Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then

[tess1]

Anything that causes a horse pain or distress is violence

Wow, OK, so yanking on a dually and using a buckstopper doesn't cause a horse pain and distress, and does give a horse a choice? Fascinating.

He may use flooding, but I have never seen it

Have you never seen the video of Blushing ET where the horse, dripping with sweat, simply sits down in the starting stalls? Even Kelly explains that releasing the horse to buck around the roundpen with the saddle on is a form of flooding.

At least Monty has tried to use whatever equipment he can to measure what happens when he is working.

Yes, the heart rate monitor. But there seems to be objection to the validity of those measurements, if Dr Andrew McLean is to be believed. No cortisol swab analysis, and no behavioural indicators. Rather limited measurement, I would say.

You have your opinion about the result of Monty's work, and will continue to hold it no matter what I say

You are so right, but at least having these discussions gives other people the chance to see both sides of the argument, and help them make up their minds what to believe.

 

[xxMozlarxx]

Here's a thing........

I have noticed that Dually halters have a tendency to twist and stick and 'practitioners' are constantly straightening them and loosening the ring ropes during training.

If reward for the horse is the immediate release from pressure when the desired behaviour is offered, then how is this achieved when the apparatus has to be constantly manually released and adjusted?

Just thought I'd ask

I'm not a 'practitioner' just someone who finds the dually a lifesaver for a big strong ID.
Good question, my view is that this happens when the dually isn't properly fitted, when it's snug but not tight I experience very little movement. I wonder as well in what circumstances you have seen them used. I feel it very important to take time to train in a calm and non reactive situation, I lead in from the field and frequently practise halts and releases.
Once the lead rope is loose there is no pull or pressure on the halter so whilst minor adjustments may be needed before the next manoeuvre the pressure has been released..well that's my experience. It is incidental to me that this is a Monty Roberts halter, I would have bought one whoever developed it.

 

[Natch]

At least Monty has tried to use whatever equipment he can to measure what happens when he is working.

Yes, the heart rate monitor. But there seems to be objection to the validity of those measurements, if Dr Andrew McLean is to be believed. No cortisol swab analysis, and no behavioural indicators. Rather limited measurement, I would say.

Although it doesn't give a complete and specific answer to stress, I believe heart rate is a more accurate measure of accute stress than cortisol

 

[tess1]

Agreed, but I think that a combination of measurements would have given the most accurate assessment of what went on. Cortisol swabs were taken, and videos made of all the training sessions, but only the heart rates have ever been used in the results. I appreciate that time and cost influences how results are analysed, but it seems a bit odd to make provision for all these different assessment methods, and then just rely on the one.

 

[talkinghorse]

Anything that causes a horse pain or distress is violence

Wow, OK, so yanking on a dually and using a buckstopper doesn't cause a horse pain and distress, and does give a horse a choice? …

Where is your evidence of the pain? Have you had anyone tug a Dually rope across part of your body?

Monty doesn't cause pain, if a horse bucks when wearing the buckstopper there is discomfort. Have you examined a horse to find any evidence of its effect, or are you giving your opinion?

The horse chooses to walk quietly, or pull away. If he refuses to back up, when asked to, Monty gives one or two sharp tugs. The horse can then choose whether to comply or not. Some do so immediately, but as the horses you see demonstrated have problems, depending on their previous mishandling, many do not.

… Have you never seen the video of Blushing ET where the horse, dripping with sweat, simply sits down in the starting stalls?

Yes. That is not part of his training.

… Yes, the heart rate monitor. But there seems to be objection to the validity of those measurements, if Dr Andrew McLean is to be believed. No cortisol swab analysis, and no behavioural indicators. Rather limited measurement, I would say. …

You are one of the peer group?

… You are so right, but at least having these discussions gives other people the chance to see both sides of the argument, and help them make up their minds what to believe.

It most certainly does!

