Natural horsemanship is really just...........

[Anro]

horse phycology and putting the theries to the test isnt it?!

[Crystal Fire]

I'm not sure about that, as there are disagreements about the "psychology" as explained by some NH trainers.
I think of NH as applying an understanding of the nature of horses to their training and care.

[mayoguinness]

I'm not sure about that, as there are disagreements about the "psychology" as explained by some NH trainers.
I think of NH as applying an understanding of the nature of horses to their training and care.

I agree and thats how I see it. However it covers such a wide amount of techniques now that one way of practising horsemanship can be compltely different to anouther but both still classed as NH but in its true state it should be as you say CF. So many people I see now I wonder why they class themselevs as doing NH as their horsemanship mostly relys on gadgets!

[Alyth Long]

I agree with both of you - with the addition of principles and attitude. Techniques alone do not make a NH. If you look at a selection of known NH trainers they cover basically the same exercises. The terminology might differ but the techniques don't. The differences is in attitude and which principles they adhere to. Alyth

[Kate F.]

horse phycology and putting the theries to the test isnt it?!

I think one branch of NH is pretty much this - though I'd say it's more putting theory into practice, or applying the theory in practice than "testing" it. To test the theory you would have to have a proper scientific basis and an experimental design and framework, which is not the way most people operate on a daily basis! :D Most people in this more behavioural branch of NH let other people do the testing, then use the results of their experiments in formulating their training techniques.

However, how much psychology, and how valid it is varies hugely from one trainer to another. There are still quite a few around in NH and other equestrian branches basing what they do on theories that have been disproved decades ago. What they do may still work, but not for the reasons they give.

There are also plenty of NH trainers who operate more on a "do this and that will happen" basis, without going into the psychology behind it. Is it still NH if you don't understand WHY you're doing what you're doing? Yes, I guess it is if that's what it says on the box/book.

So, you're right that NH is in essence heavily based in equine psychology - but I think how much of that is then passed on to the "end user" depends very much on the individual "method" or trainer.

[pengapenga]

From my point of view NH is commonsense (horse sense being abetter description) horsemanship! Afterall it is not natural to catch and ride a horse:p

It is reading and understanding a horses natural body language and we humans have adapted/manipulated to suit our purposes. Each well known trainers use the same basics just deliver it differently, dare I say even those that are not traditionally thought of as NH trainers use the basic techniques in there training as well.

Anyway that is what I understand NH to be.

[Bay Mare]

Unfortunately a lot of the commercial 'NH' isn't based on scientific research and some of it is actually based on flawed science with very little acknowledgement of learning theory.

There seems to be an increasing trend towards finding a 'new' angle or an edge which isn't necessarily in the best interests of the horse or the owner. A cynic would say that it is a good marketing ploy!

We need to look more at how horses learn and find the best ways to help them learn. To me it should be a combination of common sense and proven science which is flexible according to the horse that we are working with.

[katefarmer]

Personally, I'm a bit cautious about calling it "common sense". It sort of implies that you don't need to learn anything - it's just common sense - but in fact, it's anything but. Common sense to a human is not the same as common sense to a horse - what (some) NH actually teaches and uses is common horse-sense - ie common sense from the horse's point of view.

Once you have an understanding of how a horse learns, how a herd is structured, what the priorities and roles are, how communication works between horses themselves - then you can use this as the framework to deduce and use horse "common sense".

I think a lot of the problems we see in horse training today have come from people saying "it's just common sense" and going on to apply human common sense to horses. Nobody actually set out to be unreasonable or abusive to horses - it just happened by applying human standards and expectations to non-humans. Similarly, nobody set out to train their horse to walk all over them - it just happened when they applied human common sense to a horse. "The horse wants more space, so I move over and give it to him. If I give him a carrot, he'll like me and be nice to me." Of course, moving over and giving carrots does mean something to the horse - but not quite what the human "common sense" had in mind!

