different. But that's humans for you . .
Even if you think science does have the answers, will it ever be impartial enough to be practically useful on this subject? I have absolutely no scientific evidence for what I do, but am happy deep down that the horses I work with become happy, relaxed and are still full of character and life. So it works for me and I will carry on.
For anyone that is genuinely interested in these methods, I would not get too tied up in research/science with all its various agendas, and instead contact someone who has been qualified/recommended for a few years in these methods. I think most would be willing to let you come and watch some training (as long as you are genuinely open minded and don't come with a chip on your shoulder). Then you can make your own mind up about whether the horses looked happy and relaxed and whether you like that particular person's take on these methods?
Btw re focus on time - the time it takes to start a horse is a only by-product of the way the horse is being trained. I know Monty always says how many minutes it took to start/load a horse (!) but he is not saying "look how clever I am to do this really fast", his point is that when you communicate with a horse in this way, the horse is willing to accept saddle/rider/trailer remarkably quickly (and usually with little or no reaction at all). The communication is the point, the shorter time it takes is just a bonus or side effect.
Flooding/desensitising - there is a fine line and it's down to the trainer to know what is too much for a horse. For my money, it's usually about working the edge of a comfort zone, if they go into total meltdown they are not learning anything except to be frightened of being trained.
Even if you think science does have the answers, will it ever be impartial enough to be practically useful on this subject? I have absolutely no scientific evidence for what I do, but am happy deep down that the horses I work with become happy, relaxed and are still full of character and life. So it works for me and I will carry on.
For anyone that is genuinely interested in these methods, I would not get too tied up in research/science with all its various agendas, and instead contact someone who has been qualified/recommended for a few years in these methods. I think most would be willing to let you come and watch some training (as long as you are genuinely open minded and don't come with a chip on your shoulder). Then you can make your own mind up about whether the horses looked happy and relaxed and whether you like that particular person's take on these methods?
Btw re focus on time - the time it takes to start a horse is a only by-product of the way the horse is being trained. I know Monty always says how many minutes it took to start/load a horse (!) but he is not saying "look how clever I am to do this really fast", his point is that when you communicate with a horse in this way, the horse is willing to accept saddle/rider/trailer remarkably quickly (and usually with little or no reaction at all). The communication is the point, the shorter time it takes is just a bonus or side effect.
Flooding/desensitising - there is a fine line and it's down to the trainer to know what is too much for a horse. For my money, it's usually about working the edge of a comfort zone, if they go into total meltdown they are not learning anything except to be frightened of being trained.
SheadonSaffron
Well-Known Member
Bet Monty's riders over the years will be very happy to hear that Monty 'always chooses very well balanced, light riders' for his demos!
Some really interesting comments here. As a Chartered Physiotherapist, I work in a very evidence-based profession (i.e we use techniques that are backed up by scientific studies), but have to recognise the limitations of science as well as the benefits. If I only used techniques that have scientific evidence behind them in relation to treating horses, I would be very limited in the techniques I use. So with a strong understanding of the science and the evidence in mind, I choose techniques that to me, in my opinion, are effective and well accepted by the horse. As an Intelligent Horsemanship Recommended Associate as well, I also choose to use techniques that I consider to be of as little stress as possible to the horse (you can explain to a person that a 'hurt' is a 'good hurt' because it will help, but it's not so easy to explain that to a horse!). I am continually learning, and hope always to be doing so, and I believe that the same applies to Monty Roberts and Kelly Marks (and hopefully to Mark Rashid, Clinton Anderson, and many others).
I look forward to seeing the responses to Morgan123's questions.
I'd like to second Rosie that IH, though, is about what works for the horse (and actually, what works for the person as well). People keep on about certain 'methods' - I just don't get that. It's not any particular method - if it's violence-free and it works, then to me it's IH! Obviously Monty is Kelly's inspiration, but that doesn't stop her (or him!) learning from many other sources - and it shouldn't stop any of us either.