 

[tess1]

Well, I haven't actually wrapped a dually around my head with the noseband wrapped around my nose and have someone give a few sharp tugs on it, no. To very "robust" horses with not such strong handlers it may be discomfort - to more sensitive, thin-skinned animals I feel it would be more inclined towards pain. After all, it is on a very sensitive part of the body, designed to tighten to maximise the pressure across the nose. Where along the spectrum it changes from discomfort to pain I think depends on the individual horse, and the strength of the user. But it's not much of a "choice" is it? They are going to give in in the end.

What is the choice with the buckstopper - give in, or have your gum damaged by the line? I think we are moving into the realms of delusion to imagine that that does not hurt.

I don't understand when you say that the Blushing ET video was not part of his training. He is training the horse in the video.

I don't have to be one of a "peer group" to know enough to question something.

 

[talkinghorse]

Well, I haven't actually wrapped a dually around my head with the noseband wrapped around my nose and have someone give a few sharp tugs on it, no. …

I'm relieved to know that, it would hardly replicate what happens to the horse and could be quite harmful to a human.

To very "robust" horses with not such strong handlers it may be discomfort - to more sensitive, thin-skinned animals I feel it would be more inclined towards pain.

This is a ridiculous statement. There are two ways in which the Dually can work either the handler puts the pressure on, as in the schooling tug. I can create a force of around 40 N, I suppose Monty might get up to 100 N. The other way is the horse can run into the pressure if it tries to flee. If you resist the horse, you might use your whole weight to apply the force, so you would use a force of 900 N, if you are a 15 stone man. Are you seriously saying that there are hundreds of horses who have had the front of their faces crushed from trying to flee in a Dually? As usual you are presenting your opinion, with no rationality, logic or fact.

After all, it is on a very sensitive part of the body, designed to tighten to maximise the pressure across the nose.

So why do all headcollars and lunge cavessons fit there? Have you complained to the makers of bosals and hackamores as well?

… What is the choice with the buckstopper - give in, or have your gum damaged by the line?

Where is your evidence of gum damage? Usually the horse will feel the line and lift its head. I assume that all riders drop the reins when the horse bucks do they? Otherwise they'd better stop using bits.

I think we are moving into the realms of delusion to imagine that that does not hurt.

At least there you'll feel at home.

I don't understand when you say that the Blushing ET video was not part of his training. He is training the horse in the video.

The TV company said they wanted him to train the worst horse they could find and make it into a programme. Monty agreed, they showed him the horse at his worse: he attacked people and threw himself on the ground within a few yards of the starting gate.

Monty works in the stable, where Blushing ET is quiet and docile and in the round pen where he attacks him. He fits the starting blanket and a saddle and wraps the stirrups in cloth. If there is flooding when Blushing ET tears the cloth to pieces, it was hardly deliberate, as it could not have been foreseen that it would occur.

I don't have to be one of a "peer group" to know enough to question something

What qualifications do you have to dispute the findings of the peer group?

 

[Pale Rider]

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

You can take a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think. Lol.

 

[tess1]

Why do you think horses only feel pain when their faces are "crushed". I should think that pain starts to register long before bones actually cave in.

Head collars and lunge cavessons do not tighten to increase the pressure. I do not think that people who use hackamores or borsals pretend that this equipment gives horses "choices".

The evidence that the buckstopper is painful is demonstrated by the horse. The horse will only attempt to buck a few times (at most) with the buckstopper in play. Whatever motive drives the horse to buck, the buckstopper gives them a stronger motive to stop. These horses will have already been ridden by riders who will have tried pulling their heads up and driving them on to prevent the bucking (well, unless they are babies being used in the study to "prove" the kindness of Monty's techniques). Therefore, it would appear that the buckstopper may be more severe than your average bit. I am not advocating the use of harsh bits and yanking horses heads up to stop them bucking either ... but when you are trying to set yourself up as the "kindest" trainer in the world, it seems a questionable technique to use.