[pengapenga]

KF I can see what you mean. I personally follow the commonsense from the horses point of view. I have and understanding of horse politics and body language and work within that frame. I don't use anyone trainers methods rather I employ a few of them.

However I can see what you mean by some people applying aspect of the human form of commonsense and the result is not doing the horse any good at all.

[JOJOBA]

How about exchanging the word 'common sense' with 'horse sense'?
Common sense with regard to horses.

xxx

[Dancinglite]

Personally, I'm a bit cautious about calling it "common sense". It sort of implies that you don't need to learn anything - it's just common sense - but in fact, it's anything but. Common sense to a human is not the same as common sense to a horse - what (some) NH actually teaches and uses is common horse-sense - ie common sense from the horse's point of view.

Once you have an understanding of how a horse learns, how a herd is structured, what the priorities and roles are, how communication works between horses themselves - then you can use this as the framework to deduce and use horse "common sense".

I think a lot of the problems we see in horse training today have come from people saying "it's just common sense" and going on to apply human common sense to horses. Nobody actually set out to be unreasonable or abusive to horses - it just happened by applying human standards and expectations to non-humans. Similarly, nobody set out to train their horse to walk all over them - it just happened when they applied human common sense to a horse. "The horse wants more space, so I move over and give it to him. If I give him a carrot, he'll like me and be nice to me." Of course, moving over and giving carrots does mean something to the horse - but not quite what the human "common sense" had in mind!


Three yards of black fabric enshroud my computer terminal. I am mourning the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense.

His obituary reads as follows:

Common Sense, aka C.S., lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really knows how old he was, his birth records were long ago entangled in miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape.
Known affectionately to close friends as Horse Sense and Sound Thinking, he selflessly devoted himself to a life of service in homes, schools, hospitals and offices, helping folks get jobs done without a lot of fanfare, whooping and hollering. Rules and regulations and petty, frivolous lawsuits held no power over C.S.

A most reliable sage, he was credited with cultivating the ability to know when to come in out of the rain, the discovery that the early bird gets the worm and how to take the bitter with the sweet. C.S. also developed sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adult is in charge, not the kid) and prudent dietary plans (offset eggs and bacon with a little fiber and orange juice).

A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Technological Revolution and the Smoking Crusades, C.S. survived sundry cultural and educational trends including disco, the men's movement, body piercing, whole language and new math.

C.S.'s health began declining in the late 1960s when he became infected with the If-It-Feels-Good, Do-It virus. In the following decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal and state rules and regulations and an oppressive tax code. C.S. was sapped of strength and the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, criminals received better treatment than victims and judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional baseball and golf. His deterioration accelerated as schools implemented zero-tolerance policies. Reports of 6-year-old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing classmates, a teen suspended for taking a swig of Scope mouthwash after lunch, girls suspended for possessing Midol and an honor student expelled for having a table knife in her school lunch were more than his heart could endure.

As the end neared, doctors say C.S. drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding regulations on low-flow toilets and mandatory air bags. Finally, upon hearing about a government plan to ban inhalers from 14 million asthmatics due to a trace of a pollutant that may be harmful to the environment, C.S. breathed his last. Services will be at Whispering Pines Cemetery. C.S. was preceded in death by his wife, Discretion; one daughter, Responsibility; and one son, Reason. He is survived by two step-brothers, Half-Wit and Dim-Wit.

Memorial Contributions may be sent to the Institute for Rational Thought.

Farewell, Common Sense. May you rest in peace.

By Lori Borgman

[JOJOBA]

Well that's brightened up my exam filled day!

xxx

[pengapenga]

:D:D:D That is very good Dancinglite.

I went and amended my post to read horse sense:) a much better description.

[Anro]

so you's are saying that some N.H does use pycology and others just emmmm dont?

[Kate F.]

so you's are saying that some N.H does use pycology and others just emmmm dont?

