Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then

eahotson

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 June 2003
Messages
4,131
Location
merseyside
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?
Like a lot.
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
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.
I do too - it is very important to me.

We all want our horses to cooperate with us willingly. So what is the hallmark of willingness? Can we tell when a horse is willing and when he is 'merely' obedient or well-trained? Are they really the same?? I like to think they are different, though in some cases I think it is quite hard to tell them apart, especially if one only looks at the end product. Can a horse that has been coerced or even forced into doing something later become truly willing to do so through habit and a process of acceptance? Maybe we also need to know how the end product was achieved. What does 'truly willing' actually mean?
 

amandap

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 June 2009
Messages
6,949
Visit site
The main message I've got from IH is no violence, listen to the horse and look at all options (from around the world) keeping your mind open and thinking through problems from the horses point of view. I have never got you have to be the horses leader specifically from IH, getting the horse to work with you yes. Never hit or be violent is a fundamental that goes through all this work but many see IH and Monty as violent as has been demonstrated on this thread. Of course we all carry buckstoppers and use them at every available opportunity. :rolleyes: :eek:
For me making that fundamental decision never to hit, forces you to look to other ways of doing things. For me that is so important.
IH I have found is composed of people with very different back grounds, aspirations and they are often at very different places in their personal journeys. Generally the respect for horses is carried through to respect for people which certainly is not my experience of some of those who consider themselves kinder, more educated and generally 'better' than others of different thinking.

'Leader' is to me a totally useless descriptor these days as it has become meaningless. I am an owner, care giver, teacher and am responsible for the health and well being of my horses. There is no longer a word that fits this for me.

Judging when horses are well, happy to cooperate and generally content with life is once again very personal. No method or theory will guarantee happy and willing horses despite how 'kind' people think and believe it is. The only judge is the horse (as always) and my goal in my horse life is to learn to read my horses better so I can gauge how I'm doing as objectively as I can. No theory or rationale imo will automatically produce a content horse.

ps.fburton what is "YMMV" please?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
ps.fburton what is "YMMV" please?
From the online Urban Dictionary: "Literally, 'Your Mileage May Vary,' coming from the small print in (American?) automobile commercials in the 70's and 80's. It has come to mean an acknowledgement that the opinion of the poster may not be shared by everyone." I should try harder in future not to use arbitrary TLAs (or even FLAs), sorry! :eek:

I like what you wrote, especially the bit about the horse being the only judge.
 

Ladyinred

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2007
Messages
7,384
Location
Here
Visit site
From the online Urban Dictionary: "Literally, 'Your Mileage May Vary,' coming from the small print in (American?) automobile commercials in the 70's and 80's. It has come to mean an acknowledgement that the opinion of the poster may not be shared by everyone." I should try harder in future not to use arbitrary TLAs (or even FLAs), sorry! :eek:

I like what you wrote, especially the bit about the horse being the only judge.

Yes, me too. Very true words.
 

FairyLights

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 August 2010
Messages
4,072
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?
Excellent post.
 

rosiejones

Active Member
Joined
25 July 2010
Messages
39
Location
Sussex
Visit site
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

This is about as acurate a description of ih as you can get!! Your arguing for our approach as part of your argument against it!
I just taught a 2 day practical skills course that focussed specifically on these skills, on working out how to stretch the horses training at a speed that is comfortable, how to keep training enjoyable, how to use problem solving thinking to come up with individualised training plans that work for each horse and owner.
You would love kellys books as actually some of what you are saying is coming from a very very similar place! It's almost a catchphrase of kellys to say "set the horse up for success".
Did you notice that in recent demos the loading horses work over wooden boards, under tarpaulin tunnels and through narrow spaces before trying to load? It's a clear example of incremental learning, which is a massive part of ih training.

You know RAs are put working with problem horses and owners day to day, in different facilities and with different owner skill set and owner attitudes, we are pretty used to finding adaptive solutions! Yes leadership is part of the story, surely though you have noticed that training is always more successful with calm, confident, consistent handler/riders? It's just that ih actively tries to train these qualities in handlers and riders.