I was actually referring to the flooding which resulted in learned helplessnss when Blushing ET simply gives up and sits down in the starting stalls. There is no sign of him throwing himself to the ground or attacking anyone - he just gives up. I don't know what video you've seen, but it's different to the one I saw - Blushing ET is shown as quiet in the roundpen, panicking in the stable and falling to floor when the blanket is put on him (and then charging out of the stable nearly flattening the camera person when Monty tries again) and there is no footage of him ripping the cloth to pieces. However, irrespective, Monty agreed to be filmed training the horse, and it is his training that puts the horse into learned helplessness. So it is Monty's training.

There are more holes in Monty's "study" than there are in a fisherman's net. The design is flawed and it does not test (or "prove" - a very unscientific concept) what was intended. My critique of the study comes from Andrew McLean's comments, and what we were told at the EBF conference by Veronica Fowler. If/when the study is ever published by Anthrozoos I will be very interested to read the entire work, where (by rights) they should include the drawbacks/weaknesses of the study and suggestions for further research into the area.

 

[talkinghorse]

… I was actually referring to the flooding which resulted in learned helplessnss when Blushing ET simply gives up and sits down in the starting stalls. …

I can't see how you can flood a horse in this situation, unless you imprison him in the starting stalls until he stands up. In Blushing ET's case, they couldn't get him in there. There is no opportunity for continuous presentation of the stimulus until the horse accepts it.

 

[tess1]

In the video the horse is hot and sweaty, clearly they have been working at it for some time (remember this is a two year old we are talking about). The jockey rides the horse forward into the stalls, the horse enters the stalls and slowly collapses onto his back legs so he is in a sitting position. Monty can be heard urging the rider to "stay on top" but the rider gets off and climbs onto the side of the starting stalls. He holds onto the reins, and he obviously doesn't fear an attack from the horse. The horse continues to sit there - no aggression, no biting, just sitting there. Even the voice-over calls it "the saddest moment". In Martin Seligman's experiment on learned helplessness, the dogs continued to tolerate the electric shocks even when opportuntiy was given to them to escape. You can throw all the theoretical phrases at it that you want. The horse was overwhelmed, he'd given up. Monty's training got him in that state.

 

[HashRouge]

Please can someone explain what "flooding" and "learned helplessness" are? I'm struggling to follow....

 

[Pale Rider]

In the video the horse is hot and sweaty, clearly they have been working at it for some time (remember this is a two year old we are talking about). The jockey rides the horse forward into the stalls, the horse enters the stalls and slowly collapses onto his back legs so he is in a sitting position. Monty can be heard urging the rider to "stay on top" but the rider gets off and climbs onto the side of the starting stalls. He holds onto the reins, and he obviously doesn't fear an attack from the horse. The horse continues to sit there - no aggression, no biting, just sitting there. Even the voice-over calls it "the saddest moment". In Martin Seligman's experiment on learned helplessness, the dogs continued to tolerate the electric shocks even when opportuntiy was given to them to escape. You can throw all the theoretical phrases at it that you want. The horse was overwhelmed, he'd given up. Monty's training got him in that state.

You cannot make a comparison between the behaviour of dogs and that of horses.

Horses have a set of techniques that they use to escape from whatever they perceive as the threat to them. Horses fear death not getting hurt, which is why they will sometimes damage themselves by moving into pressure in an attempt to escape.
Once the horse has exhausted all the options he feels he has available, flight first obviously, then fight, kicking, striking, biting or whatever, rearing and bucking are to dislodge things from his back, as some find to their cost, he will sometimes give up.

Basically, all his options are taken away and nothing is left, but death for him, and yes this is the 'saddest moment'.

To describe this as training and saying that training has got him to this place is flawed I feel, because you are not training at this point. What you are doing is thwarting his massive attempts to escape.

Once the horse has gone down and given up completely, then the rebuilding starts and what you would conventionally call training.
Using whatever technique you choose.

This is really breaking a horse in the true sense of the horse being mentally broken, dressing it up with any scientific or psuedo-scientific language dose not alter the fact of what has been done.

