Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then

rhino

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 July 2009
Messages
10,067
Location
Border Reiver
Visit site
Careful Marianne. If you are not privey to the discussions between Tess, myself and Kelly that span years, not just 22 pages of this thread, you might end up looking very silly defending Kellys comments in her recent post.

Just saying!

Do you not think you could keep your personal, petty and frankly pathetic vendetta elsewhere, this is a public forum where people should not have to be 'privy' to years of discussions...

It was a fairly interesting discussion, but there are people adding nothing remotely constructive to it now, just making personal attacks. If you know so much better than those being named, why don't you tell us how you would do things differently?
 
Last edited:

tess1

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 August 2010
Messages
214
Visit site
tess1 what is your motive for this questioning and challenge of MR and KM, what are you trying to achieve? Genuine question :)

I just wanted to see if I could get a thread over 10,000 hits :D

Sorry, I'll be serious now.

Well, it isn't going to take a genius to work out that I am no fan of MR and KM - I don't "buy" their version of join up and I am not keen on pressure halters such as duallys. I think the interpretation of what goes on in the round pen is misleading, inaccurate and human-centric. These are not just my personal views - plenty of other people - including people very knowledgable about equine behaviour and training feel the same. However, I have done that to death in previous posts here and on the DG and would have continued to ignore this thread had the science study not been reported. I feel that the "study" is really a farce, designed to make Monty look good at all costs, and has been presented in a totally biased manner - however, that didn't really surprise me at all, and I still probably wouldn't have commented. What did surprise me - astonish me, in fact - was the inclusion of the buckstopper as part of Monty's equipment. Someone had told me at the EBF seminar that a buckstopper was listed in the equipment (the slides were on and off the screen so fast you could barely read the titles) but I could hardly believe it so I would never have questioned it without concrete evidence.

So I really just wanted to ask the question how MR and KM can justify including a buckstopper (a device that has previously been described over and over as only for "extreme cases") in a study meant to demonstrate that Monty's methods are "kinder" than conventional techniques, and is using young, unspoiled horses at the very start of their ridden career. If Monty can "speak the language of equus" why does he need to rely on gadgets such as pressure halters, dummy riders, and buckstoppers to get a horse "trained" in ten hours. If the conventional guy had been armed with draw-reins and chifneys and a severe array of bits I am pretty sure there would have been comment from all the NH/IH people - but Monty can get away with blinkering horses, tying dummies on their backs, doing multiple join ups (which, many would argue, is stressful for horses, even though that doesn't fit in with Monty's version of events) and wrapping bits of thin rope under their gums and tying it to the saddle and no one says a word? How does that fit with really caring about horse welfare and "proving" that a technique is kind(er)? So I don't expect to achieve anything - but that never stops me questioning something if I don't see it to be right.
 

Froddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 July 2008
Messages
68
Visit site
Tess I "get" your viewpoint as you see it and tbh you do raise some very relevant points.

I do however think you seem obsessed with the issue about the buckstopper, I agree in the wrong hands the buckstopper would be a very nasty piece of equipment but then there are some devices that are quite readily accepted by traditionalists which could equally seen as cruel.

I like to keep an open mind, IH is something I like the sound of but the buckstopper I wouldn't dream of using.
 

xxMozlarxx

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 November 2010
Messages
1,335
Location
In a house
Visit site
Thanks for the explanation, what would you like MR/KM to do differently? Or is your position that they are a waste of space? Do you see where I'm going with this? I can take what I want from all these trainers and leave the rest, they all have something to offer IMO, I'm not clear what the motives are here.
 

Ladyinred

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2007
Messages
7,384
Location
Here
Visit site
I don't think I've ever read such bile and spite. Shame on you all.

But it isn't bile and spite, although I appreciate that may be how it comes across. I certainly have no personal agenda here and have nothing to lose or gain from whether people follow IH or not.

My concern, and the reason for the questions, is simply for the well being of the horse. I sincerely believe that some of the IH methods have been misinterpreted and the process by which horse learns is misunderstood.

Wrapping something up in pretty words makes it no less powerful and potentially damaging. At least the 'old school' trainers don't attempt to kid themselves, or other people, as to what some of them do.

