Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then

I'd be interested if some of the MR followers above could address some of the concerns raised by others about the theories behind join up/duallies etc? that's what I always find frustrating - we end up discussing particular RAs who ahve done a bad job and discounting them, but not the actual theory of the practice. Kelly MArks used to even be on this forum and I asked her a couple of times about the theory/ethics behind join up etc etc and she did not respond.
 
Wagtail said:
I really dislike join up. The only time I use it is for horses that won't be caught. I think it messes with the minds of normal, well behaved horses and causes confusion and stress.

In the wild, the lead mare will chase off others that have been disrespectful or naughty and 'send them to Coventry', only allowing them back when they are forgiven and she feels they have learnt their lesson. NH practicioners mistakenly use join up to instill the position of themselves as 'leader' to their horse, thinking that it builds a relationship where the horse respects their leadership. What in fact it does, to a normal, well behaved and polite horse, is to send them away, as though they have been naughty. They have not, of course committed any misdemeanor, and so it makes them stressed and confused. They lick and chew to appease this person who has inexplicably suddenly behaved totally irrationally and sent them away!
Click to expand...

That is another very good point, Wagtail. In my years of bumbling about and trying and thinking about various methods of horse training, I found that my horse will join up happily on her own accord but when you send her away, the ears go back and she grudgingly trots off and then will keep trying to rejoin. In any other activity, dressage, hacking, jumping, lunging, other groundwork, whatever, the ears are happy and she willingly does what you want. But send her away from a perfectly good join-up, the ears are unhappy. I suspect it is because it feels like undeserved punishment.

In the study, the other issue with it that I remember reading was the NH-group horses had a more "natural" lifestyle in general. They were turned out in a herd whereas the "conventional" group were kept stalled. Things like that also effect the horse's general stress levels.

I am still happy to use join-up as a method to condition a horse to listen to me, even if that's all it is, as it can be a fairly effective one. But once he's listening and following, there's no reason to keep reiterating the point and sending him away for no reason. Once you have the join-up, I feel it is time to move on to other and indeed more useful training.
 
Morgan123 said:
I'd be interested if some of the MR followers above could address some of the concerns raised by others about the theories behind join up/duallies etc? that's what I always find frustrating - we end up discussing particular RAs who ahve done a bad job and discounting them, but not the actual theory of the practice. Kelly MArks used to even be on this forum and I asked her a couple of times about the theory/ethics behind join up etc etc and she did not respond.
Click to expand...

I am afraid Kelly rarely responds to that type of question. She invariably has more pressing business.

To my mind the theory is very flawed and makes some huge and unfounded assumptions. JU and round pen work is far from new.. there is evidence of a round pen dating back to Roman times somewhere (OH knows more about this than me) My thoughts are many on the subject but I have said them before and it always ends in an argument, so I shall keep quiet.
 
Caol Ila said:
That is another very good point, Wagtail. In my years of bumbling about and trying and thinking about various methods of horse training, I found that my horse will join up happily on her own accord but when you send her away, the ears go back and she grudgingly trots off and then will keep trying to rejoin. In any other activity, dressage, hacking, jumping, lunging, other groundwork, whatever, the ears are happy and she willingly does what you want. But send her away from a perfectly good join-up, the ears are unhappy. I suspect it is because it feels like undeserved punishment.

In the study, the other issue with it that I remember reading was the NH-group horses had a more "natural" lifestyle in general. They were turned out in a herd whereas the "conventional" group were kept stalled. Things like that also effect the horse's general stress levels.

I am still happy to use join-up as a method to condition a horse to listen to me, even if that's all it is, as it can be a fairly effective one. But once he's listening and following, there's no reason to keep reiterating the point and sending him away for no reason. Once you have the join-up, I feel it is time to move on to other and indeed more useful training.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Once a horse has 'joined up' with you, it is pretty much usually for life. Horses never forget! The 'join up' has usually happened however, without ever actually sending the horse away as in the traditional sense at all!
 
Kelly Marks was banned I believe.