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

rosiejones

Active Member
Joined
25 July 2010
Messages
39
Location
Sussex
Visit site
Interesting about willingness, I specialise on turning round nappy or sour horses and getting them enjoying work again. This certainly can't be done by force, apart from my own ethical feelings on that, many are so far gone into fighting with peoples requests that it would beimpossible. So I spend a lot of time working out how to get the horse to engage happily with his work again. I've got enough thoughts on if to fill a book so won't go into masses of detail here but just wanted to sat it's a subject that I love! Mainly, in a nutshell, I think it's about finding something the horse does say yes to and working from there, which often requires close observation of which rewards work for the horse, how they show minor level stress and how this is eased, lateral thinking to come up with each stage of training, and an acute awareness of body language and timing to really set you up for success, since the most important thing with training willingness is that you never put the horse in a situation where he needs to say no, you only ever work through yes and maybe. Sounds all very abstract and obvious I suppose without specific horses to show the varioUs practical techniques!
 

rosiejones

Active Member
Joined
25 July 2010
Messages
39
Location
Sussex
Visit site
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.


Just to be clear: totally agree with you this theory is backwards... It so definitely NOT ih though!! It's exactly what we are teaching against!
 

rosiejones

Active Member
Joined
25 July 2010
Messages
39
Location
Sussex
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"

I'd have to say the idea that a horse follows because he has to within 10 minutes is madness! He could very easy not follow: he could kick out, keep running, or simply evade catching. I I've met small ponies who had learned to evade being caught in a stable!
 

wilder

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 November 2006
Messages
109
Location
south yorkshire
www.parkviewsaddlery.com
when i first approached the ih method i admit i was amazed at what they could do with the horse and wanted to find out more so i went to the demos, sadly i was disappointed by what i saw i was also very uncomfortable and it was actually going to the demos that made me look for something else that fell into my ethos of working with the horse, i do not like the dually and could not work with it due to my horse having nose damage but it seems this is part of the standard kit, it was actually an ra at one of the demos that i thought had got it all wrong her body language was very agressive and so was her yanking on the dually although i will admit there was a male ra who was very good and the horse responded accordingly
years later i have moved on and i really think the monty roberts method is just that it is an introduction when you know nothing else but as time goes by you have questions that they just can not answer and you move on and as you move on you become a little more dubious about the ethics and ethos of the non-violence message when you have a more experienced eye watching what they do
years later i was at a stables and proceeded to watch a man (who is fully endorsed by montys methods) fetch a horse who he could do nothing with, he unloaded the horse (with the use of 6 panels) into a schooling arena and then yank yank yank on the dually the poor horse just wanted to look at her new surroundings, i knew then that moving on was the right choice
 

eahotson

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 June 2003
Messages
4,131
Location
merseyside
Visit site
Thanks for taking the time to reply Rosie.Just a couple of things.You say join up can be done very subtly and in a walk but all those I have seen done on the DVDs and at, admittedly one demo,show very assertive body language and have never been done in the walk.
Everything seems to have to be done in a hurry! Nature of demos I supose but WHY must a horse be backed SO quickly.What do you gain from it?I know you don't want to take for ever but most people seem to take between, roughly 3 to 6 weeks from start to haveing the horse ride out in 3 paces calmly.This practice smacks to me of the ranches where horses had to be broken quickly because there was a lot of them, they were needed for work and no one had much time.
I worry that IH is becoming a bit personality led like,for instance, the Parellis.
You talk about customizing training but, again admittedly from the small amount I have seen EVERYTHING starts with join up.No one ever says 'We are not doing join up with this horse because or we are doing join up with this horse because'.Perhaps Kellys courses which are, of course, more leisurely than a demo can make things clearer.
I don't like the absolutes sometimes.Stops you from thinking very often.You must NEVER use titbits.Well I know an excellent trainer who does and his horses have manners to die for.He does use them consistently though, not randomly, the horses know when they get them and when they don't.Don't allow your horse to invade your space its disrespectful.I was standing in my stable with my nice kind cob.He comes to stand next to me, quite close actually, so that we can look out over the yard together.It felt safe and friendly, like he wanted to spend time with a friend. I liked it.No I didn't send him away.
Again a completely personal point of view.Kellys horses, while clearly mannerly looked relaxed and happy with her and she is clearly fond of them.Copy, who was ridden by Monty looked wooden to me and as though he had just given up.
 

amandap

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 June 2009
Messages
6,949
Visit site
I'd like to thank Rosie Jones, Sarah Weston etc. for taking the time to explain to others who see IH in only a negative light.

As for IH only being for "those who know nothing", well, that might be true in my case but I believe it is for those who are getting in a pickle and need some guidance and support on how to be more clear for their horses. Everyone is encouraged to move on and develop in their own way. It is also for those who want to learn the basics of communicating in a more effective way with horses and those who want to stop having a daily fight with their horses.

