Which is kinder? NH or Traditional!!

siennamum

siennamum

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 February 2004
Messages
5,576
Location
Bristol
Visit site
Watching videos produced by the plethora of alternative practitioners I am starting to think that 'traditional' methods are slated for being abusive, when in reality they are kinder, simpler and less 'physical', than most of the 'newer' methodologies.

What always seems to happen when someone posts in horror the video of the latest trainer, is that someone posts that this method is better than what was previously available. This is apparently because previously everyone made their horses go XC, SJ whatever by hitting them - lots, or by using abusive equipment & bits.

In reality, I don't really hit my horses, nor do my horsey friends, (although we will give them a smack for naughtyness), whereas the NH videos show horses being hit round the head with whips & ropes. We also tend to use tried and tested equipment, which is inexpensive & fairly kind, like snaffles & (horror of horrors) martingales. The new equipment seems to consist of fancy whips, pretty nasty halters & devices to apply pain to the gums!

These methods are also proposed as the only solution to all the 'dangerous' horses around, (which I've managed to miss after 45 years with horses). There seems to be a belief that horses have to be subdued and dominated, which I would hate as a traditionalist. I love my horse to have a personality & use it's brain to help us both out of trouble.

Most traditionalists in my experience will adapt their approach to the horse, being sterner with a cheeky horse & quieter with a more timid horse. NH seems to have a fairly rigid structure & far less accomodation to the needs of different horses.

I am not trying to slate NH, or start a mega NH bashing post, but am interested in whether I am alone in thinking this. I wonder whether there shoudl be a shift in the marketing of these methodologies. If you are wanting a kind, flexible approah to educating your horse, go to a traditional Instructor. If you are afraid of your horse & think it needs dominating, go to youtube!!
 
There can be good and bad in both. What is kinder is using common sense when a situation demands it. Very under-rated thing is common sense!
 
Both have their place IMHO.A lot depends on the practitioner.Some traditionalists are at best ineffective and can be down right horrible BUT so can some NH.I had a good NH to help me with some ground work once.She was very good and didn't try and sell me DVDs, halters or anything else.I also have a brilliant but very traditional riding instructor. NH is a very classically trained rider.When I was wondering whether to sell the spooky one NH advised me to listen carefully to my trad riding instructor as she was very good! I did but it shows that there doesn't have to be a war.
 
Neither, it's the person applying the method that is kinder or not.

As you think that "NH" is a rigid approach, I suspect that you have only come accross a fairly limited number of practitioners. There are very flexible and sensitive nh-style trainers. They tend to have less followers because the adaptive style is more difficult for others to follow, people tend to be attracted to ways that give them an easier ABC set of instructions. Mind you, I observe that with more traditional horsemanship as well, people do tend to want a mechanical set of instructions to follow.
 
joeanne said:
There can be good and bad in both. What is kinder is using common sense when a situation demands it. Very under-rated thing is common sense!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thats the reason so many of the really extreme NH lot have flourished; the lack of common sense of riders and handlers these days.

There are many roads to Rome, I tend to pick the least stressful route, both for me and my horses.
 
I fail to see what is "Natural" about anything the Pepperoni's practice.

They are cruel...and as far as Mrs P concerned, Spiteful.

I see nothing wrong in using snaffles/martigales....and even a sharp smack with a crop..
...it's the incessent "baiting" of the horses i can't abide..continuous waving/slapping/smacking of ropes/sticks..:mad:

if anyone is frightened to ride their horse/pony, thats cool, just have it as a pet, brush it, pat it, take it for walks..just dont subject it to legallised abuse.
 
Just to mention, there are nh trainers who would never hit a horse around the head with a whip or a rope. Which just serves to demonstrate how wide this sort of approach to training is.
When you say:

"In reality, I don't really hit my horses, nor do my horsey friends,(although we will give them a smack for naughtyness)"

I feel that I need to comment that a smack is hitting, whether or not you think that it is justified, whether or not you have classed your horse's behaviour as "naughty", you are still hitting the horse. When you smack your horse with a whip when riding, say if you think your horse is ignoring the leg, or when it is spooking on a hack - you are hitting it. I'm not saying that is wrong or right, just that I think it only fair to acknowledge what we do. Does anyone here smack their horse on the head if it looks as if it is going to bite them? I know some do because they say so on other threads. Just an observation, because I've seen people whack their horses round the head with their hand if they've been bitten much harder than I've seen a horse "whacked" on the face at an nh clinic (I don't agree with either by the way).
 