I think pretty much all NH uses psychology in that that is why it works, but its very variable how much it passes on to the user. The more of the psychology you understand, the less you need any "method" because you understand WHY it works and can therefore make it up for yourself. You need the knowledge, and probably some suggestions to get you going and practice to refine your body language and technique - but you're not dependent on a "method".

The psychology is more or less the "magic" behind the method, and some practitioners don't want to give all their secrets away - or at least not at the beginning! (If you can work it out for yourself, you're not going to keep spending on all the books, videos, bits and pieces - you'll just go for what you want!) ;) However, there are plenty of people who get the results they want without understanding the psychology, and there are even instructors out there who don't seem to understand why it works, and just operate on a "do this until that happens" basis. Rather like you don't have to understand how a car works to drive, but if you're going to drive lots of cars and fix them effectively when things go wrong, you'll need to know how they work! :D

[Mossy]

What is natural horsemanship? Not as daft a question as it may appear. The label is new and modern, and when trademarked brings in lots of dosh for the latest guru. Does that mean the ostlers who could calm a fretful horse with a touch were "wrong" or have we reinvented the wheel and put a fancy name on it? Some of our forefathers used bearing reins and some evil bits. Some of us use draw reins which, incidentally were slated in one of this month's horse mags, and there are some potentially vile bits around. It is easy to refer to common sense but common sense only becomes that when the information is learnt and you can use that knowledge to draw on. It is has been common sense for me, based on equine A&P, to feed hay on the ground or in a large tub on the floor. The "fashionable" world has just rediscovered this. viz the haybar. [An expensive piece of nonsense imho!]

[katefarmer]

What is natural horsemanship? Not as daft a question as it may appear. The label is new and modern, and when trademarked brings in lots of dosh for the latest guru. Does that mean the ostlers who could calm a fretful horse with a touch were "wrong" or have we reinvented the wheel and put a fancy name on it?


Defining NH becomes more fraught with problems every day as the term is used to cover ever wider techniques and methods - but I think one can say that in general terms, most NH does have roots in old ideas.

However, I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as "reinventing the wheel" as what NH does is take that old wisdom and revise, repackage and re-present it in a way that makes it relevant and useful for today's riders. Some NH also supplements that with explanations of WHY these techniques work. These explanations have only emerged as a result of modern behavioural research, and simply weren't known 50 or 100 years ago. It's not exhaustive, there's a long way to go, and theories are being put forward and disproved all the time - as in all areas of science, but progress is being made that is helping us to understand the equine mind better.

The old schools did what they knew worked, but they often didn't know WHY it worked. Now we're starting to find that out and the results are being incorporated into what is taught by some modern horse-people, many, but not all, of them "officially" in the NH field.

I think we have to bear in mind that the relationship between people and horses has changed dramatically over the last 100 years. The horse has gone from being primarily a part of the working economy to being primarily a pet and item of leisure. People riding and handling horses no longer go through a long apprenticeship where skills and knowledge are handed down through the generations - they take a few dozen lessons at a riding school and go out and buy a horse of their own. There is therefore a need for some of that old wisdom to be put together and presented in a way that it can be used by today's riders. That's the role NH fulfils. The rights and wrongs of who makes how much money out of it are another issues - there is a need for NH, and people have stepped in to fill the gap in the market.

In my opinion, NH as a separate entity should not be necessary. It should be part of learning to ride, and riders would learn how the horse thinks, learns and behaves, and how to communicate with it in terms the horse understands, as a part of their basic equestrian education. But they don't. They mostly learn to ride a horse as they would learn to drive a car - as a physical activity - push this button, and that will happen. If we ever do reach the day when the fundamentals of what we now call NH become a basic, it will be a happy day for the horse.