In fairness, when this happens in a domestic setting, the escalation is usually lead by the horse and the trainer is reacting to the ever increasing level the horse takes them to until it cannot go any more.

 

[talkinghorse]

Please can someone explain what "flooding" and "learned helplessness" are? I'm struggling to follow....

Flooding: using something that you know causes the animal to exhibit an unwanted behaviour continuously until the behaviour stops. Flooding has to be prolonged exposure to a stimulus at a level that causes the behaviour until the behaviour eventually stops. So with flooding we would have to know that the stimulus we applied caused the horse to fall down and we would keep applying the stimulus until the horse got over its fear of the starting stalls.

This didn't and couldn't happen in this situation: you cannot continuously 'put the horse in the starting stalls' and not stop 'putting in' until he accepts it. In this context you can't 'flood'. You can flood if the horse dislikes noisy tractors, by putting a noisy tractor in a small enclosed area until the horse learns to ignore the noise.

Learned helplessness can result from flooding. The animal learns that it cannot escape the continuous stimulus and stops trying to avoid it (so it stops running away from the tractor, the stimulus). When it gets the chance to escape, it still stays with the stimulus.

In the case of Blushing ET, flooding wasn't used, so learned helplessness didn't occur either. The horse eventually accepted Monty in the enclosed space, from on the back of another horse. (He had already accepted him happily in the stable, it was the confined space, like the starting stall that caused him problems.)

You can read about how Monty trained Blushing ET in his book From My Hands to Yours http://www.montyroberts.com/book-excerpts/blushing-et-and-the-hallway-system/

 

[Natch]

Horses have a set of techniques that they use to escape from whatever they perceive as the threat to them. Horses fear death not getting hurt, which is why they will sometimes damage themselves by moving into pressure in an attempt to escape.
Once the horse has exhausted all the options he feels he has available, flight first obviously, then fight, kicking, striking, biting or whatever, rearing and bucking are to dislodge things from his back, as some find to their cost, he will sometimes give up.

...
To describe this as training and saying that training has got him to this place is flawed I feel, because you are not training at this point. What you are doing is thwarting his massive attempts to escape.

...
This is really breaking a horse in the true sense of the horse being mentally broken, dressing it up with any scientific or psuedo-scientific language dose not alter the fact of what has been done.

If a highly averside stimulus (doesn't have to be a threat of death) is repeatedly applied and nothing the horse/dog/human/lab rat does makes it stop, and they give up trying, that IS learnt helplessness, and I agree it is what happens during "breaking a horse's spirit" and is very sad. It IS a form of training - you are training the horse to not respond to a highly aversive stimulus.

Habituation is similar to flooding, but with the stimulus at a lower intensity.

Where is your evidence of gum damage? Usually the horse will feel the line and lift its head. I assume that all riders drop the reins when the horse bucks do they? Otherwise they'd better stop using bits.

Out of interest, why was a gum line used instead of attaching it to a bit? Would a bit have been as effective? My theory is thus;

Whatever motive drives the horse to buck, the buckstopper gives them a stronger motive to stop. These horses will have already been ridden by riders who will have tried pulling their heads up and driving them on to prevent the bucking... Therefore, it would appear that the buckstopper may be more severe than your average bit.

(quote edited by me to reflect my exact opinion)

...But I suspect you may have a different opinion of why a gumline instead of a bit, and I am interested to hear it

 

[Natch]

Talkinghorse I like your explanations, and if I could just add to them to clarify things a little:

Flooding: using something that you know causes the animal to exhibit an unwanted behaviour continuously until the behaviour stops. Flooding has to be prolonged exposure to a highly aversivestimulus at a level that causes any sort of reactive behaviour until the behaviour stops. So with flooding we would keep applying the stimulus until the horse stopped reacting tothe stimulus (in the example of the starting stalls the aversive stimulus would be the stall, which would have to be "applied" to the horse (Somehow), and not removed until the horse ceased to make any attempt to remove the stimulus).