I certainly don't want or intend to come out all guns blazing and be thoroughly rude and offensive to either Kelly or any of her RAs, but it would be refreshing if they could think outside of their own particular box and see that possibly there are some flaws. Discussion is the only way to do that but it seems to be a difficult thing to achieve.
 

tess1

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 August 2010
Messages
214
Visit site
Thanks for the explanation, what would you like MR/KM to do differently? Or is your position that they are a waste of space? Do you see where I'm going with this? I can take what I want from all these trainers and leave the rest, they all have something to offer IMO, I'm not clear what the motives are here.



There are very few people in this world who are a waste of space. KM and MR are certainly not a waste of space. If they help even one person be "nicer" to their horse, then of course they aren't a waste of space. It doesn't matter what I would like them to do differently, they are going to carry on doing what they doing because enough people buy into it. If you asked me "what would allow me to have more trust in their work" - well, they could just be honest. Be honest about what they are doing and why it "works". How can you profess to run a horse psychology course (as Kelly does) and not teach the learning theory behind join-up? How can you put a bunch of panels behind a horse to get them into a horsebox and call it "incremental learning"? To anyone who understands the psychology of teaching and learning, what KM and MR do, and what they say they do, is completely incongruent. They over-simplify ethology, body language and non-verbal communication and over and over again confuse "leadership" and "dominance" with good training skills. They use some pretty harsh training techniques - so do conventional trainers, I agree - but they "dress it up" in a way that confuses people so they believe that what they are seeing is "kind" when very often it isn't.

sorry, should have added - there are no "motives" per se - only that I will speak out when I see something so completely out of kilter as someone claiming to have scientific proof that they have the kindest method for starting horses, using a bunch of discomfort/pain/fear inducing gadgets and acting like a predator in an enclosed space with a prey animal.
 
Last edited:

xxMozlarxx

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 November 2010
Messages
1,335
Location
In a house
Visit site
Mmmmm...interesting that you seek to suggest what question I should ask. I asked what you would like them to do differently, I'm not clear how them being honest would result in more trust on your part if the rest of your response applies to be honest.
 

tess1

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 August 2010
Messages
214
Visit site
Because if people are honest, you can trust them (ie, believe what they say) even if you don't agree with them.
 

tess1

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 August 2010
Messages
214
Visit site
For example (to take this from something I read earlier on another forum) join up is much more about "you will" rather than "will you" - but Monty says things like "the horse is chosing to be with me" - well, there's not a lot of choice when you are in a small space and someone is chasing you round it by flicking a lunge line at you - at some point the horse is going to stop and figure out plan B - and if they revert to plan A they just get chased again. So there is no choice as far as the horse is concerned, and if that was clearly presented at least people could make an informed decision about whether they thought join up was a good idea or not - but the whole idea of "becoming the leader" - well, that may feed into human ego, but it may not be in the best interests of the horse to interpret it that way, nor may it be the most accurate interpretation.
 

eahotson

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 June 2003
Messages
4,131
Location
merseyside
Visit site
Trying to write a reply without rambling!!! Like a lot of people, when I first heard of Monty Roberts I was well impressed.This was at a time when I was in a yard which was (according to them a competition yard and traditional!).The prevailing ethos was if it moves hit it, if it doesn't hit it!! O.K I simplify it but it was a violent place.I have since met a REAL traditional guy and he is amazing, no violence,no join up, no carrot sticks just time, consistancy (very important that I think, the horse builds up trust in you because it knows what to expect) patience and knowledge of what he was doing.
I have read some of Kelly Marks books which I enjoy, she has a good dry sense of humour which I enjoy and speaks a lot of sense.Watched some of the programmes and went to a demo.I have never really warmed to Monty as a person and he brags, which is irritating.
The demo was disapointing, very comercial, buy our books DVDs Duallys etc. and I don't think I learned much really.
I have often wondered about the licking and chewing! I think we misunderstand that.The most likely explanation given to me was thats its a physiological reaction to stress.They have been frightened, their mouths have gone dry, the fear is removed and they are just trying to moisten their mouths!! From my own observation of my own horse, when he was tense at first moving home, then relaxed he did just that.My old horse did it when he suffered a fortunately mild bout (sp?) of colic.
I have seen a FORM of join up between 2 horses, my Highland and a silly cocky young gelding who was foolish enough to challenge him in the field.They had a huge kicking match, being bigger stronger and older Callum won! (No harm done, they didn't have shoes on).Callum then proceeded to send him away and move him round the field with just a LOOK!.Eventually said gelding tried to make himself very small, very apologetic and to creep back into the fold.It took several tried before he was allowed! They got on very well after that and it was never repeated as said gelding had learned his lesson.HOWEVER it was definately a disciplinary thing, not Callum trying to make friends or understand him!
I am dubious about join up, think its actually a psychological power game and just because
someone is not actually hitting the horse doesn't make it kind.
The hierachy thing is much misunderstood too both with horses and dogs and V.Gd Traditional man was very good with them too.He seemed to work on a consensual basis with both, mutual co operation and it worked.Both his horses and his dogs had beautiful manners.
Mark Rashid is very good on this sort of thing.
 