Perhaps those who think they know better ways can increase their exposure and get their message out in a bigger way rather than riding on the back of constant criticism of those trying to do that. That would make a refreshing change.
 

amandap

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 June 2009
Messages
6,949
Visit site
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?
Apologies, I didn't respond. Also it is off topic. lol

I do agree striving to improve is necessary. The problem for me comes when we start to try and quantify it and assume there is a defined end goal.

I can only see it as a continuum with mini goals along the way. I cannot untangle our personal journey/growth and continued learning to give a 'perfect' goal because I believe it is ever changing as we learn more in general and more about our individual horses and ourselves. Perfection is no where in my thinking as that immediately puts our human preconceived notion on something and imo causes us to be limited and even blinkered.

Constantly striving to learn more and practice, practice what we learn that is ethical to us at that time. It is a constantly changing and improving picture in my eyes. I have found improvements are often noticed in retrospect so taking time to evaluate is important.

Don't know if that makes sense. :)
 

RuthM

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 June 2012
Messages
347
Location
Nottingham
Visit site
I haven't read the whole thread (ye gads!), but I think the biggest problem is that 'famous' folk in general are aiming at profit from the biggest market available and that means encouraging people to break horses at home.

I really get why people want to break their own horses but generally I think it's second best to do so. The experience of breaking horse after horse after horse is priceless, the first dozen or so just begin the education, but in a reputable yard that education is under very close scrutiny and hugely supported - and so it goes on. By the time a person is fully up and running they have so many solutions inside their head and so much to draw on when things are truly difficult. I don't think it's thesort of skill that can really be demo'd or successfully passed on in writing dvd etc, I think it takes years of daily practice, harsh criticism, high standards and hands on education.

Of course none of the above applies unless the yard has the reputation to match, locally, where it's not about headlining a flash in the pan triumph but instead a steady, consistant flow of positive results that stay positive when the horse goes home.

Apart from anything else, unless the community supports such yards the skills won't keep going down the generations and they will be lost over time. Busy, good yards hold some of the most valuable assets the horseworld has. But, there's more money in fame and merchandise.
 

Tinypony

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 December 2006
Messages
5,211
Visit site
I haven't read the whole thread (ye gads!), but I think the biggest problem is that 'famous' folk in general are aiming at profit from the biggest market available and that means encouraging people to break horses at home.

I really get why people want to break their own horses but generally I think it's second best to do so. The experience of breaking horse after horse after horse is priceless, the first dozen or so just begin the education, but in a reputable yard that education is under very close scrutiny and hugely supported - and so it goes on. By the time a person is fully up and running they have so many solutions inside their head and so much to draw on when things are truly difficult. I don't think it's thesort of skill that can really be demo'd or successfully passed on in writing dvd etc, I think it takes years of daily practice, harsh criticism, high standards and hands on education.

Of course none of the above applies unless the yard has the reputation to match, locally, where it's not about headlining a flash in the pan triumph but instead a steady, consistant flow of positive results that stay positive when the horse goes home.

Apart from anything else, unless the community supports such yards the skills won't keep going down the generations and they will be lost over time. Busy, good yards hold some of the most valuable assets the horseworld has. But, there's more money in fame and merchandise.

Does Monty encourage people to break horses at home? I didn't think he did, I thought he encouraged owners to go to Kelly and her RA's. Pat Parelli definitely doesn't encourage people to start their own horses, he actively discourages it, telling students regularly that they have to be at a certain (high) Parelli level before attempting young horse starting. In fact, I've been to loads of demos and clinics, and I can't think of one trainer who would encourage the regular horse owner to start their own.

I do think that horse owners are questioning some of the accepted wisdom on how to start and bring on a young horse though, and that is why there is such an interest in people like the RA's and others to do the job.
 

neelie OAP

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 November 2011
Messages
184
Location
UK
Visit site
I haven't read the whole thread (ye gads!), but I think the biggest problem is that 'famous' folk in general are aiming at profit from the biggest market available and that means encouraging people to break horses at home.

I really get why people want to break their own horses but generally I think it's second best to do so. The experience of breaking horse after horse after horse is priceless, the first dozen or so just begin the education, but in a reputable yard that education is under very close scrutiny and hugely supported - and so it goes on. By the time a person is fully up and running they have so many solutions inside their head and so much to draw on when things are truly difficult. I don't think it's thesort of skill that can really be demo'd or successfully passed on in writing dvd etc, I think it takes years of daily practice, harsh criticism, high standards and hands on education.

Of course none of the above applies unless the yard has the reputation to match, locally, where it's not about headlining a flash in the pan triumph but instead a steady, consistant flow of positive results that stay positive when the horse goes home.