You can flood if the horse dislikes noisy tractors, by putting a noisy tractor in a small enclosed area until the horse learns to ignore the noise. The same tractor and school with a different horse who was not highly fearful of tractors wouldn't be classed as flooding, but habituation. Another common example of habituation (which Monty does and I approve of ) is to run your hands all over a horse in approach and retreat. You approach an area which the horse objects to, but retreat before it gets to a strong objection. You then repeat until there is no reaction. Habituation involves keeping the stress levels of an animal manageable. Flooding involves taking the stress levels through the roof. So in the example of touching all over, to flood the horse you would touch and keep touching the tickly spot which they really object to whilst the horse does whatever it can to get you off it, and remove your hand when they give up trying to escape your hand.

Learned helplessness is the result from flooding. The animal learns that it cannot escape the continuous stimulus and stops trying to avoid it (so it stops running away from the tractor, the stimulus). When it gets the chance to escape, it still stays with the stimulus.

Apart from the ethics, the downsides of flooding are that if you are unable to see it through the horse may become even more highly reactive to the aversive stimulus, and even if it has been successful, the horse may regress at some point in the future.

 

[tess1]

Flooding: using something that you know causes the animal to exhibit an unwanted behaviour continuously until the behaviour stops. Flooding has to be prolonged exposure to a stimulus at a level that causes the behaviour until the behaviour eventually stops. So with flooding we would have to know that the stimulus we applied caused the horse to fall down and we would keep applying the stimulus until the horse got over its fear of the starting stalls.

This didn't and couldn't happen in this situation: you cannot continuously 'put the horse in the starting stalls' and not stop 'putting in' until he accepts it. In this context you can't 'flood'. You can flood if the horse dislikes noisy tractors, by putting a noisy tractor in a small enclosed area until the horse learns to ignore the noise.

Learned helplessness can result from flooding. The animal learns that it cannot escape the continuous stimulus and stops trying to avoid it (so it stops running away from the tractor, the stimulus). When it gets the chance to escape, it still stays with the stimulus.

But you can continually keep trying to force the horse to go in to the starting stalls - and when he finally does give up and go in there he collapses. Just because the horse wasn't in the stalls the whole time doesn't mean he wasn't being flooded - he was in the vicinity of the stalls and he knew what the people were trying to make him do. That constitutes prolonged exposure to the aversive stimulus when all avenues of escape have been blocked off - and Monty was using mesh panals to keep the horse very close to the stalls.

 

[Pale Rider]

I would argue that once a horse has reached a stage where it has given up, ie gone down on the floor, this is a far higher level than flooding. As is suggested, that in flooding the horse has been subjected to the aversive stimulus until the reactive behavoiur stops and the averse stimulus has been 'accepted'.

I don't believe that the extreme reaction of the horse by giving up is a sign that the horse has accepted the adverse stimulus, in fact quite the reverse is probably true.

 

[Littlelegs]