NH is not about being kind, it is about using the horses language to work with it, whatever system you go down, and there are a lot more than just Parelli. Horses in the wild are not kind to each other all the time, there is a heirachy of respect and leadership, this is what the NH is developing between you and your horse, you are the leader, your horse respects you. (hopefully). Horses in the wild will kick, chase, bite another horse that challenges its leadership, in NH you dont do this, but you use strong signals and approaches to get your horse to understand about you being leader. However, in the wrong hands, this can go wrong and cruelty can ensue.

Traditional, well depends on how you use it, Rollkur sure ain't kind, but then again neither is what Pat did to Catwalk.

Whatever approach you go, NH or Traditional, its in your hands where the cruelty or the kindness comes, not from the system you use. Unless you use Rollkur.
 
another thing....can anyone shed light on when the phrase "Natural Horsemanship" was first used?

i certainly dont remember it as recent as 15 yrs ago...:confused::confused:
 
nativeponies said:
another thing....can anyone shed light on when the phrase "Natural Horsemanship" was first used?

i certainly dont remember it as recent as 15 yrs ago...:confused::confused:
Click to expand...

I always get confused about NH I forget that it is not just the handling side but also you aren't allowed shoes or rugs. That is fine but if you are going to do Natural Horsemanship maybe you should do it with a Natural Horse rather than a TB or a WB? Something that can cope with no shoes and hasn't been bred to be more than if it can go without shoes or not.

Theres an idea breed the perfect Natural Horsemanship horse, sure to be a market for it.
 
Ladyinred said:
Exactly. Thats the reason so many of the really extreme NH lot have flourished; the lack of common sense of riders and handlers these days.

There are many roads to Rome, I tend to pick the least stressful route, both for me and my horses.
Click to expand...

Indeed I also think an open mind is required and the ability to look at each horse and an individual, what works for one will not work for another and to blindly follow some book or video or one persons teaching does not work.

My favourtie saying is "make the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult"
 
dieseldog said:
Theres an idea, breed the perfect Natural Horsemanship horse, sure to be a market for it.
Click to expand...

ooo, yes..any suggestions?

icelandic? Eriskay? Highland?

it would need to be something pretty hardy to start off with, to cope with all what is thrown at it..or taken away whichever way you look at it
 
Tinypony said:
Just to mention, there are nh trainers who would never hit a horse around the head with a whip or a rope. Which just serves to demonstrate how wide this sort of approach to training is.
When you say:

"In reality, I don't really hit my horses, nor do my horsey friends,(although we will give them a smack for naughtyness)"

I feel that I need to comment that a smack is hitting, whether or not you think that it is justified, whether or not you have classed your horse's behaviour as "naughty", you are still hitting the horse. When you smack your horse with a whip when riding, say if you think your horse is ignoring the leg, or when it is spooking on a hack - you are hitting it. I'm not saying that is wrong or right, just that I think it only fair to acknowledge what we do. Does anyone here smack their horse on the head if it looks as if it is going to bite them? I know some do because they say so on other threads. Just an observation, because I've seen people whack their horses round the head with their hand if they've been bitten much harder than I've seen a horse "whacked" on the face at an nh clinic (I don't agree with either by the way).
Click to expand...


Hi you are quite right. I am under no illusion that a smack isn't hitting the horse - I have no issues about hitting with the whip, rope or hand, if the situation warrants it. If the horse refuses to budge or move off the leg, it will be hit with a whip behind the leg, if a horse tries to barge past me, it may be hit on the chest to get it to back up. Those are fairly traditional responses.

I am not making my point very well I don't think. I have no issue with a wide range of NH approaches & think anything which helps horse & their owners is great. It's the apparent deception which annoys me.

The evidence of the deception is apparent on here.

When there is a NH post, there is almost always a poster who claims to be fairly new to horses who criticised the 'traditional' way of handling horses (which let's face it can incorporate lots of NH stuff) as being cruel. They have been led to believe that whatever form of NH they now follow is the kind way & that the rest of us are unenlightened horse beaters.

Who tells them this? Who are these hypocrites who say they are fluffy and kind but in reality hit and boss their horses around like the best of them. That is what makes me irritated.
 
IMHO the labels help no-one at all, horse or human - there is always a tendency for things to become extreme and a caricature of the 'type'.

There are no short cuts to training horses, whatever the system may be called, without causing side-effects down the line. It is down to each of us to observe our horses, learn about their behaviour, and question every method. It takes time and effort - when things go beautifully it's because we've (sometimes inadvertently) hit upon what's right for us.
 