Perhaps then NH will specialise in what one could call today "extreme NH" - the bridleless, saddleless, shoeless, rugless side of things and we'll see an Olympic discipline of "jumping your tackless horse around a course while sitting in the bar drinking a beer." :D:D

[jinglejoys]

Yes Kate and most importantly most of the old school used to keep their knowledge as a mysterious secret instead of passing it on to the masses:)

[Mossy]

Yes Kate and most importantly most of the old school used to keep their knowledge as a mysterious secret instead of passing it on to the masses:)
Ime most truely knowledgable folks of the old school are/were more than willing to teach those who are genuinely interested.

[Harry Hobbes]

...horse phycology and putting the theries to the test isnt it?! [sic]
Not exactly.

Although psychology is certainly a central factor. (Specifically, behavioralism.)

Natural horsemanship is more about the genetic drivers of the species, and how to work with those drivers, rather than at cross-purposes.

Below is a quote from Natural Horsemanship Explained: From Heart to Hands by Robert M. Miller, D.V.M., The Lyons Press, Guilford, Connecticut. 2007. pp 78-9.

Dr. Miller is arguably the most knowledgeable (and published) expert on the "natural horsemanship" phenomenon, having been within the movement from the late 1940's, and having mentored and studied many of today's better-known names.

This passage illustrates the difference between natural and "traditional" horsemanship nicely.
…this kind of horsemanship utilizes communication methods natural to the horse. These methods are:

A) Assertive threats that stimulate movement on the part of the horse. Control of movement establishes dominance in the species.

B) Stroking, which in a mutual-grooming species reassures and bonds. Note that we say “stroking,” not “patting.”

C) Advance and retreat, which in the flight species reassures, aborts the flight response, and the desensitizes the horse to frightening stimuli.

D) Generous rewards. These reinforced desirable behavior with rest, stroking, reassurance, and praise, quickly conditioning the desirable responses.

E) Small signals that progressively increase the pressure until response is obtained. The horse learns that if he does not respond to a small signal, a bigger one will follow. This progressive approach produces lightness. [Emphasis added.]

F) Flooding, wherein horses swiftly habituate to frightening but harmless stimuli if they are rapidly and extensively repeated.


Regard the above list and one can see where “traditional horsemanship” is often lacking:

A) Excessive aggressiveness and infliction of pain, which justifies the horse's fear of humans.

B) Slapping or vigorously patting as a reward rather than gentle stroking.

C) Advancing, without retreating, which produces flight - or fight.

D) Failure to flood, stopping a frightening stimulus prematurely, reinforces and fixes the flight reaction, and explains why so many horses are spooky, ear shy, head shy, afraid of electric clippers, and so on.

E) Starting with severe signals and later diminishing them, rather than vice versa. This all too common mistake comes to us naturally. We spur, or squeeze, or rein, or whip too hard initially planning to later diminish our signals. This is backwards from the way it should be done, and it creates fear and distrust in the horse.

F) Demanding repetition of desirable behavior - such as a good stop, a good turn, or good jump - without reinforcing rewards. This is the most common training mistake: immediately demanding a repeat performance or to even better one without some sort of reinforcement. Gifted horsemen emphasize the importance of not spoiling a lesson with endless repetitions.

Should you wish to further investigate this subject, you may wish to visit Dr. Miller's web site at: www.RobertMMiller.com

Best regards,
Harry

[Alyth Long]

I have just finished reading Bill Dorrance's book (and making copious notes!!). One of the things I got from him was not to pick up the reins before asking him to walk off when you mount him. Doh!!! Don't we all do this!!! Of course that is telling the horse that pick up the reins means "go forward"!!!!!!!!! That is just one example of "normal" as opposed to "natural".
To me "natural" means doing things the way a horse can understand with the least amount of stress.
Alyth

[Kate F.]