Like the rest of us, if you want to learn about something you research it. :confused: Do you want Kelly Marks question (grilling) time? Lets get all trainers (including BHS ones etc.) to come on here and answer questions shall we? lol

Let's face it, we are all different and we will never all like or agree with every trainer and not everything one individual trainer teaches, if you don't like something that's fine but if you want to know about something you find out. Wanting questions answered about a training philosophy or ethics is not easy you have to make your own mind and if it's not to you're liking leave it to one side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
amandap said:
Kelly Marks was banned I believe.

Like the rest of us, if you want to learn about something you research it. :confused: Do you want Kelly Marks question (grilling) time? Lets get all trainers (including BHS ones etc.) to come on here and answer questions shall we? lol

Let's face it, we are all different and we will never all like or agree with every trainer and not everything one individual trainer teaches, if you don't like something that's fine but if you want to know about something you find out. Wanting questions answered about a training philosophy or ethics is not easy you have to make your own mind and if it's not to you're liking leave it to one side.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. I have researched it, and I am interested thought in the responses to my questions (research usually does - and should - lead to asking more questions). As there are obviously no answers to this in the research I am interested in the answers to them from the horse's mouth, as it were! I don't think that's unreasonable, and would expect that, if there were reasonable answers to them, the trainers would respond to them, but this never happens (whihc SEEMS to say a lot, perhaps).
 
Morgan123 said:
That's exactly my point. I have researched it, and I am interested thought in the responses to my questions (research usually does - and should - lead to asking more questions). As there are obviously no answers to this in the research I am interested in the answers to them from the horse's mouth, as it were! I don't think that's unreasonable, and would expect that, if there were reasonable answers to them, the trainers would respond to them, but this never happens (whihc SEEMS to say a lot, perhaps).
Click to expand...
Kelly Marks is not unique in this :confused: and when answering in the past got banned for advertizing or something I believe. Perhaps Mark Todd wants to come and talk to me personally? If it doesn't make sense to you then what is your point? I don't tend to look into stuff if it doesn't make sense to me and I don't feel the need to be able to 'discuss' with every trainer I've looked into. Perhaps I'm a one off in this respect?
Why don't you join her IH discussion group and ask on there? You don't have to join IH or be associated.

Better add, by make sense I mean understandable after reading books etc. etc. I looked into KFH a few years ago and Dancing with horses, his book, made little sense to me and was actually all muddled but I don't expect to be able to discuss with him on a forum.
I also saw him live and was not impressed one bit but again I don't want to 'discuss' with him why he did some/a lot of the stuff he did or didn't do. It just wasn't for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hear what some are saying about unnecessarily sending a horse away in order to do JU if it hasn't done anything wrong but a herd is constantly re-inforcing (or even re-evaluating) the pecking order in any case isn't it? I watch ours "correcting" each other all the time regardless of whether they are stepping out of line or not and none of them are young either.
 
amandap said:
Kelly Marks is not unique in this :confused: and when answering in the past got banned for advertizing or something I believe. Perhaps Mark Todd wants to come and talk to me personally? If it doesn't make sense to you then what is your point? I don't tend to look into stuff if it doesn't make sense to me and I don't feel the need to be able to 'discuss' with every trainer I've looked into. Perhaps I'm a one off in this respect?
Why don't you join her IH discussion group and ask on there? You don't have to join IH or be associated.

Better add, by make sense I mean understandable after reading books etc. etc. I looked into KFH a few years ago and Dancing with horses, his book, made little sense to me and was actually all muddled but I don't expect to be able to discuss with him on a forum.
I also saw him live and was not impressed one bit but again I don't want to 'discuss' with him why he did some/a lot of the stuff he did or didn't do. It just wasn't for me.
Click to expand...


Yes but gven that IH is such a strong entity, and based on something which seems to flawed to me, i am just interested in the reasons behind it. It doesn't NECESSARILY have to be Kelly MArks, that was just an example. none of the other IH followers have given any reasons behind it/reasonable explanations either?