Sue
Some really interesting comments here. As a Chartered Physiotherapist, I work in a very evidence-based profession (i.e we use techniques that are backed up by scientific studies), but have to recognise the limitations of science as well as the benefits. If I only used techniques that have scientific evidence behind them in relation to treating horses, I would be very limited in the techniques I use. So with a strong understanding of the science and the evidence in mind, I choose techniques that to me, in my opinion, are effective and well accepted by the horse. As an Intelligent Horsemanship Recommended Associate as well, I also choose to use techniques that I consider to be of as little stress as possible to the horse (you can explain to a person that a 'hurt' is a 'good hurt' because it will help, but it's not so easy to explain that to a horse!). I am continually learning, and hope always to be doing so, and I believe that the same applies to Monty Roberts and Kelly Marks (and hopefully to Mark Rashid, Clinton Anderson, and many others).
I look forward to seeing the responses to Morgan123's questions.
I'd like to second Rosie that IH, though, is about what works for the horse (and actually, what works for the person as well). People keep on about certain 'methods' - I just don't get that. It's not any particular method - if it's violence-free and it works, then to me it's IH! Obviously Monty is Kelly's inspiration, but that doesn't stop her (or him!) learning from many other sources - and it shouldn't stop any of us either.
Sue
tess1
Well-Known Member
Whether or not you accept that the horse is willing to take saddle and rider after a few minutes of training depends on whether you accept Robert's interpretation of what is actually going on between human and horse. The articles I have previously posted represent an alternative view of what is taking place in a training session - ie, not the supposed "language of equus" which has little foundation in any form of ethological or behavioural science, but whether the horse is being negatively reinforced, positively punished, flooded, and given little choice (no choice?) as to whether to accept a rider or not. This is not about whether or not the methods work, of that there is no question, the point is whether they work in the way this is explained by Roberts and IH associates.
If the communication is so strong and clear between horse and human in the round pen, why did Roberts feel the need to put a buckstop into his bag of tricks during the "scientific study" of his methods. Surely no one in their right mind could possibly consider using one of these on a young horse at the very beginning if his training work under saddle
Roberts, and other members of the IH forum clearly state that the buckstop is only for extreme cases. The study ended when these horses had received a maximum of ten hours of training - I don't feel there can be any justification for even considering the use of this gadget on these young, unspoiled horses whose training in any case has been extremely quick and intensive in order to "prove" that "Monty's methods are kinder than conventional methods". The whole premise of the experiment lacked kindness and empathy - it was both a speed and stress test. And it is quite clear that Roberts was prepared to use any gadget at his disposal to get the desired result.
Ladyinred
Well-Known Member
Great post Tess. Full of your usual common sense and knowledge of learning theory.x
Marianne France
Member
Tess, I'm confused, and I apologise for this, but aren't you the person who posted an article from Cavallo magazine which was refuted by at least one of the expert contributors? If so, I'm not sure why you are crediting this article with any scientific value?
I'm a long way from being a horse expert, but I take my evidence from what I observe happening in the fields everyday, rather than rely on so-called ethological or behavioural science papers by people I've never heard of.
I HAVE seen Monty in action several times, and have even travelled overseas to do so. At every occasion, the horse leaving the arena has been happy to join up with Monty (there are x million studies now involving heart rate monitors which show that horses are less stressed during join up than many other schooling situations)
Last edited:
tess1
Well-Known Member
Hi Marianne
could you please give some links to the x million studies that show horses are less stressed in join-up than many other schooling procedures.
Discounting the cavello article which Fburton commented on (although I still feel it is an interesting - if disingenuous - "off the record" account of people's feelings about join-up) I posted a link to the write up of the study as presented at the Equitation Science Conference http://horsesandpeople.com.au/equita...onference.html ; Sue McDonald's interpretation of licking and chewing http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=6346 (she's the author of the equid ethogram subtitled "a practical field guide to horse behaviour - review here http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Equid_Ethogram.html?id=-Mvm9NjH0WUC) and an alternative view of join up by Amanda Warren-Smith here http://www.horsesandpeople.com.au/eq...-training.html (a quick google will show that she is an equine researcher with a considerable academic and publication record who collaborates a good deal in research with Paul McGreevy). So I'm not just relying on one article for my comments and, obviously, if you choose to ignore the literature that is being produced by people who have made the study of equine behaviour their life's work, that is entirely up to you.