Apart from anything else, unless the community supports such yards the skills won't keep going down the generations and they will be lost over time. Busy, good yards hold some of the most valuable assets the horseworld has. But, there's more money in fame and merchandise.

:) Yes you have raised some very valid points here agreed, but these good busy yards are becoming few and far between now unfortunatley, hence MR,KM,IH etc etc !:(
 

PaddyMonty

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 October 2006
Messages
8,349
Location
Northampton
Visit site
Havn't read all this thread but the one thing that stood out from the parts I did read was that most of NH is common sense. I dont actually agree with this. Its only common sense if you understand the issue you are dealing with.
As for all the various NH methods? My thoughts.....
If you start from the premis that all horses have simple goals /reactions ie
They want to feel safe, survive and will take the path of least resisitance to achieve this then you are on the right track.
With this in mind it follows that to train a horse you simply need to make the desire behaviour the one that is easiest for the horse.
Now the tricky part is making that happen. To do that you need to understand the horse you have in front of you and select the method appropriate to that horse as an individual. This is what can not be gained from a book, DVD or any other media. Only from years of working with many different horses can this be learned.
Once you understand the horse in front of you it becomes fairly simple to work out the stimulus you need to apply to get the required behaviour.
That is where true horsemanship starts be it NH or any other label.
There is not and never will ba a one size fits all.
 

Chavhorse

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 August 2008
Messages
1,591
Location
Kent
Visit site
Havn't read all this thread but the one thing that stood out from the parts I did read was that most of NH is common sense. I dont actually agree with this. Its only common sense if you understand the issue you are dealing with.
As for all the various NH methods? My thoughts.....
If you start from the premis that all horses have simple goals /reactions ie
They want to feel safe, survive and will take the path of least resisitance to achieve this then you are on the right track.
With this in mind it follows that to train a horse you simply need to make the desire behaviour the one that is easiest for the horse.
Now the tricky part is making that happen. To do that you need to understand the horse you have in front of you and select the method appropriate to that horse as an individual. This is what can not be gained from a book, DVD or any other media. Only from years of working with many different horses can this be learned.
Once you understand the horse in front of you it becomes fairly simple to work out the stimulus you need to apply to get the required behaviour.
That is where true horsemanship starts be it NH or any other label.
There is not and never will ba a one size fits all.

100% this

An old friend of mine who was a total horseman, approached each horse as an individual (his strong belief was that one size certainly did not fit all), who took pieces from many trainers, never stopped learning, was always open to new methods and owner opinion and was still going off to demonstrations, courses etc at the age of 70, summed it up thus;

"Make the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult and give your horse all the help it needs to suceed"

His other great comment that has stuck with me is;

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

eahotson

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 June 2003
Messages
4,131
Location
merseyside
Visit site
100% this

An old friend of mine who was a total horseman, approached each horse as an individual (his strong belief was that one size certainly did not fit all), who took pieces from many trainers, never stopped learning, was always open to new methods and owner opinion and was still going off to demonstrations, courses etc at the age of 70, summed it up thus;

"Make the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult and give your horse all the help it needs to suceed"

His other great comment that has stuck with me is;

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

That you will make mistakes etc.Love.
 

Caol Ila

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 January 2012
Messages
7,518
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
Sorry, I was away and this thread expanded.

Completely agree with PaddyMonty. NH is only "common sense" if you have a good grasp of horse psychology and behaviour. To be honest, I can't say that I see a lot of NH techniques like join-up and groundwork being used and abused (although I read about it all the time on fora). What I do see is a lot of antagonistic techniques, treating the horse like a naughty teenager, being employed ineffectively, resulting in barn-fulls of confused horses and frustrated riders. It's not only a question of technique and what you're actually doing to the horse, but rather the whole philosophy with which you approach the animal. What I see being propagated is the attitude of "make him do it," based on the fundamental assumption that the horse's main goal is to "get out of work" and your job is therefore to "make him work."

The NH I grew up learning was not wedded to any one trainer's style or method, but rather approached horses with the basic philosophy that they are cooperative creatures and they also, as Paddy said, want to feel safe and secure and avoid unpleasant things. You then had to seek out the methods which showed the horse that he could feel safe and secure cooperating with you. I have always employed any techniques that seemed to work with whatever individual horse I had, ranging from classical dressage, to TTEAM, to round penny stuff.

This is why my favourite "NH" books are those by Mark Rashid, who writes more "meta-training" books than training books. They are not step-by-step guides to how to do x, y, and z with your horse, but rather present a more wide-angle view of his whole philosophy through anecdotes, in which you do get an idea of what techniques he uses. Mark himself is open to a variety of methods depending on the horse he has in front of him.