mayhem4

New User
Joined
3 November 2009
Messages
4
Visit site
Hi All!
Just to answer the original question to this thread.
I am a BHSII and Chief Instructor of a Pony Club branch. I find Monty's and 'Intelligent Horsemanship' methods very useful indeed. Both as a stand alone and in conjunction with 'conventional' methods.
But then when I say methods I really mean approach, Monty and Kelly tell you to weigh up the pros and cons of any approach and use what is appropriate - and that may well be a method that is not their own.
I come from a background where if a horse was not doing what you want you hit it, simple as that. Monty and Kellys approach has improved the life of my horses and all that I deal with.
Sorry some of you dont agree but IMHO anyone who has made you think hard about the way you work with your horses has helped both you and your horses.
 

Parker79

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 October 2011
Messages
1,169
Location
Hampshire
Visit site
Hi All!
Just to answer the original question to this thread.
I am a BHSII and Chief Instructor of a Pony Club branch. I find Monty's and 'Intelligent Horsemanship' methods very useful indeed. Both as a stand alone and in conjunction with 'conventional' methods.
But then when I say methods I really mean approach, Monty and Kelly tell you to weigh up the pros and cons of any approach and use what is appropriate - and that may well be a method that is not their own.
I come from a background where if a horse was not doing what you want you hit it, simple as that. Monty and Kellys approach has improved the life of my horses and all that I deal with.
Sorry some of you dont agree but IMHO anyone who has made you think hard about the way you work with your horses has helped both you and your horses.

^^very good point...my opinion is that if 'join up' means a horse will consider you their leader...and therefore wont be 'trying it on' so often then that would probably save that horse a lot of grief in the long run....

for example....novice does join up....horse now responds better and therefore doesn't get walloped every time it does something remotely 'naughty'....in an ideal world this person wouldn't own a horse...but they do! and if MR&KM methods make the lives of the horses better (but not perfect) then surely that is good?
 

eahotson

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 June 2003
Messages
4,131
Location
merseyside
Visit site
I tkink the biggest mistake, which I have been as guilty of as anyone, is to try and find a guru!Partly because I lacked any sort of confidence in myself as a rider/horse person and partly because I was lazy! Ifsomeone else does the thinking for you its all so much easier isn't it? Imet quite suprising people who have let an EXPERT do things with their horse that they don't really like but think that if THE EXPERT says its right it must be! I guess really the answer is to read, think and listen to as many people as you can and then take what you like, leave the rest and be prepared to make mistakes.Its not a sin.
 

Wagtail

Horse servant
Joined
2 December 2010
Messages
14,816
Location
Lincs
Visit site
I like most ofMR and KM's approach. However, I do not like join up and I do not like the buck stop. In my experience, horses that buck seriously enough to use something like a buck stop, are usually in considerable pain. Even if all the checks have been done (as was the case with my gelding - teeth, back, saddle) he was found to have very severe KS despite me being told by a chiro, a physio and the vet that his back was fine!

I don't like to follow one particular horsey guru. IME the best horsemen are those who are intelligent enough to take the best methods from several, and have an individualistic approach.
 

Natch

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 November 2007
Messages
11,616
Visit site
For example (to take this from something I read earlier on another forum) join up is much more about "you will" rather than "will you" - but Monty says things like "the horse is chosing to be with me" - well, there's not a lot of choice when you are in a small space and someone is chasing you round it by flicking a lunge line at you - at some point the horse is going to stop and figure out plan B - and if they revert to plan A they just get chased again..