TBH most of the NH methods come from the traditional anyway, with a few twists often thrown in by the person who 'created the method' at any given time. I would agree with those that have said it is the person delivering the method that makes it kinder or not. As a child I was brought up on traditional methods but sort of lost sight of that when I came back into horses after a break to have children. I cannot believe how caught up I got in the 'modern' methods', believing them to be new and groundbreaking, mainly after losing my confidence due to one pony being horrendous to handle. Gradually I began to 'remember' things and realised it was all stuff I was taught originally but with a different name. I do have to admit that some of the tools, such as the knotted halters and the dually, whilst again twists on the old ways (rope over nose, through mouth etc), are far easier to put in place or have at hand when needed (although even now I may resort to a rope over nose if one starts being strong as I tend to only use either the halters or dually with those that tend to need it for as long as necessary). I think the one thing that has come out of the whole NH thing is the awareness that more people seem to have about the empathy needed with the horse and that can only be a good thing!
 
Oh one of my favorite subjects. lol
Pacey said:
Bottom line, it depends on the person.
Click to expand...

This is my take on it all. It depends on your personal views of what horses are and how they operate. Imo if you view horses as 'stupid' and 'out to make a laughing stock out of you' or even as something to get out and 'play with' and forget the other 22 or so hours in his day then imo you are more likely to be irritable, get angry and blame the horse and find it difficult to 'see' things from his perspective. Horses aren't born knowing what we expect of them and we must realize that we have to teach them but with understanding and a pre requisite that problems are our problems to solve not for the horse to just do what we want.

catkin said:
IMHO the labels help no-one at all, horse or human - there is always a tendency for things to become extreme and a caricature of the 'type'.

There are no short cuts to training horses, whatever the system may be called, without causing side-effects down the line. It is down to each of us to observe our horses, learn about their behaviour, and question every method. It takes time and effort - when things go beautifully it's because we've (sometimes inadvertently) hit upon what's right for us.
Click to expand...
I agree an understanding of horses as a species is to me a given also some understanding of basic learning theory (yes I do believe this) as well as 'getting to know our horses as individuals and gradually building a relationship and understanding based on that word 'respect' in it's true sense not in the sense that a horse HAS to do what WE want but as in a loving and understanding relationship.

NH has become a useless term imo as is Traditional. There is only good horsemanship and bad horsemanship imo. Can't remember where I first read that phrase but it is so true.

Mta... as to the op's question... 'which is kinder?' Kindness to me depends on our personal meaning of the word. Some horses can be made ill by human 'kindness' eg. too many treats and sugary feeds possibly causing laminitis etc.
I like the word empathy where we try and put ourselves in their shoes because this requires an understanding of horses as horses not horses in human terms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree with above. There are no "short cuts". Its all about work, commitment, stick-at-it, groundwork, groundwork & more groundwork!!

With some horses, a short sharp shock with a schooling whip will be just the thing and nip any future rebellion in the bud; for others this would be totally the wrong approach. You have to look at the horse, its rider, and the temperament and ability of both and make judgements which will differ in each individual case.

In my view, not everything that comes from America is good! and that applies not just to "horsemanship" but other things too; I think we can lay the blame for this overtly litigacious society we now find ourselves in, firmly on their "sue the pants off 'em" culture.

There are still people who are good "natural horsemen" who wouldn't ever call themselves that; they'd be far too self-effacing. These are people who "listen" to the horse (and observe the rider) and seek to work in harmony with horse & rider in a way that benefits both.

I don't think there's anything new in "natural horsemanship" - its just another word for the wisdom the old horse 'ostlers had; and the Romany gypsies and other ethnic groups still have it .....

I do object to the gimmickry and selling machine surrounding the NH thing tho' - but perhaps this is another undesirable import from the US.

IMO a true natural horseman/woman is one who listens to and knows themself first and foremost, and translates this knowledge into the horses they encounter; always seeking to work in harmony with the horse and work towards a partnership based on consent rather than force.
 
Does anyone else get bored with these discussions? I mean, a simple search will bring up everyone saying exactly the same things over and over again. (You have to have your horse unrugged and barefoot - no you don't. There is a place for smacking a horse, it depends on how you do it. NH is just traditional stuff repackaged. NH is too commercial and over-priced... etc etc).
The question is simple - which is kinder? My answer is simple - neither is kinder. People are kind or not, regardless of what training approaches they are exposed to. Traditional or "NH", you don't have to do everything you are shown, and many on both sides of the fence don't. I consider that I was shown some pretty abusive training by nh and "traditional" trainers in the past. Luckily as I've learnt more I've been able to be discriminating.
 