There is no good reason why "conventional" riding and NH riding should be so disparate. In fact, the biggest improvement I made in my dressage happened when I changed my attitude from "make her go on the bit" (which wasn't working very well) to "provide a space for her to go on the bit, encourage her to go there, and make it the nicest space she could possibly be in." That meant riding, well.. classically. Soft hands, really soft hands in fact, following seat, clear aids, all the things you should be doing. Amazing, the difference it made in that horse. There's the common sense horsemanship for you. To use that example, ask yourself why a horse would want to come on the aids if your bracing through your arms and hanging on its face? As far as it can tell, the bit is unpleasant and it is no wonder horses under those circumstances put a great deal of effort into avoiding it.

Anyway, someone earlier asked about my philosophy and that's it. Every time I see a horse putting a lot of energy into fighting its rider, I think that something has gone wrong in its training and interactions with humans, where it feels that fighting the only way to feel safe and secure and "in balance" (Rashid writes a great deal about this).
 

Ladyinred

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2007
Messages
7,384
Location
Here
Visit site
This is why my favourite "NH" books are those by Mark Rashid, who writes more "meta-training" books than training books. They are not step-by-step guides to how to do x, y, and z with your horse, but rather present a more wide-angle view of his whole philosophy through anecdotes, in which you do get an idea of what techniques he uses. Mark himself is open to a variety of methods depending on the horse he has in front of him.


It is surprising how many people are unable to grasp his books and dismiss them as 'stories'. I think he says some pretty profound things, and words that I will carry with me. I don't always agree with his methods but I love his whole philosophy.
 

amandap

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 June 2009
Messages
6,949
Visit site
I happen to be a big fan of Mark Rashid btw. :D His writing is very thought provoking imo. I haven't read it yet but I believe his new book is very good.
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
The NH I grew up learning was not wedded to any one trainer's style or method, but rather approached horses with the basic philosophy that they are cooperative creatures and they also, as Paddy said, want to feel safe and secure and avoid unpleasant things. You then had to seek out the methods which showed the horse that he could feel safe and secure cooperating with you.
What about the NH that emphasizes the need to establish the respect that the alpha mare demands and receives from the horses further down the totem pole, where authority and obedience rule the roost? There's quite a lot of that out there too (though perhaps rather more in the US than the UK).

P.S. Big fan of Mark Rashid too!
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
Constantly striving to learn more and practice, practice what we learn that is ethical to us at that time. It is a constantly changing and improving picture in my eyes. I have found improvements are often noticed in retrospect so taking time to evaluate is important.

Don't know if that makes sense. :)
Perfectly! :)
 

Caol Ila

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 January 2012
Messages
7,518
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
What about the NH that emphasizes the need to establish the respect that the alpha mare demands and receives from the horses further down the totem pole, where authority and obedience rule the roost? There's quite a lot of that out there too (though perhaps rather more in the US than the UK).

P.S. Big fan of Mark Rashid too!

I'm still refining my own thinking on this based on various things I read and observe but one thing I am sure of is that it always has to be informed by pragmatism. You do need to establish respect with a horse, as they weigh over 1000lbs and you don't. I for one would rather 1200lbs of Shire-cross not run over me. However, it is my feeling that cooperation and hierarchy are one and the same. Horses find security in the hierarchy of and relationships within the herd. By that logic, if they know where they stand in the relationship with their human and accept the human as "alpha," they will feel more secure and confident. An acting-out horse is often an insecure, worried one who figures that he has to look out for himself as the humans around him seem useless.

On the other hand, I am reading more and more research which suggests that herd dynamics are more fluid than the strict dominance hierarchy suggested.

I don't want readers here to think I'm going all hippy dippy and saying we should "bond" with our horses and let them do as they like. I feel that when I am working with my mare, I am slowly approaching the ideal, as I see it, of getting cooperation, respect, obedience, what-have-you, without "dominance" and antagonism. It's more difficult to describe it in words on the internet.
 

FairyLights

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 August 2010
Messages
4,072
Location
UK
Visit site
One thing I dont like about IH is that many of ts supporters seem to think theres is the only way and everyone else is cruel. Which is absolute rubbish. I've met some real fruit-cakes who spout IH methods. Wouldnt want to let them near any horse with a barge pole TBH.
they also think they are the only ones who can break and school horses and again TBH most of these usually women, have great heavy fat doppey cobs which are half dead anyway. There horsemanship is dreadful but they think they are wonderful....................
 
Top