Nail, head, thank you! I trained in join up a few times with different people, but most recently was 2 years ago. Last year we re-visited it and discussed when we would and when we wouldn't use join up. I felt and still feel very strongly that its not for a nervous horse or one who isn't challenging your dominance. I also feel it is dangerous to attempt to join-up with a very overtly challenging horse - you are in a small enclosed space with a horse who knows his strength and how to use it against people, and then poking him with a pointy stick aka trying to assert your dominance.

The psychology of send (or in some cases allow) away, invite back can be very powerful in humans - think about prisoners who eventually come to depend on their captors even when given a choice, supernanny's naughty step, and abusive people's rages then apparent displays of affection (with apologies to supernanny for lumping her in with two nasties, I'm not saying she is nasty too!). Companies who empower their employees with training and responsibility have pretty high retention rates because the freedom offered promotes a sense of wanting to stay in that environment. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of this level of psychology happening in join-up, and in other programmes which give the horse a choice or an illusion of choice. But it is interesting to consider that this technique can be used in good practice (e.g. supernanny) and poor practice (abuse), and where on the scale a join-up really sits.

ETA: Actually, most recently wasn't two years ago, it was more like two months ago. We did a human to human simulation and you know what, I was effing terrified when I was acting as the horse. The lady I was working with and I were polar opposites - I was too quiet and didn't really gain her attention, she was too forceful and frightened the bejaysus out of me.
 
Last edited:

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
^^very good point...my opinion is that if 'join up' means a horse will consider you their leader...and therefore wont be 'trying it on' so often then that would probably save that horse a lot of grief in the long run....
Is this really the case? Personally I don't think so. I just don't buy into the "dominant/leader/respect" paradigm, because it doesn't fit well with observations of equine behaviour. As far as I am aware, no one has actually shown that JU works one way and not another - so it remains in the realm of opinion (and dogma).
 

eahotson

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 June 2003
Messages
4,131
Location
merseyside
Visit site
Nail, head, thank you! I trained in join up a few times with different people, but most recently was 2 years ago. Last year we re-visited it and discussed when we would and when we wouldn't use join up. I felt and still feel very strongly that its not for a nervous horse or one who isn't challenging your dominance. I also feel it is dangerous to attempt to join-up with a very overtly challenging horse - you are in a small enclosed space with a horse who knows his strength and how to use it against people, and then poking him with a pointy stick aka trying to assert your dominance.

The psychology of send (or in some cases allow) away, invite back can be very powerful in humans - think about prisoners who eventually come to depend on their captors even when given a choice, supernanny's naughty step, and abusive people's rages then apparent displays of affection (with apologies to supernanny for lumping her in with two nasties, I'm not saying she is nasty too!). Companies who empower their employees with training and responsibility have pretty high retention rates because the freedom offered promotes a sense of wanting to stay in that environment. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of this level of psychology happening in join-up, and in other programmes which give the horse a choice or an illusion of choice. But it is interesting to consider that this technique can be used in good practice (e.g. supernanny) and poor practice (abuse), and where on the scale a join-up really sits.

ETA: Actually, most recently wasn't two years ago, it was more like two months ago. We did a human to human simulation and you know what, I was effing terrified when I was acting as the horse. The lady I was working with and I were polar opposites - I was too quiet and didn't really gain her attention, she was too forceful and frightened the bejaysus out of me.
That human to human join up experience.Fascinating!
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
for example....novice does join up....horse now responds better and therefore doesn't get walloped every time it does something remotely 'naughty'
Alternatively, teach novices how to get the behaviours they want from their horses (and stop the behaviours they don't want) without walloping - which we all know can be done.

if MR&KM methods make the lives of the horses better (but not perfect) then surely that is good?
Yes, I agree - though I would add that we should all at least strive for perfection when it comes to horses (just my personal opinion).
 

Parker79

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 October 2011
Messages
1,169
Location
Hampshire
Visit site
Totally agree we should strive for perfection...but what I am getting as is 'teaching the masses' something better than they are doing currently.

The world cannot be fixed overnight...the fate of horses cannot be fixed overnight and teaching one person at a time will take too long (albeit that is the best way).