May join the IH forum yes, though I expect I might be kicked out for asking the wrong sorts of questions, I will let you know :-)
 
Rosieshire said:
I hear what some are saying about unnecessarily sending a horse away in order to do JU if it hasn't done anything wrong but a herd is constantly re-inforcing (or even re-evaluating) the pecking order in any case isn't it? I watch ours "correcting" each other all the time regardless of whether they are stepping out of line or not and none of them are young either.
Click to expand...

Ah but you are wrong. There would have been a subtle act of defiance first, probably completely unapparent to you. Often a top horse only has to gesture with its head to send a subordinate one away. They do not go all out and send the other away by chasing it unless it commits a greater act of insubordination.
 
Morgan123 said:
That's exactly my point. I have researched it, and I am interested thought in the responses to my questions (research usually does - and should - lead to asking more questions). As there are obviously no answers to this in the research I am interested in the answers to them from the horse's mouth, as it were! I don't think that's unreasonable, and would expect that, if there were reasonable answers to them, the trainers would respond to them, but this never happens (whihc SEEMS to say a lot, perhaps).
Click to expand...

When you say researched it, have you read any of MR books?
I just googled "Ask Monty" and came up with this site which happens to have the answer to your question.
http://www.montyroberts.com/ju_ask_monty.html
If it doesn't answer your question fully, you can e-mail him and ask him personally.
 
muff747 said:
When you say researched it, have you read any of MR books?
I just googled "Ask Monty" and came up with this site which happens to have the answer to your question.
http://www.montyroberts.com/ju_ask_monty.html
If it doesn't answer your question fully, you can e-mail him and ask him personally.
Click to expand...

Yes, i have read at least three of his books cover to cover and dipped into others, i am signed up to his email updates, I have met him twice, been to talks of his and Kelly, and demos. I have asked Kelly and other RAs online as well. I hvae read numerous articles, e.g. the one quoted earlier, about comparative training techniques, also including the Natural Animal Centre's own research into herd behaviour, etc etc. I think I've tried quite hard :-D. I like learning and thinking about behaviour and training techniques.

I don't think that the question about chasing away/starting a relationship wiht a horse in that way/the fact that herds don't do this/ all the other multiple inconsistencies wiht the theory have ever actually been fully addressed, interestingly.

Another thing that I directly asked him, to be given a very waffley (albeit funny and distracting) answer was about lunging. MR joins up wiht a horse then lunges wiht two lines, and I personally think that's really awful - especially with the horses he is just backing. They are giving (you can see it!) all the signs of wanting to come in, licking chewing etc etc etc, and now he's completely ignoring these signs and they have to keep working. This is in the 'break in in half an hour' thing. Another area I really wish someone would cover - because the lack of responses seems to suggest that actually, there is no response and therefore there is no reason behind it and it really IS just flawed logic.
 
Well, it does sound like you have asked all the questions you wanted but perhaps the answers you did get just don't make sense to you.
Like Amanda said earlier, you look at trainers and their methods and one of them usually clicks and you get a feeling that they are talking complete sense and it all sounds logical to you....maybe you haven't met that trainer yet?
Or maybe you are just trying to analyse the methods too minutely.
People who follow a particular method usually do so because they have found it works for them, and unless we have been there with the trainer throughout their career and learnt everything they have about their methods, then I guess there will always be bits of those methods that are not quite clear about but it still works, so they just do it without questioning.
We all cannot know everything about everything there is to know about horses, we have to rely on other experts to guide us.
We are all learning all the time, even MR says he is still learning everyday, so perhaps you will feel more at ease if you accept that you may not understand some things, it just is as it is?;)
 
Yes - well i have found other things that DO work for me and my horse and I'm happy wiht them so that's fine.

I guess really what I'm syaing is that there are lots of inconsistencies in the method, and nobody 'in the know' will address them so they are obviously therefore some kind of flaws, so just maybe these are things other people might want to consider before they undertake this method too.
 
Ive used a Monty Roberts certified trainer in Australia - he is a VERY talented h'orseman, and one of the best breakers I've experienced.

I had an off the track thoroughbred that I was having terrible trouble with (he would not stop bucking!) that I took to him for lessons, and he was really great, he a) made a sound determination that the horse was genuine and would improve with work, and b) proceeded to work with me on a regular basis and we sorted him right out.