I've also watched Roberts at work and have left the demonstration with a different perception to you. It is very hard to be objective, we all have expectations and viewpoints and this colours what we see, which is why I prefer to look closely at all the possible explanations for what is going on, and feel that the more objective data we can gather to back up our almost inevitably very human-centric, subjective interpretation of events, the better. How, for example, do you define "happy". What you may interpret as "happy" I may perceive as the well-timed application of negative reinforcement and positive punishment in an enclosed environment, and utilising gadgets which are designed to cause discomfort and pain when the horse does not "co-operate", which has left the horse with little choice but to comply with the demands of the human. Personally I feel that Roberts is a good showman who is a great crowd-pleaser and can "interpret" the horses' behaviours in a way that makes things understandable for the audience, but is not necessarily accurate in terms of what is really going on in physiological, ethological and behavioural terms. I would advocate watching Roberts' videos with the sound turned down and focussing purely on the horse-human interaction without the overlay of his interpretation, distracting jokes etc.
could you please give some links to the x million studies that show horses are less stressed in join-up than many other schooling procedures.
Discounting the cavello article which Fburton commented on (although I still feel it is an interesting - if disingenuous - "off the record" account of people's feelings about join-up) I posted a link to the write up of the study as presented at the Equitation Science Conference http://horsesandpeople.com.au/equita...onference.html ; Sue McDonald's interpretation of licking and chewing http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=6346 (she's the author of the equid ethogram subtitled "a practical field guide to horse behaviour - review here http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Equid_Ethogram.html?id=-Mvm9NjH0WUC) and an alternative view of join up by Amanda Warren-Smith here http://www.horsesandpeople.com.au/eq...-training.html (a quick google will show that she is an equine researcher with a considerable academic and publication record who collaborates a good deal in research with Paul McGreevy). So I'm not just relying on one article for my comments and, obviously, if you choose to ignore the literature that is being produced by people who have made the study of equine behaviour their life's work, that is entirely up to you.
I've also watched Roberts at work and have left the demonstration with a different perception to you. It is very hard to be objective, we all have expectations and viewpoints and this colours what we see, which is why I prefer to look closely at all the possible explanations for what is going on, and feel that the more objective data we can gather to back up our almost inevitably very human-centric, subjective interpretation of events, the better. How, for example, do you define "happy". What you may interpret as "happy" I may perceive as the well-timed application of negative reinforcement and positive punishment in an enclosed environment, and utilising gadgets which are designed to cause discomfort and pain when the horse does not "co-operate", which has left the horse with little choice but to comply with the demands of the human. Personally I feel that Roberts is a good showman who is a great crowd-pleaser and can "interpret" the horses' behaviours in a way that makes things understandable for the audience, but is not necessarily accurate in terms of what is really going on in physiological, ethological and behavioural terms. I would advocate watching Roberts' videos with the sound turned down and focussing purely on the horse-human interaction without the overlay of his interpretation, distracting jokes etc.
muff747
Well-Known Member
I'm a long way from being a horse expert, but I take my evidence from what I observe happening in the fields everyday, rather than rely on so-called ethological or behavioural science papers by people I've never heard of.QUOTE]
I have watched and studied MR methods and have studied horses at liberty in the field and the behaviours MR highlights, such as L&C, circling around and dropping the head along the ground does happen between horses. Why do people (particularly Morgan) on here keep saying there is no evidence that this behaviour is natural, have you never watched your horses or any horses meeting and greeting or sussing out a new horse introduced into the herd???
You may not see it in an established herd where they have already worked out which position they are in in the hierarchy.
I have done JU in a very large field with a pony that wouldn't be caught and it did exactly the same gestures that MR highlights so that's why I base my trust in his theories, I can see it is natural and their own language.
O - and although we can't move our bodies like a horse can, we can mimic their demeanour, i.e we can be assertive by squaring our bodies towards them, we can stare at their eye with head up and a stiff and erect body posture, which they do detect and react to. Even BHS teach us to "stiffen our body"(my words) to signal a half halt or to relax our bodies or we will transmit tension to the horse.