I am talking about the thousands of people out there who do not have tuition, who have been shown violence and quick methods to deal with their ponies...MR & KM can get a message to these people in their masses...asking them to be kinder and use better (albeit not perfect) methods.

Perhaps once they have become 'open' to learnign they will delve further...but the way MR & KM have presented their methods is designed for ease of understanding and designed to 'sell' the idea to people who may not be interested.
 

amandap

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 June 2009
Messages
6,949
Visit site
Yes, I agree - though I would add that we should all at least strive for perfection when it comes to horses (just my personal opinion).
Ah "perfection" what is that then? Imo nothing designed or theorized by humans could possibly be perfect. Or rather it would only be perfect in their eyes. The Big Lick TWH's are 'perfect' to some human's eye. :eek:

There are posters on this thread who mock me, call me names and most don't give a monkeys what I think so I have avoided posting. They all know my views even if they do mock me.

My guide is my horses and I strive to get them as healthy, comfortable and happy as I can. I have no idea what perfect is because I don't believe anything to do with human interpretation could possibly be perfect. Nature is the only thing that I could say is perfect.
I go by how my horses respond to me and all my management, training and interventions. I am still learning and trying to understand better but I do not have a goal that is "perfection".

Perhaps the 'enlightened' ones can tell me/us all what that is. I probably wont agree though... :cool:

ps. I'm out all afternoon and it is a rhetorical question, I have nothing more to discuss of any possible interest. lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:

neelie OAP

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 November 2011
Messages
184
Location
UK
Visit site
Do you not think you could keep your personal, petty and frankly pathetic vendetta elsewhere, this is a public forum where people should not have to be 'privy' to years of discussions...

It was a fairly interesting discussion, but there are people adding nothing remotely constructive to it now, just making personal attacks. If you know so much better than those being named, why don't you tell us how you would do things differently?

:eek: Fair comment this is really getting too silly !
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
Ah "perfection" what is that then? Imo nothing designed or theorized by humans could possibly be perfect. Or rather it would only be perfect in their eyes. The Big Lick TWH's are 'perfect' to some human's eye. :eek:
Touché, Amandap - good point! :)

How about striving to improve instead? (i.e. heading in the direction of an unattainable "perfection")

Of course, that still presupposes we can define what is good and bad in a meaningful way - otherwise what does "make the lives of the horses better" mean?

If using a lot of force is bad, then improving would mean using less and less. If walloping a lot is bad, then improving would mean having to wallop less or even not at all. If the horse is unsure, afraid or anxious about something you want him to do, then improving would mean helping him to be more confident, fearless and relaxed. That's the kind of thing I had in mind. YMMV!

But this is getting off topic...
 

rosiejones

Active Member
Joined
25 July 2010
Messages
39
Location
Sussex
Visit site
I'm sorry for the delay, a weekend of teaching, jubilee and a lack on internet connection meant that my response is much much later than I expected. I will be back online tomorrow I hope and a little more speedy with other replies! Hoping better late then never!
Your first question is asking a mixture of;
1) Is join up a positive experience for the horse? And
2) Is join up based on natural herd behaviour? And
3) Why does some science disagree with Monty on these two points?
Hope I've understood that right, I’ll answer as three sections to try and make sure I’m being clear!
1) So first let’s talk about positive experiences. It's important to be clear that we are not chasing terrified horses round in circles – that is as far from join up as it is from 'correct' lunging. We are using our body language to influence the movement of the horse. Pretty much all horsemanship is about influencing the movement of the horse, whether leading and running up at a show, lunging, long lining, or riding. We are using the least stressful way to do this as possible, and we find students learning join up are often amazed at how subtle the body language can be and how instinctively the horses responds to them. After you have influenced the movement of the horse by moving him from behind in both directions, you can often influence the movement of the horse from in front, with him choosing to be closer to you and to accept your decisions on where and when to go. This is the way I see join up. In my personal experience this is a very positive experience for the horse, who will often be much more relaxed and at ease in my company after the process, and certainly begin to view the round pen as a safe space – for instance I've noticed that for horses who have done a couple of join-ups, novel objects are not spooky in the round pen but are outside of it. In fact, the way that join up is taught on the IH 5 day courses, it being a positive experience for the horse is kind of the defining factor, and certainly more important than how much the horse runs round the edge or specifically what the process looks like -the POINT of it is to be positive to the horse/human relationship, so if in a specific example the horse was being chased round the edge at speed and stressed, I wouldn't count that as practising join-up at all. I have seen beautiful join ups done in a walk.
Join up is all about having a better understanding of body language, timing, reading the horse, emotional control, and using these things to facilitate easier, clearer influence over the horses feet make it comfortable for the horse to be with you, if its stressful on the horse, you're not doing it right. Now of course, stress is all on a scale and I guess any moving about is more stressful that standing grazing, but done properly, join up is certainly never high enough up that scale for me to worry about personally. There seems to be an underlying worry in your text that horses will feel hurt or upset by being moved about, perhaps they would if you did it with anger or ego, but again, done properly, there is no reason that moving them from behind is upsetting to them any more than moving them from on top is.