I had a lot of success with this instructor, but I would caveat by stating that he is a truly remarkable horseman which is more important than the actual methods used, and also that I combined my training with a (again, talented) classical dressage instructor once we had resolved the big issues.
 
Morgan123 said:
Yes - well i have found other things that DO work for me and my horse and I'm happy wiht them so that's fine.

I guess really what I'm syaing is that there are lots of inconsistencies in the method, and nobody 'in the know' will address them so they are obviously therefore some kind of flaws, so just maybe these are things other people might want to consider before they undertake this method too.
Click to expand...

But just because you don't "get" the inconsistencies doesn't mean to say they are flaws - one mans flaw is another mans "light bulb moment".
Personally I don't see any need for questions, I think the methods
work - for me - so I don't have any questions.
If I knew what your "other methods" are, I probably would have questions and probably wouldn't understand why you use them - each to their own and I think people make up their own minds - as you have.
I made up my mind I like NH and MR methods but I don't have questions about other methods, I just leave them alone for others to follow.
 
To be honest, I think there are quite a lot of things horsepeople do that are not based on any kind of sound, underlying scientific or empirically validated theory, but you do them because that's what you were told to do by someone designated as an expert, or that's just what's done, or it seems to work even though you don't know why, or it doesn't work but you do it anyway.

On that note, I see a lot of people doing things that patently don't work but they keep doing it anyway because they think that's the way it's done, i.e. cranking his head into a frame with the inside rein alone hasn't improved his dressage or general way of going over the last year; what makes you think it's going to start now?
 
Caol Ila said:
To be honest, I think there are quite a lot of things horsepeople do that are not based on any kind of sound, underlying scientific or empirically validated theory, but you do them because that's what you were told to do by someone designated as an expert, or that's just what's done, or it seems to work even though you don't know why, or it doesn't work but you do it anyway.

On that note, I see a lot of people doing things that patently don't work but they keep doing it anyway because they think that's the way it's done, i.e. cranking his head into a frame with the inside rein alone hasn't improved his dressage or general way of going over the last year; what makes you think it's going to start now?
Click to expand...

Please don't take this the wrong way but I feel that I'd be being really narrow minded if I thought that way myself. I would never do something just becuase a professional told me how to do it and it worked for them, I'd think about why it worked. There are a million ways of being cruel wihtout overtly hitting a horse - look at Parelli, for example. I think it's absolutely imperative that we think about why things are working. If, for example (and as the research seems to suggest), doing a join up is actually stressful for the horse and works simply as conditioning (not some magic equus language, becuase horses don't do this), then I don't want to simply do it becuase Kelly Marks, MR and all the RAs say it's ok - wihtout them further responding to any research or queries about what they're doing!
 
muff747 said:
But just because you don't "get" the inconsistencies doesn't mean to say they are flaws - one mans flaw is another mans "light bulb moment".
Personally I don't see any need for questions, I think the methods
work - for me - so I don't have any questions.
If I knew what your "other methods" are, I probably would have questions and probably wouldn't understand why you use them - each to their own and I think people make up their own minds - as you have.
I made up my mind I like NH and MR methods but I don't have questions about other methods, I just leave them alone for others to follow.
Click to expand...

my previous post applies to this response too. we should always question everything - and particularly if there is research suggesting it's wrong/inherently incorrect/inconsisteny.

A lovely example is a girl at my yard who saw another girl doing a parelli game involving tapping the horse's leg with the carrot stick to get it to pick up its foot on command. the second girl said she wanted to learn Parelli, becuase she wanted her horse to pick up its foot on command.

There are a million ways you could teach a horse to pick up its foot on command, involving carrot sticks, whips, vvoice commands, clickers, hobbles - all sorts of things, from nice to nasty. In all of them you might get the same result, but the horse might have (or might not, depending on the method) been massively stressed on the way. Just becuase all the ways 'work' (in that you get the desired result) doesn't mean that they're all 'right'!