Also, just a small point - there has been some discussion earlier about when the L&C happening after being chased away and the adrenalin is reducing, but I see this behaviour if I just ask my horse to back away from me. Or if a horse is barging against me, I use pressure on the head collar to ask it to back off, or I sometimes use my fingers against the shoulder to ask it to back off me, and it can L&C then
Last edited:
tess1
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I should add that I am not, of course, relying on scientific data when I question Roberts's decision to include a buckstop in the list of equipment he had access to in his study where the horses received a total of ten hours of training. Sometimes we can rely perfectly well on our instincts to tell us something is wrong - no need for science there.
lizijj
Well-Known Member
Hi, first apologies as I have skipped to the last page just to post my experiences. I stay with friend on a working ranch in Nebraska. I have seen them back (backing is not breaking) a horse in a round pen within an hour very effectively. I asked them about NH techniques and the amount of 'new' promoters of these techniques. They have told me that it all goes back to Ray Hunt:
http://www.rayhunt.com/
Personally, I think most of it is common sense - but being (myself) reminded about the principles of horse/human relationships, particularly join up and shaping, has improved my horsemanship. Ultimately though, the most important lesson I have learnt from my USA friends is that if they are worked enough and not over fed, it makes the biggest difference.
I think that over feeding, lack of turnout and lack of work is one of the biggest problems when it comes to riders accusing horses of bad behaviour - let a horse live like a horse. I'd only stable a horse if it were old, ill or for a competition. Having said that, I'm lucky to have good natural shelter in my field...
http://www.rayhunt.com/
Personally, I think most of it is common sense - but being (myself) reminded about the principles of horse/human relationships, particularly join up and shaping, has improved my horsemanship. Ultimately though, the most important lesson I have learnt from my USA friends is that if they are worked enough and not over fed, it makes the biggest difference.
I think that over feeding, lack of turnout and lack of work is one of the biggest problems when it comes to riders accusing horses of bad behaviour - let a horse live like a horse. I'd only stable a horse if it were old, ill or for a competition. Having said that, I'm lucky to have good natural shelter in my field...
eatmoremincepies
Well-Known Member
This, exactly. Appropriate work, appropriate feeding, and turnout, particularly in a group, does over 50% of the job with most "problem" horses, IME.
Yes, a lot of "NH" training originated with Ray Hunt, Tom Dorrance etc who in turn apparently found inspiration in books on old french classical training.
Tess1, on this and other forums you have continually posted critical comments on Monty's methods - it seems pretty clear you've decided that it's not for you, which is fine. Would it not do more good in the world to spend your time on training that you do actually enjoy?
Last edited:
Brightbay
Well-Known Member
Tess1 holds a particular view, you appear to hold another. You're engaging in a debate, In a piblic forum. Exchanging views and ideas. Neither of you might be willing to change your own views, but others are reading, and by reading what you write, may be moved to change theirs
IMO, this is also the purpose of science... it is a means to explore the world, not to defend a point of view to the bitter end
For my part, I have enjoyed reading and speaking to Lucy Rees, who has studied feral and domestic horses extensively, started mustangs, and who has written an excellent book combining both her observations of horses over many years with a sound understanding of the science involved. And she watches and records both affiliative and agonistic behaviours, so can describe how a horse actively asks another horse to approach, as well as the Monty Roberts favourite, how horses chase each other away. Balance in all things is a good idea
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
There are literally dozens of old time horsemen in the mould of Bill and Tom Dorrance and Ray Hunt who are credited with promoting what we now call Natural Horsemanship, but which is in fact just horsemanship. There is nothing new in this and it can be traced back as far as Xenophon, the Greek historian, soldier and philosopher, 400BC.
The nub of the problem with todays horses is the oft quoted 'common sense' or lack of it. Sense isn't common, in fact it is quite rare, especially where horses are concerned.
We have at our disposal, some of the most fantastic horses generations of breeding has produced.
What do we do with them? We feed them the wrong sorts of feed, horses were never meant to eat cereals, let alone laced with sugar and molasses. We graze them on pasture genetically modified to fatten cattle.
We restrict their turnout, put them in small acreages then wonder why they are unfit, fat, prone to all sorts of metabolic disorders with crap feet. Even our competition and racing horses are kept in a way that promotes anything but well being and health.
When horses threw in their lot with humans, things worked well for them as they were used and covered thousands of miles in their lifetime with their new partners, who understood their fears, phobias and needs.
When the horse became a weapon of war, and militaristic force was applied to him in a one size fits all regime, or regimentation, the old ways of understanding and horsemanship began to errode away. Harsher and harsher tools and tack became the norm in a brutalistic way of removing the horses opinion.