2) I have spent some months in Colorado working with wild mustangs, and seen plenty of feral ponies in the UK, but would not say I have enough breadth of knowledge of truly wild herds to argue that it is a natural herd behaviour from my own experience. However, I have seen plenty of examples of elements of the body language of join up, though perhaps never the whole process in the 10 minute (or so) time frame we conduct it in. I'd find it hard to believe the learning theory explanation since many horses will join up and follow up on their first ever time in the pen, and this does not feel like training as such – the horses just offer the behaviour straight off if you conduct yourself in the right way. Sure, there are some who wait on the edge, but you don't train them to follow by reapplying pressure and releasing it when they come – why would they ever initially try come while you were applying pressure? You actually have to drop the pressure FIRST. There is no clearly releasing pressure each time they think 'in' and then reapplying it again – this just isn't what we do – to be honest if you wanted to deliberately train a horse to follow you this seems like a pretty hard way to do it and would confuse the horse I would think. For one thing, it would be unlikely they would try the 'face me' response while being 'chased round' (which we don't do!) and for another it would be hard for them to make the leap between 'stand and face in' and 'walk with me'. If I had to train it I would opt instead for either food based training, or leading with gradually thinner and lighter ropes, and I know others get the same effects from whip training with small light whips to keep the comfortable space next to you (though I would never do this and have never felt the need to try the other two examples). I mean, why do you want the horse to follow you anyway? If it’s for some ego kick or to look clever, then sure, train him to follow, but if it’s to allow him the opportunity to choose to be with you, then using join up is for you. Incidentally, while talking of natural instincts and behaviours, I heard from an angler once that join up is not that different from the process used by fish ticklers to catch fish by hand – apparently you sort of follow the fish with your hand and then draw your hand away and the fish follows. I've no idea if this is true but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. We also have to question what we mean by 'natural' anyway, as soon as a person is involved it isn't really entirely natural, and I'm wary of searching for some holy grail of 'naturalness' that would legitimate training ethically, I think it's more important that our horsemanship is kind, consistent and pain free than necessarily natural as such – though I can of course see why using the horses natural instincts might help us to achieve this. Join up, I'd say, certainly works on the horses natural instincts, since the response is so immediate, – though I'm pretty sure they do not literally believe us to be equine herd members at the time!
3)I have just written a dissertation that in part, looks at equine behavioural science and some of its short falls. I am very pro-science and think it has so much to offer but I'd say be wary of thinking that because science says it must be so, there is an awful lot of gaps in current scientific approaches to horse-human relatedness in my opinion! (no room for that here!) Though the recent trial into Monty's training methods did show lower heart rate and the horses scored higher in the final test than those traditionally trained, as some have noted, there is so much more that needs to be looked at and in some ways this trail was just a starting point – we need MORE science in this field! The way I look at it is this, I'm pretty sensible (you'll have to take my word for that!) and I find join up to be a gentle, calm and subtle way to start off training with a new horse in a positive light. So science hasn't completely proved it yet, but the horses do day after day. Sometimes people start with the theories and then colour the facts to fit them – i.e. 'we don't scientifically know how it works so it probably doesn't'! I'd say its more scientific to start with the facts and then shape the theories around them. To me, from my personal experience, Join up done correctly, IS positive and useful in establishing a good relationship with the horse, bring on more science that looks to explore how and why.