Yes I think 'listening to and hearing' the horse is vital as well as knowing yourself and working to be centred and calm is important.

Tinypony you've been around this board much longer than me.
Tinypony said:
Traditional or "NH", you don't have to do everything you are shown, and many on both sides of the fence don't.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't think there should be ie. a fence! It's time we knocked this down and all worked together sharing the 'best' and trying to move things forward for less experienced owners like me and the horses of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fence only exists in the minds of some Amanda. My trainers don't care if you come from "traditional" or not. They apply what they can offer to help anyone with their horse, on the ground or ridden. My classical riding trainer uses that, and her Alexander skills, and her NH knowledge. My "nh-ish" trainer uses his different skills. They can both help people to acheive their goals with horses, without mention of any "games". I help people sometimes, and I use my "nh stuff", plus my saddle fitting experience, and my more conventional training. This them vs us view of things doesn't help anyone.
 
I just picked up on the fence bit because I think as you say many seem to think it's got to be this OR that, when in reality most of use do 'mix and 'match'. This constant seperation of NH and Traditional to me is pointless, there is no one I agree with 100% because I am me so I too try to be flexible and use what fits with my personal beliefs and my horses.
 
hch4971 said:
TBH most of the NH methods come from the traditional anyway, with a few twists often thrown in by the person who 'created the method' at any given time. I would agree with those that have said it is the person delivering the method that makes it kinder or not. As a child I was brought up on traditional methods but sort of lost sight of that when I came back into horses after a break to have children. I cannot believe how caught up I got in the 'modern' methods', believing them to be new and groundbreaking, mainly after losing my confidence due to one pony being horrendous to handle. Gradually I began to 'remember' things and realised it was all stuff I was taught originally but with a different name. I do have to admit that some of the tools, such as the knotted halters and the dually, whilst again twists on the old ways (rope over nose, through mouth etc), are far easier to put in place or have at hand when needed (although even now I may resort to a rope over nose if one starts being strong as I tend to only use either the halters or dually with those that tend to need it for as long as necessary). I think the one thing that has come out of the whole NH thing is the awareness that more people seem to have about the empathy needed with the horse and that can only be a good thing!
Click to expand...

Very good post! Traditional ways ofbreaking and schooling etc do consist of doing things firmly and kindly. The manners of reinforcement echo the way horses discipline each other in a herd. If a horse steps out of line, a "higher up in the percking order" horse will give it a nip or small kick - not to injure, just to remind, which is exactly what you would do with a ridden horse when using the whip to tap behind your leg... As part of my BHSAI that I took over 20 years ago, we studied herd behaviour to understand greater how a horse behaved.

I think this poster also sums up another key issue of natural horsemanship, confidence. It is often practiced by people who cannot handle their horses due to lack of confidence. Quite often due to the fact that people nowadays seem to over horse themselves, then decide that the horse has "problems" due to its previous owner, and needs "re starting/ schooling", when actually the horse is confused as it is not getting "I'm above you in the pecking order" vibes from its owner/rider, so thinks it doesn't have to listen.

At the end of the day, if it helps some people, and therefore also some horses, then its not a bad thing. It does annoy me that people talk about it as if its new, its not at all really. I also think some people are hugely taking the mickey (and cash) out of these under confident people in the name of natural horsemanship.
 
The bit in the OP post about "smacking the horse if it is naughty" says it all really. The NH person wants to know WHY it is "naughty." And then how to avoid that behaviour again. All it is is about seeing things from the horse's point of view.

So your horse rushes out of the stable. Someone might get a whip and smack it across the chest to stop it. The NH person wants to know why it rushes out and then remove the anxiety.

As for the not rugging, no shoes etc. Why some NH are like that, but there are lots that are not. I have known some complete hooligan horses that have been transformed into excellent horses by NH methods that had been given up on by "traditional" methods.
But as one NH person said "don't be kind, be CLEAR." Some horses might need to be taught with stronger message, i.e. clearer messages, than others.

I agree with the breaking down the fence. I recently asked an experienced NH practitioner if she comes across as many problem horses as in the past, considering that so many peope follow NH of what ever sort and there is so much publicity about it. She said sadly that there are just as many misunderstood horses around as ever.
 
As people here have already said, it depends on the person applying the chosen method.

Personally, i try and work with a mixture of both. Both have a lot of good qualities to bring to the table, and i feel if you do a mix of both, it works really well, but thats me, the same might not apply to anyone else. Common sense has a huge part to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top