The modern horse needs a proper diet, and a job to do that involves movement and exercise. Training, whichever technique you choose is only a part of horsemanship, but can never be successful unless the whole horses needs are met in the way he has been designed by evolution. The horse has never been so out of place in his association with human beings since his gentle power was replaced by machines.
The nub of the problem with todays horses is the oft quoted 'common sense' or lack of it. Sense isn't common, in fact it is quite rare, especially where horses are concerned.
We have at our disposal, some of the most fantastic horses generations of breeding has produced.
What do we do with them? We feed them the wrong sorts of feed, horses were never meant to eat cereals, let alone laced with sugar and molasses. We graze them on pasture genetically modified to fatten cattle.
We restrict their turnout, put them in small acreages then wonder why they are unfit, fat, prone to all sorts of metabolic disorders with crap feet. Even our competition and racing horses are kept in a way that promotes anything but well being and health.
When horses threw in their lot with humans, things worked well for them as they were used and covered thousands of miles in their lifetime with their new partners, who understood their fears, phobias and needs.
When the horse became a weapon of war, and militaristic force was applied to him in a one size fits all regime, or regimentation, the old ways of understanding and horsemanship began to errode away. Harsher and harsher tools and tack became the norm in a brutalistic way of removing the horses opinion.
The modern horse needs a proper diet, and a job to do that involves movement and exercise. Training, whichever technique you choose is only a part of horsemanship, but can never be successful unless the whole horses needs are met in the way he has been designed by evolution. The horse has never been so out of place in his association with human beings since his gentle power was replaced by machines.
tess1
Well-Known Member
Hi Eatmoremincepies
The title of this thread is “what do people think of Monty Robert’s methods?” not “please only post nice things about Monty”. So I posted what I thought of Roberts’s methods, and I have linked to articles to explain why I hold those views. I thought the point of a discussion forum was, er, to discuss things? However, I only bothered to post because I saw confirmed for the first time that Roberts had included a buckstop in his list of equipment in a study which was supposed to be demonstrating that his method is kinder than conventional techniques – I trust that I do not have to elaborate for you to understand the irony of that point?
The reason I included the links to the articles on join up, licking and chewing and the Equitation Science write up was to present an alternative, equally plausible (in fact a whole lot more plausible) view of Roberts’s work than that which he presents himself. In my view Roberts’s explanations of what goes on in the round pen ranges from inaccurate to misleading. There was a recent furore where a video surfaced of Monty doing join up with a TWH on a concrete surface where the horse appeared to be in some discomfort. In the video the horse displays all the classic signals of licking, chewing and so on and Roberts’s interpretation is “weeeellll, Mr Roberts, if we were in a meeting now, I’d let you be chairperson” or something equally facile and human-centric. However, the vast majority of people who study equine behaviour in a far more impartial way would disagree with that interpretation. I am more likely to give weight to their views, over the views of an individual with a commercial and egotistical investment in making people believe that his interpretation is correct.
It is also worth bearing in mind that there is considerable question over whether horses do actually perform join-up on one another. Did Roberts really observe join-up in the wild? It fascinates me that there is no video footage of feral horses or ponies performing join-up on one another, whereas I am sure that if this was a relatively frequent communication between horses Roberts and other proponents of the technique would want video footage. I do know that a study was done whereby the researchers put pairs of mares and youngsters in a round pen to see what would happen, and needless to say, it wasn’t join up (I did think that study was hilarious). In Roberts’s father’s book there is a description of round pen work that sounds very much like a rudimentary join-up. When I worked for an old horse dealer (years before Roberts came on the scene) he told me how to catch a tricky horse – with a rudimentary form of join-up. So I think it is important to question whether join-up really is the language of equus, or whether it is a very clever, but ultimately man-made technique to getting a horse to stay close to a person and “give in” quickly to what the person wants – because, put very simply, life is made somewhat uncomfortable for the horse if he does not stay close to the person. Irrespective of whether it is man-made or not, I do not feel that it is a particularly welfare-friendly form of training – especially not when it is done in highly stressful demo-type situations and paired with dummy riders, buckstops and the like. The horses in the study were joined up with a minimum of four times – that’s a lot of join-up in ten hours of training.
BrightBay – what is the title of the Lucy Rees book you are referring to please?