To me "natural" means doing things the way a horse can understand with the least amount of stress.
Alyth

Exactly! And where you can take that example further is to realize that the horse makes a connection between a repeated sequence of events providing the events happen consitently in the same order, and within a few seconds of each other. That applies to picking the reins up, or anything else. You can take the same thing and say pick the reins up, but don't walk off, just hold the reins for a few seconds and drop them again, or pick the reins up and wait several second before moving off so the horse doesn't associated one action with the next. We make them make that connection by walking off immediately we pick the reins up. We can break it again by changing the sequence.

We often train the horse to do exactly what we don't want by not realizing how this connection works. I inadvertently taught my mare to rear up at me by going very quiet and trying to quieten her down with stroking every time she did it! Duh - rewarding the wrong behaviour in fine style!! :D She was getting really good and it was getting pretty dangerous until Richard Thompson showed me what was happening and why! Once you see that, it's just so obvious, isn't it? I think that's why people say "it's just common sense" - because it is so obvious, once you know!! ;):D

[Chilli]

I think it means anything you want it too from keeping a horse with no shoes, treeless saddles, bitless bridles to fancy marketing to the art of scientific equitation and horse-breaking while at the same time it means nothing at all.

It seems to have more to do with people than horses, from people who associate themselves with NH because they think it is the kindest thing to do for the horse (Even if its not) to the actual methods labeled NH which are more about changing the way people interact with the horse than changing the horse.

As the art of scientific equitation and horse-breaking has been around in Europe for hundreds of years as part of traditional horsemanship I don’t see how NH can be defined by it.

[rascalboy]

The way I see it, natural horsemanship, is just listening and working with the horse. You learn to guess what the horse is thinking, and you larn how horses talk, and you figure out how to communicate with the horse in their own language.

[Crystal Fire]

I don't think we communicate with them in their own language. I think we just establish a method of communication that works for both sides of the partnership.

[TracyWilko]

I agree that NH can be confusing!!! I'm [hopefully] working towards my BHS II this year so I am quite entrenched in the BHS way. As such, I wanted to 'incorporate/have a go' at another approach. So, I started having a look at NH and it's variants. However, having a masters degree in psychology, I have to question a lot of what the NH movement has to say.

Much of the NH movement, which includes Roberts & Parelli do not appear to be grounded in science. That is, much ethological research (the scientific study of animal behaviour - not the same as 'equine ethology' that appears on the web. This is not scientific ethology but appears to be a new name for NH) appears to criticise the NH movement as it does not have a coherent set of principles that a) have been tested other than anecdotally and, b) subjected to scientific rigour. NH appears to use learning theory (behaviourism) then evolutionary theory and some things in between which cannot be defined at all!!

At the first glance it appears OK mix and match. However, what is worrying from what I've read is that NH doesn't really use learning theory (behavioural) principles correctly. Indeed, the term 'negative reinforcement' often appears to be described incorrectly so therefore, must be used incorrectly. In addition, signals are given concurrently, there are long delays in reinforcement and different signals are used for a single response. This results in a horse that doesn't know whether it's coming or going! Also, some research tells us that when horses are in the 'round pen' they are not changing their attitude and accepting the human as leader. Rather they simply learn through fear to modify their behaviour in order to stop being chased!

From what I've read it appears that Dr Miller has supported Parelli, so I guess that Parelli does have some scientific backing. However, Miller seems to primarily talk about 'imprinting', which surely looks at behaviour in an 'evolutionary' way. This is fine, but evolutionary theory (which says that behaviour is innate, we're born with it) is rather at odds with learning theory which says that we're not born with the behaviour but learn it. I'm not sure that NH can have it both ways unless it knows exactly what behaviours the horse is born with an exactly the ones it isn't born with - and it will only know this through examining ethological research, which it doesn't appear to do - but maybe I'm wrong!!! As such, NH trainers may be intepretating and modifying the horse's behaviour incorrectly, even if it does appear to yield a desirable response.

So, I've contacted the International Equitation Science Society which uses scientific research to further it's understanding of horses/equitation. I maybe wrong but I would urge others to do the same to get an objective perspective on horse behaviour and equitation.
However, maybe I'm wrong!?