I will try and address the others as soon as possible…as well as catch up on the other posts from the weekend!
 

tess1

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 August 2010
Messages
214
Visit site
^^very good point...my opinion is that if 'join up' means a horse will consider you their leader...and therefore wont be 'trying it on' so often then that would probably save that horse a lot of grief in the long run....

for example....novice does join up....horse now responds better and therefore doesn't get walloped every time it does something remotely 'naughty'....in an ideal world this person wouldn't own a horse...but they do! and if MR&KM methods make the lives of the horses better (but not perfect) then surely that is good?

Perhaps once they have become 'open' to learnign they will delve further...but the way MR & KM have presented their methods is designed for ease of understanding and designed to 'sell' the idea to people who may not be interested.

Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but I think that your comments are very representative of how a lot of people feel about MR and KM.

I think the main message that people take away from MR and co is that you need to be the horse's "leader" and they should "respect" you. So, people try join up (and that can go badly wrong if you are novice at it anyway, and be a very unpleasant, if not downright dangerous experience for the horse) and/or they put duallys on and do lots of backing up out of their space and generally moving the horse around. So the whole focus is on the holy grail of respect, and leadership - and quite often what they completely fail to do is actually train the horse to do the things they want him to do. For example, the horse may drag them on the leadrope, spook at everything and nap on a ride. The owner believes this is because the horse doesn't respect them, so will spend lots of time doing what is really quite aversive groundwork exercises with the horse in order to gain dominance/respect/leadership (pick your term - I think in a lot of these instances they are pretty much boiling down to the same thing). A more accurate assessment may identify that the horse's management is inappropriate, or there are pain issues, or simply, and very commonly, the horse lacks confidence because they have not been gradually, repeatedly and consistently exposed to all the things they need to deal with, whilst at the same time being taught clearly and fairly how to deal with them. If many "training sessions" involve aversives and the horse being over-faced and/or doing things they find boring or unpleasant the horse will also lack motivation to particpate and interact with the human. People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them.

So, to me, the whole theory is backwards. Instead of worrying about becoming the leader, I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can. Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers. If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate. Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task. They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests. They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with. And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong. I think if more people focussed on developing these qualities, then the "leadership" and "respect" aspects of the relationship would develop as a natural off-shoot - the horse learns to trust the handler because the handler doesn't do stuff to scare the horse, isn't unpredictably or overly aggressive or aversive to the horse and consistently confirms to the horse when he is doing the right thing. So being a good, thoughtful trainer, I think, would almost automatically make you a good leader - whereas focussing on leadership may well have the outcome of making you a bully in the eyes of the horse - and as Lucy Rees argues, horses don't automatically choose to follow a bully. I don't think, personally, that the way to establish a good relationship with a horse is to get into an enclosed space and act like a predator, or put devices on their heads that are designed to hurt and then use them to make the horse move around. You might see something that looks a bit like "respect" - of course the horse will become much more aware and watchful of the human, but that is because the horse has identified the human as something capable of showing unpredictable, aversive behaviour, and the horse cannot escape from them. Lucy Rees argues that horses naturally avoid, not submit.

What people see when they go to a demo by MR or others is horses being scared - for example with plastic bags, or tarps, or clippers or horse boxes and the horses are being forced to deal with the issue because they are in an enclosed space, with a pressure halter on their head, and have had some pretty strong mind-games played with them before they even confront the thing they fear. Horses can be taught to deal with all those things without force - if MR can speak the language of equus why does he need to keep jerking on a lead rope attached to a dually - horses don't do that to each other! MR and KM go half way there - it's better than a lot of the sheer, obvious violence that a lot of people still resort to but it is in no way as kind as it is made out - and the horses do not have choice. It could be so much better if things were made a bit easier for the horses, and the force was removed. The question is, could they do it without the coercive gadgets they now rely on?
 

MissMistletoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 September 2007
Messages
853
Visit site
Really well thought out post ^^^^.

For me, it pin points the observations that I have made over the years watching MR and other similar trainers and the owners who have put the methods into practice.