The title of this thread is “what do people think of Monty Robert’s methods?” not “please only post nice things about Monty”. So I posted what I thought of Roberts’s methods, and I have linked to articles to explain why I hold those views. I thought the point of a discussion forum was, er, to discuss things? However, I only bothered to post because I saw confirmed for the first time that Roberts had included a buckstop in his list of equipment in a study which was supposed to be demonstrating that his method is kinder than conventional techniques – I trust that I do not have to elaborate for you to understand the irony of that point?
The reason I included the links to the articles on join up, licking and chewing and the Equitation Science write up was to present an alternative, equally plausible (in fact a whole lot more plausible) view of Roberts’s work than that which he presents himself. In my view Roberts’s explanations of what goes on in the round pen ranges from inaccurate to misleading. There was a recent furore where a video surfaced of Monty doing join up with a TWH on a concrete surface where the horse appeared to be in some discomfort. In the video the horse displays all the classic signals of licking, chewing and so on and Roberts’s interpretation is “weeeellll, Mr Roberts, if we were in a meeting now, I’d let you be chairperson” or something equally facile and human-centric. However, the vast majority of people who study equine behaviour in a far more impartial way would disagree with that interpretation. I am more likely to give weight to their views, over the views of an individual with a commercial and egotistical investment in making people believe that his interpretation is correct.
It is also worth bearing in mind that there is considerable question over whether horses do actually perform join-up on one another. Did Roberts really observe join-up in the wild? It fascinates me that there is no video footage of feral horses or ponies performing join-up on one another, whereas I am sure that if this was a relatively frequent communication between horses Roberts and other proponents of the technique would want video footage. I do know that a study was done whereby the researchers put pairs of mares and youngsters in a round pen to see what would happen, and needless to say, it wasn’t join up (I did think that study was hilarious). In Roberts’s father’s book there is a description of round pen work that sounds very much like a rudimentary join-up. When I worked for an old horse dealer (years before Roberts came on the scene) he told me how to catch a tricky horse – with a rudimentary form of join-up. So I think it is important to question whether join-up really is the language of equus, or whether it is a very clever, but ultimately man-made technique to getting a horse to stay close to a person and “give in” quickly to what the person wants – because, put very simply, life is made somewhat uncomfortable for the horse if he does not stay close to the person. Irrespective of whether it is man-made or not, I do not feel that it is a particularly welfare-friendly form of training – especially not when it is done in highly stressful demo-type situations and paired with dummy riders, buckstops and the like. The horses in the study were joined up with a minimum of four times – that’s a lot of join-up in ten hours of training.
BrightBay – what is the title of the Lucy Rees book you are referring to please?
Last edited:
Marianne France
Member
Hear, hear !!!!
amandap
Well-Known Member
... and we also wonder why we have so many behavioural problems.
MiJodsR2BlinkinTite
Well-Known Member
Basically agree with "Pale Rider" above who's said what I was going to say, in essence.
I think the problem is often how these "methods" are hyped up: everyone then follows like lemmings, even if they've not got the experience to cope with their horses and/or the method doesn't suit.
Some horses can deal with Parelli for instance, others can't; but frequently if the horse doesn't respond to the "method", then often the solution as given as more of the same, i.e. go back and do the thing again!!! And then the poor confused owner has to pay up front to either repeat the "level" they're in, OR move up a level and yet more expense! Sorry, but I can't see the sense of that!
Good old fashioned "horsemanship" will never go out of fashion because it doesn't need to. The horsemen (& women, not forgetting!) of older generations lived, worked and breathed horses - because they had to. My grandparents had draught horses working the land, and my grandmother had a pony and trap; so they HAD to sort out their problems themselves coz there wasn't any other alternative. Often the solutions to problems were simple: horses/ponies were kept far more simply, they were work animals so were fed accordingly, i.e. not over-fed, and the work they did kept them fit and curbed any excesses of behaviour.
I think the problem is often how these "methods" are hyped up: everyone then follows like lemmings, even if they've not got the experience to cope with their horses and/or the method doesn't suit.
Some horses can deal with Parelli for instance, others can't; but frequently if the horse doesn't respond to the "method", then often the solution as given as more of the same, i.e. go back and do the thing again!!! And then the poor confused owner has to pay up front to either repeat the "level" they're in, OR move up a level and yet more expense! Sorry, but I can't see the sense of that!