BTW - I am not rubbishing either of those girls, I just thought it was an interesting example of the thought process being 'I want my horse to do that so I must learn this programme' rather than 'interesting, how can I teach my horse to do that'.
 
Morgan123 said:
Please don't take this the wrong way but I feel that I'd be being really narrow minded if I thought that way myself. I would never do something just becuase a professional told me how to do it and it worked for them, I'd think about why it worked. There are a million ways of being cruel wihtout overtly hitting a horse - look at Parelli, for example. I think it's absolutely imperative that we think about why things are working. If, for example (and as the research seems to suggest), doing a join up is actually stressful for the horse and works simply as conditioning (not some magic equus language, becuase horses don't do this), then I don't want to simply do it becuase Kelly Marks, MR and all the RAs say it's ok - wihtout them further responding to any research or queries about what they're doing!
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that blindly doing something because you're told to is ideal. It just seems to be be very common amongst horsepeople. I always question underlying assumptions and revise theories and training methods accordingly, but my point is that it is quite normal for people to do things with their horses and have no idea why. "Because that's how it's done."
 
Caol Ila said:
I'm not saying that blindly doing something because you're told to is ideal. It just seems to be be very common amongst horsepeople. I always question underlying assumptions and revise theories and training methods accordingly, but my point is that it is quite normal for people to do things with their horses and have no idea why. "Because that's how it's done."
Click to expand...

OK great - so (assuming you continue to use these methods) how do you address the concerns that have been highlighted re: join up, duallies, lunging after join up, etc etc?
 
Morgan123 said:
OK great - so (assuming you continue to use these methods) how do you address the concerns that have been highlighted re: join up, duallies, lunging after join up, etc etc?
Click to expand...

Wrong assumption. I don't own and never have owned or used a dually halter (I don't even know what they are without Googling), I don't lunge after join-up, or ever really, unless I'm giving a complete newbie a ride or lesson on my horse, and I haven't done join-up on my mare in many years. If I bought a baby tomorrow that was all over the place, I would probably use join-up to get its attention. Regardless of whether join-up works because you're "speaking" to it in its own language or because you're conditioning it to listen to you, it is a handy tool. But it can be (and often is) overused.
 
Caol Ila said:
Wrong assumption. I don't own and never have owned or used a dually halter (I don't even know what they are without Googling), I don't lunge after join-up, or ever really, unless I'm giving a complete newbie a ride or lesson on my horse, and I haven't done join-up on my mare in many years. If I bought a baby tomorrow that was all over the place, I would probably use join-up to get its attention. Regardless of whether join-up works because you're "speaking" to it in its own language or because you're conditioning it to listen to you, it is a handy tool. But it can be (and often is) overused.
Click to expand...

Sorry - I didn't really mean duallies specifically, I just meant 'MR practices in general' - apologies for not clarifying. And I also didn't mean you specifically.

Agree, join up is a quick tool, but it's also an (uneccessarily) dominant way of initiating contact with a horse and 'getting its attention'. I just feel that it's important to spend time thinking about what's really going on with it rather than that it's a magic trick which is fine becuase Monty says it's fine.
 
:D
Morgan123 said:
I'd be interested if some of the MR followers above could address some of the concerns raised by others about the theories behind join up/duallies etc? that's what I always find frustrating - we end up discussing particular RAs who ahve done a bad job and discounting them, but not the actual theory of the practice. Kelly MArks used to even be on this forum and I asked her a couple of times about the theory/ethics behind join up etc etc and she did not respond.
Click to expand...

:D good point, I think people should ask far more questions !
 