I read the books & watched a demo back in the 90's in my teens, & have had the odd delve since. But for me anyway, & on yards I've worked on a lot of the everyday stuff regarding basic body language is very similar. Long before monty was popular, stuff like squaring up to a dominant horse, or keeping an uncatchable horse moving was already practiced. Stuff like removing the pressure when handling before the horse moves was something well practiced beforehand too. And in all honesty, I don't see a great deal of difference between a dually & a stallion chain, same principles. If it works for you, that's fine, but its not something I have felt a need to practice myself. Will keep an open mind, but my ( non bhs lol) ways have worked for me with my own, project horses & other peoples problem horses too.
In the last 4 yrs though I have learnt that in some situations it wouldn't work. I have a now 5yr old pony who is fear aggressive & lacks normal herd behavior, after spending from 3mnths to 1 alone. The wounds, both healed & recent she had at 1 indicated she'd seen off at least a few dogs herself. Not major attacks, but that, her solitary life & idiot of a prior owner all explain her fight to the death attitude. Very little flight instinct, a few strides at most in order to turn for the attack for apparent danger. My mare adopted her, & she has normal behavior, however even in a herd she has little normal instinct with any others. She'll move for others above her, but will wait & watch for the opportunity to race back, bite or kick them then hide behind mine again. And while she has always played with another youngster, if another adult tells her off she'll bide her time till their defences are down to get her own back for having dominated her. And has done the same with several people too. So I find it hard to believe a join up type technique would do anything but harm & increase the fear aggression.
By comparison, taking it slow & teaching her its fun to be with us has had a great result. As long as daughter, myself or my mare are around, she feels no need to fight, she trusts us to do it for her. And at 5 is a brilliant pony for my 7yr old. Any half decent person can ask her for something & she'd try to please. But put her in a round pen with an adult & despite being 11.1 she'd try to kill you. And if floored & sat on she'd wait till you moved & try again. So whilst no doubt often good, this pony, to me, proves that its not always the solution.

 

[talkinghorse]

… Out of interest, why was a gum line used instead of attaching it to a bit? Would a bit have been as effective? …

The gumline is an effective aversive stimulus: instantaneous with the serious attempt to buck; sufficient to abort the behaviour. A bit would be totally inappropriate. It is designed for an entirely different purpose and should be used for that. I can't imagine the damage that would occur to a horse's mouth if a horse bucked and the rider pulled on the reins.

 

[talkinghorse]

I would argue that once a horse has reached a stage where it has given up, ie gone down on the floor, this is a far higher level than flooding.…

It cannot be flooding as flooding requires that the stimulus is presently continuously until the behaviour stops. If you present a horse to starting stalls (stimulus) it drops to the floor (response) the stimulus is no longer present.

Flooding requires that the stimulus is continued until the horse stops the unwanted behaviour. The two things (refusing to enter starting gate) and (willing to enter starting gate) are mutually exclusive — hence it is cannot be flooding

 

[Tinypony]

I've been sitting on my hands for the best part of 42 pages, but I have to ask...
Why argue over the strict definition of flooding? The horse sat down and stayed there for some time or collapsed or however you want to phrase it. How can that ever be right? I mean blimey we all make mistakes, even great trainers make mistakes, but this obviously wasn't viewed as such. I'd be devastated if I did that to a horse. As Pale Rider says, that's breaking a horse surely?
I suppose at the end of the day a racehorse is a commodity, and if he couldn't do his job he had no value, so whatever, he was going to go into that stall.
Tess and I agree to disagree over a lot of things, but I think she's talking sense in this case.

 

[fburton]

If a highly averside stimulus (doesn't have to be a threat of death) is repeatedly applied and nothing the horse/dog/human/lab rat does makes it stop, and they give up trying, that IS learnt helplessness, and I agree it is what happens during "breaking a horse's spirit" and is very sad. It IS a form of training - you are training the horse to not respond to a highly aversive stimulus.

Habituation is similar to flooding, but with the stimulus at a lower intensity.

You're right, and I would add that what distinguishes flooding from habituation (or "desensitization" as it is sometimes called) is whether or not the stimulus provokes a flight response. In the case of flooding, the horse is prevented, one way or another, from fleeing or avoiding whatever it fears, and so is forced to endure until it stops reacting to the aversive stimulus.

With progressive desensitization, exposure to the stimulus is carefully controlled so that the horse never becomes fearful enough to precipitate the flight reaction. This gentler approach may take longer, but is much less likely to have unwanted side effects, for example on the horse's attitude to people.

You effectively said this in your later post. I just wanted to make explicit the point about there being a threshold level of aversive stimulus intensity.

Another difference is that desensitization requires the trainer to be attentive to the horse's reactions throughout the procedure, whereas with flooding the stimulus is applied and the horse left to deal (or not deal) with it. If the trainer is concentrating on anything, it is more likely to be to ensuring the horse remains confined/restrained and that it does not injure itself.