Good old fashioned "horsemanship" will never go out of fashion because it doesn't need to. The horsemen (& women, not forgetting!) of older generations lived, worked and breathed horses - because they had to. My grandparents had draught horses working the land, and my grandmother had a pony and trap; so they HAD to sort out their problems themselves coz there wasn't any other alternative. Often the solutions to problems were simple: horses/ponies were kept far more simply, they were work animals so were fed accordingly, i.e. not over-fed, and the work they did kept them fit and curbed any excesses of behaviour.
Marianne France
Member
Amanda, you are absolutely correct, apologies for not mentioning the behavioural aspect.
Sorry if we've veered off the original heading of this thread but this is SOOOO true !
Sorry if we've veered off the original heading of this thread but this is SOOOO true !
amandap
Well-Known Member
The thing is this is true of any 'method' any yard, any person who has the authority to influence others. YO's have a huge influence it seems to me and from my reading on fora all NH methods/thinking is discouraged or ridiculed at many yards so how much influence are people like MR having in UK really?
Btw. lemmings don't jump off cliffs. lol A BBC? TV con I believe.
Last edited by a moderator:
xxMozlarxx
Well-Known Member
To be honest I get tired of reading the emotive comments about the dually, I regularly defend it as it has transformed my big strong bargy horse quickly and easily with minimal fuss. He walks respectfully and on a loose lead rope now instead of dragging me around because he could, the improvement was instant. A rope halter had no effect when he was in a reactive state and it still wouldn't. It is a good piece of kit and there are similar things on the Market which would do the same thing.
I am not a MR devotee,I have been to one of his shows, it was standard NH fare, I have used a IH instructor for support with leading and longlining and was pleased with her help. I have looked at a wide range of NH and take what I feel works for me. I have just done some work with Steve Brady and I have total respect for him and his methods which are clear and understandable and they worked on mine and my eldest daughters horses. I'm sure they would be queries about certain of his techniques especially with bargy horses, but it felt
proportional to me.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
The early demo's that Monty Roberts did when he first came to the UK were nearly always 3 or 4 join up routines on young horses and he would time how long he took from start to finish ie getting tack on and a rider.
We the early audiences, were all impressed by the speed and relative ease by which these virtual 'untouched' horses were delt with.
As time went on he sort of upped his game and started dealing with problem horses like bad loaders and so things went on.
I saw a recent TV show of his and it was based crudely around the current 'War horse' fad, and was I felt, a bit odd.
Although at this time I had already been fascinated by Ray Hunt, I didn't think that Ray would be accepted at all by a British equine audience. I did feel that the cleverest thing Monty did was swap his stetson for a flat cap when in the UK.
I began to get a little worried about certain claims Monty was making about his life and history, and his claims about the language of Equus I found frankly laughable. I felt that he was exploiting certain aspects of the horsemanship methodology, as propsed by the Dorrances and Ray Hunt, but leaving massive holes in the foundation which should be applied. This manifested itself in the application of pressure, both in the join up technique, and the development and sale of the pressure halters, the main criteria in their design being that they should be very different to the traditional rope halter, widely used by everyone else in his field.
I have to say that I think Monty Roberts has done the British no real favours in introducing his version of horsemanship, intelligent or otherwise. There are other trainers in this field who are much better and take more time to develop a wider, deeper, and permanent foundation on young horses, and provide better solutions to horses with behavioural problems.
The massive but, in all this is that we are creating huge problems both behavioural and physical in the way we manage our horses on a daily basis, which although may not affect the majority so far, is on an upward trend across the board. We are presenting problems now, which the likes of Dorrence and Hunt would just not have seen to any great extent. Training is after all one peice in the jig saw, management and diet are keystones in producing well balanced, safe, healthy, bidable horses capable of performing at their best in any sphere.
We the early audiences, were all impressed by the speed and relative ease by which these virtual 'untouched' horses were delt with.
As time went on he sort of upped his game and started dealing with problem horses like bad loaders and so things went on.
I saw a recent TV show of his and it was based crudely around the current 'War horse' fad, and was I felt, a bit odd.
Although at this time I had already been fascinated by Ray Hunt, I didn't think that Ray would be accepted at all by a British equine audience. I did feel that the cleverest thing Monty did was swap his stetson for a flat cap when in the UK.