I was, however, impressed watching Michael Peace, but can only judge that on one occasion at one demo. He appeared to display great empathy towards the horses.
 

xxMozlarxx

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 November 2010
Messages
1,335
Location
In a house
Visit site
The 1 display I went to didn't include any control halter, i use one for leading a big strong horse, mainly to bring in and turn out, it is little different than wrapping the lead rope round the nose which I used to do with my bargy pony, and still need to sometimes when he is on restricted grazing, I train my horses in the main in the tack they are ridden in given that's what I want to do, and am doing with them. I'm sure you're premises may be true for some, but please credit many of us with the ability to simply add these strategies to the other training techniques we use for our horses. Most people want a safe horse that they can ride and enjoy, it's hard to imagine all these people endlessly doing groundwork to exert 'leadership'. I think you are quibbling about semantics quite frankly. Leader...trainer..respect..confidence in all honesty where's the difference.
 
Last edited:
Joined
6 June 2012
Messages
12
Visit site
I haven't read through all the thread, but I think to pigeon hole something as being perfect or not being perfect is a very dangerous thing to do. Just as with people, horses will learn at different levels and using different techniques. I love the idea to try and better them instead, and to get them where they are not only understanding what it is you ask of them, but are willing to do it too.
 

neelie OAP

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 November 2011
Messages
184
Location
UK
Visit site
Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but I think that your comments are very representative of how a lot of people feel about MR and KM.

I think the main message that people take away from MR and co is that you need to be the horse's "leader" and they should "respect" you. So, people try join up (and that can go badly wrong if you are novice at it anyway, and be a very unpleasant, if not downright dangerous experience for the horse) and/or they put duallys on and do lots of backing up out of their space and generally moving the horse around. So the whole focus is on the holy grail of respect, and leadership - and quite often what they completely fail to do is actually train the horse to do the things they want him to do. For example, the horse may drag them on the leadrope, spook at everything and nap on a ride. The owner believes this is because the horse doesn't respect them, so will spend lots of time doing what is really quite aversive groundwork exercises with the horse in order to gain dominance/respect/leadership (pick your term - I think in a lot of these instances they are pretty much boiling down to the same thing). A more accurate assessment may identify that the horse's management is inappropriate, or there are pain issues, or simply, and very commonly, the horse lacks confidence because they have not been gradually, repeatedly and consistently exposed to all the things they need to deal with, whilst at the same time being taught clearly and fairly how to deal with them. If many "training sessions" involve aversives and the horse being over-faced and/or doing things they find boring or unpleasant the horse will also lack motivation to particpate and interact with the human. People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them.

So, to me, the whole theory is backwards. Instead of worrying about becoming the leader, I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can. Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers. If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate. Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task. They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests. They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with. And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong. I think if more people focussed on developing these qualities, then the "leadership" and "respect" aspects of the relationship would develop as a natural off-shoot - the horse learns to trust the handler because the handler doesn't do stuff to scare the horse, isn't unpredictably or overly aggressive or aversive to the horse and consistently confirms to the horse when he is doing the right thing. So being a good, thoughtful trainer, I think, would almost automatically make you a good leader - whereas focussing on leadership may well have the outcome of making you a bully in the eyes of the horse - and as Lucy Rees argues, horses don't automatically choose to follow a bully. I don't think, personally, that the way to establish a good relationship with a horse is to get into an enclosed space and act like a predator, or put devices on their heads that are designed to hurt and then use them to make the horse move around. You might see something that looks a bit like "respect" - of course the horse will become much more aware and watchful of the human, but that is because the horse has identified the human as something capable of showing unpredictable, aversive behaviour, and the horse cannot escape from them. Lucy Rees argues that horses naturally avoid, not submit.

What people see when they go to a demo by MR or others is horses being scared - for example with plastic bags, or tarps, or clippers or horse boxes and the horses are being forced to deal with the issue because they are in an enclosed space, with a pressure halter on their head, and have had some pretty strong mind-games played with them before they even confront the thing they fear. Horses can be taught to deal with all those things without force - if MR can speak the language of equus why does he need to keep jerking on a lead rope attached to a dually - horses don't do that to each other! MR and KM go half way there - it's better than a lot of the sheer, obvious violence that a lot of people still resort to but it is in no way as kind as it is made out - and the horses do not have choice. It could be so much better if things were made a bit easier for the horses, and the force was removed. The question is, could they do it without the coercive gadgets they now rely on?

Although I aways try to keep an open mind on these matters , there is 'always another way' of doing things, I agree totally with your post, and that there is no better teacher than the horse, it just depends whether we are prepared to listen or not !
 
Top