And as you also say in that post, a significant downside of flooding - quite apart from the fact that it is much more unpleasant and stressful for the horse - is the risk that the suppressed behaviour may re-emerge suddenly and unexpectedly at a later date. Just because the horse has stopped responding to an aversive stimulus, which is presented in a way that does not allow avoidance or escape, doesn't necessarily mean the horse is no longer fearful. All it may take is a slightly different situation for a full-blown fear response to reappear.

 

[Tinypony]

I have seen this in action. A horse that was "desensitised" to pigs by a prominent trainer, by stalling it next to pigs, pronounced cured in a very public way. The owner was turning to the person I worked for within a relatively short space of time because her horse was now reacting to pigs in a worse way than before, it then became so afraid it was dangerous at just the smell of pigs if it got downwind. Flooded not desensitised.

 

[Littlelegs]

The flooding technique has parallels with both common practice over here & ironically montys fathers methods. It's not unusual for feral/ unhandled ponies to be stabled for sometimes weeks in order to accept people. Same thing really, you remove the ability for flight & force acceptance of humans. And the practice of people like montys father, i.e. the breaking method is essentially the same, the ability for flight is removed & human acceptance is forced.
Habituation, or desensitization where the horse has the option of flight, but chooses not to is entirely different. And much the way I prefer to do things.

 

[Tinypony]

The flooding technique has parallels with both common practice over here & ironically montys fathers methods. It's not unusual for feral/ unhandled ponies to be stabled for sometimes weeks in order to accept people. Same thing really, you remove the ability for flight & force acceptance of humans. And the practice of people like montys father, i.e. the breaking method is essentially the same, the ability for flight is removed & human acceptance is forced.
Habituation, or desensitization where the horse has the option of flight, but chooses not to is entirely different. And much the way I prefer to do things.

You know that much used photo of the horse laying on it's side with all it's legs tied up? I have Monty's dad's book. In it he carefully describes how to lay a horse down like that, and immobilise it for gelding or other medical procedures. They didn't have the same access to vets and drugs that we have today, in those days these cowboys needed to know how to lay a horse down safely and keep it still. In fact, if you look at websites for organisations that rescue horses from improbable situations - they immobilise the horses in very much the same way, using straps normally rather than ropes.
Monty's dad did sometimes tie up a hind leg to work a horse, not something I'd support, to be fair.
He also gives an interesting description of how to do Hook Up with a horse.

 

[Morgan123]

You know that much used photo of the horse laying on it's side with all it's legs tied up? I have Monty's dad's book. In it he carefully describes how to lay a horse down like that, and immobilise it for gelding or other medical procedures. They didn't have the same access to vets and drugs that we have today, in those days these cowboys needed to know how to lay a horse down safely and keep it still. In fact, if you look at websites for organisations that rescue horses from improbable situations - they immobilise the horses in very much the same way, using straps normally rather than ropes.
Monty's dad did sometimes tie up a hind leg to work a horse, not something I'd support, to be fair.
He also gives an interesting description of how to do Hook Up with a horse.

Hi TinyPony, what's that book called? Didn't know it existed, would like to read it.

 

[Littlelegs]

Tinypony, no arguments from me that at times it can be the only option in the examples you give. My point is more that 'flooding' is exactly the same principle that monty so objected to in his fathers methods. Rather ironic I feel.

 

[Tinypony]

I agree with you Littlelegs. The book is Horse and Horseman training. Strangely maybe, it is available via Monty's website, where it is described as "disturbing". I don't find it that disturbing to be honest, it's definitely of it's time though. Some bits in there I found tough to read, but other bits quite interesting. http://www.montyroberts.com/images/jui_photos/horse_horseman_training.pdf

 

[talkinghorse]

Hi TinyPony, what's that book called? Didn't know it existed, would like to read it.

You can download it from Monty's website, alongside a video of the procedure http://www.montyroberts.com/ab_about_monty/jui_about/