I began to get a little worried about certain claims Monty was making about his life and history, and his claims about the language of Equus I found frankly laughable. I felt that he was exploiting certain aspects of the horsemanship methodology, as propsed by the Dorrances and Ray Hunt, but leaving massive holes in the foundation which should be applied. This manifested itself in the application of pressure, both in the join up technique, and the development and sale of the pressure halters, the main criteria in their design being that they should be very different to the traditional rope halter, widely used by everyone else in his field.
I have to say that I think Monty Roberts has done the British no real favours in introducing his version of horsemanship, intelligent or otherwise. There are other trainers in this field who are much better and take more time to develop a wider, deeper, and permanent foundation on young horses, and provide better solutions to horses with behavioural problems.
The massive but, in all this is that we are creating huge problems both behavioural and physical in the way we manage our horses on a daily basis, which although may not affect the majority so far, is on an upward trend across the board. We are presenting problems now, which the likes of Dorrence and Hunt would just not have seen to any great extent. Training is after all one peice in the jig saw, management and diet are keystones in producing well balanced, safe, healthy, bidable horses capable of performing at their best in any sphere.
xxMozlarxx
Well-Known Member
This I totally agree with.
neelie OAP
Well-Known Member
well said, think that just about hits the nail on the head, thats the cause of 90% of our problems !
Marianne France
Member
HOT OFF THE PRESS !!!!
I believe that the winner of today's Epsom Derby wore a Monty Roberts blanket going into the stalls. Monty's methods work for me daily (non-professional horse lover lost in the middle of nowhere) right up to top quality competition horses.
Don't they say actions speak louder than words ?
So you all go back to discussing the theory, I'm going out to play with horses
I believe that the winner of today's Epsom Derby wore a Monty Roberts blanket going into the stalls. Monty's methods work for me daily (non-professional horse lover lost in the middle of nowhere) right up to top quality competition horses.
Don't they say actions speak louder than words ?
So you all go back to discussing the theory, I'm going out to play with horses
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
HOT OFF THE PRESS !!!!
I believe that the winner of today's Epsom Derby wore a Monty Roberts blanket going into the stalls. Monty's methods work for me daily (non-professional horse lover lost in the middle of nowhere) right up to top quality competition horses.
Don't they say actions speak louder than words ?
So you all go back to discussing the theory, I'm going out to play with horses
^^^like^^^
muff747
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
TarrSteps
Well-Known Member
HOT OFF THE PRESS !!!!
I believe that the winner of today's Epsom Derby wore a Monty Roberts blanket going into the stalls. Monty's methods work for me daily (non-professional horse lover lost in the middle of nowhere) right up to top quality competition horses.
Don't they say actions speak louder than words ?
So you all go back to discussing the theory, I'm going out to play with horses
But like a lot of his methods, he didn't invent the idea, he's just publicised it. Fair enough and I'm sure the accessibility of what he teaches has helped a lot of people and horses. He is, no doubt, a very good horseman.
What has always bothered me a bit - more as time has gone by, it seems - has been his insistence that he has invented much of what he teaches and his constant assertion that the majority of other trainers favour brutal means. It's simply not true. What's more, it hasn't been true in the past either. Yes, back in the days of "horses for work" I think there was a great deal more intentional cruelty (although many argue there's unintentional cruelty now. . . ) and flat out ignorance, but Monty was hardly the lone voice in the wilderness.
I think this is what makes people uncomfortable about the possibly colourful take on his past. Of course, it's about promotion, but does everyone else have to be wrong for him to be right? Why do his rivals/peers/antecedents have to be wrong in order for him to be right? A lot of good horsemen have big egos but it's a bit hard to take, especially since he has been so successful, that he completely dismisses people like Ray Hunt or the Dorrance brothers in his own culture, let alone people like Tom Roberts or Henry Blake in other countries.
So yes, his methods have validity but there are other sources, just as good.
SpecialSparkle3
New User
Tarrsteps, can you please tell us who it was who invented the "stalls" rug used on Camelot today?? 'Cos sure as hell it WAS Monty Roberts , but if you think it was someone else, I'd like to hear who !
Marianne France
Member
I am dismayed by the number of outright untruths being posted on this thread about Monty Roberts. If you've actually seen him working with horses or at least read his books then fair enough you have some basis for your opinion. If you're just repeating something you've heard, or have just made it up then please have the courtesy to start your sentence with "I believe" or "I've heard that"