:confused: Did anyone catch the 'Ffemio Y Meistr' four part programe that S4C television put out last August, now that was certainly food for thought :rolleyes:
 
I saw Monty Roberts a few years ago, and I did enjoy watching, because I did see so much useful stuff in what he was saying. So many horses do invade personal space, and these horses didnt invade his. I understand where people are coming from, but when I saw his demo, I had two ladies behind me very loudly b****ing about him, which for any young teenager is enough to dent your view.
I also like the idea of the Dually, although I wouldn't necessarily go for his one, but when I have had to lead more difficult horses, and the lead rope has gone round the nose, I found that any time the horse pulled against it I would then have to loosen it again so that it didn't stay pulled tight, meaning I only had one hand on the lead rope. If the Dually got rid of this need, and there was nothing on the market similar, I would get it purely for that reason.
However, a friend of mine did some sort of IH work in Spain, and I watched him work with a horse, it was amazing to watch. The horse wasn't nasty or naughty particularly, but was a tense, untrusting ex-rachorse that had been through an unexperienced rider.
He used our fullsize 90mx40m school, so the horse could run as far as he wanted. Within a minute, the horse wanted to be with him, but if he moved away, then so did my friend. He then did some work on a rope halter and line, the headshy and untrusting horse was completely chilled in his company, and my friend could wave his arms about and move all round the horse, without him caring. Was so nice to watch.
 
Theory and research are interesting things. I did some physics at university, but wouldn't say I really understand or have researched everything about electricity. But I'm satisfied that it's not emotionally harming my light switches, so I'm happy to use it.

:-)

Conditioned responses in JU? I thought a conditioned response needed repetition for the subject to connect the stimulus and response . . . so why does a horse not just stop moving but come towards me when I turn away at the end of a JU? I've only done it the once. Anyway in 10 years don't remember doing a JU more than once with a horse.

We will never know what a horse experiences during JU. Any theory is just a theory. So in that spirit, here is mine. :-)

JU starts just by asking the horse to move away round the pen. No emotion, no "you bad horse". When you're trained to do it, you're told not to do it when the horse is attentive to you, only when they have lost interest in being with you for a few seconds. Just "oi you, can you move around the pen for a bit please".

(In demos the horses can be difficult and dangerous, and pretty oblivious to people, so a stronger sending away may be needed; but for most horses, they don't need to go out of a trot)

Sooner or later horse asks questions - shall I speed up? shall I change direction? Person answers questions with body language but no emotion. Horse seems to realise that its questions are being answered in a way it understands, without person getting angry or constraining/hitting it. Horse is then happy to be with person.

Conversation goes on from that moment throughout leading, handling, riding - horse asking questions, person noticing questions and answering them in a way horse can understand. In 5 minutes standing chatting to your mates on the yard with a leadrope in your hand, a typical horse might ask 10-20 questions (can I shuffle closer to you? Can I nudge you? Can I rub on you?).

JU is just an opportunity to start these Q&As, it can just as easily be done while leading a horse or loose in a big arena or field - frequently a horse will choose to circle round the person instead of running away further into the field or school, tell me that's a horse that I've trapped and forced to run around me!

The vast majority of the time, there is no round pen available so the JU effect is achieved via leading exercises. But generally these are more straightforward horses.

Btw anyone who has had a bad experience with an RA or MR person, if you really want to do something about it, I hope you will get in touch with Kelly or Monty and say who it was and what happened. They want to know if someone is using their name without training or has been trained and is doing a bad job.

(Disclaimer: I am not an RA etc but did the training about 10 years ago and have integrated it with other people I've learned from)

Not bothered about the theory (see electricity reference above) but for those interested in the practical applications, I hope the above is useful.
 
lucky-lady said:
I'm more of a fan of Richard Maxwell, but all of them - well - it's just common sense really isn't it? it's nothing new, it's stuff we were doing 30 years ago. Stuff we were taught by proper nags men.
Click to expand...

here here!!!

I'll admit I'm not 'up' with the whole natural horsemanship techniques, but isn't a round pen much the same as lunging? Most of what I've seen on tele about him is he wanted people not to use the methods of the old west and use more 'intelligent' horsemanship. Erhem, we aint the old west, nor have we (to my knowledge) ever broken horses in like that. Therefore I felt he was preeching to the converted in the UK???? Maybe that's just down to my experience and I've been lucky to see good horsemanship from a young age (that's not to say I haven't seen crap riders!! lol!! but the horses I've seen and broken in myself have never been done in the ways of the old west)? All I'll say is if 'his' methods have helped you then bonus, but I can't help feeling that a good british horseman/woman!! could have done the same for half the money???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top