[Lili & Morgan]

I do not think NH is scientific based at all.
It is based on empiric experience ( not experiment) from gifted HORSEMEN, then pass on to larger public.

One of my instructors commented on Parelli saying "Oh, yes but people who have ALWAYS worked with horses know that!"

Yes, that is precisely the point, REAL horse-people ( I do not think there are many walking on Earth) know that.

But Amateur and even some instructors (BHS, FISE, FFE etc...) ( shall I be a real B*** and say most of them) do NOT know that.

I am a scientist, but I do not discard knowledge because it has not been scientifically proven.
Science does not hold the universal truth.

In fact the definition of science is something that can be proved wrong. That is why astrology is not a science because it cannot be shown it is wrong. ( no negative control).

[Kate F.]

In addition, signals are given concurrently, there are long delays in reinforcement and different signals are used for a single response. This results in a horse that doesn't know whether it's coming or going!


Can you bit a bit more specific? I can't think of any circumstances of this in the different "methods" I'm familiar with. I think most trainers/gurus are very clear in making sure the signals are given separately (to give the horse the chance to do the right thing) and a second signal only follows if the horse does not respond to the first. Reinforcement is always immediate - ie the signal stops immediately the horse gives the right response.


Also, some research tells us that when horses are in the 'round pen' they are not changing their attitude and accepting the human as leader. Rather they simply learn through fear to modify their behaviour in order to stop being chased!


This is certainly true of Monty Robers style join-up, but not necessarily, I think, of round pen work where the horse is not chased, but rather encouraged to explore its environment and decide where the most comfortable place is. I think you might be equating the tool (the round pen) with one practitioner (Monty Roberts). There are many, many ways of using a round pen which do not involve fear or chasing, and have a very positive effect on behaviour.

There are a lot of different types of NH and different practitioners out there, some more scientifically based than others. Many are just sharing what they have found to work, without any particular research - and I don't think they claim otherwise.


So, I've contacted the International Equitation Science Society which uses scientific research to further it's understanding of horses/equitation. I maybe wrong but I would urge others to do the same to get an objective perspective on horse behaviour and equitation.
However, maybe I'm wrong!?

That certainly seems to be a very good organisation, and I think a lot of what they are coming up with is confiming many aspects of NH to be valid. However, just because something isn't scientifically proven, it doesn't mean it is wrong or worthless. As a psychologist yourself, your intuition will probably tell you what makes sense and what doesn't, even if there isn't a published paper to back it up.

Also, go a bit wider and deeper than Roberts and Parelli - they are mass market and tailor their products accordingly. You'll find plenty of scientists in the NH world too, who are more critical and selective. One major problem is that very little money is invested in equine research, making it very difficult to get studies on all the areas we would like - but things are moving forward slowly! :)

[AengusOg]

To me (and I've said this before, here) being a 'natural horseman' means just that.....a person who is a natural with horses; a person who has a natural affinity/ability with horses, and someone whom horses trust.

A natural horseman has the ability to very quickly gain the trust of any horse, and that horse feels safe and secure with the horseman, allowing them to work together in a unique partnership.

Keeping horses in a natural state, while a very good system, is not about 'natural horsemanship'. It is natural horsekeeping/management.

The science of how horses behave and how they live (with and without us) is a totally different area. Very valid in the grand scheme, and useful to know as a horseman, but not essential to a natural horseman.

I know there are lots of people on this forum who dislike me because of my views and the way I have expressed them, so I guess my views on this will cause a stir.

I am a natural horseman. I find it easy to work with horses, and horses find it easy to trust, and respond to, me. I work with horses, most days, that have become 'spoiled' by people who are not natural horsepeople. I use a training halter and a rope; no gadgets, no whips, no shouting, no slapping; I don't care what some people say or think about me, I have nothing to prove to them, it's between me and the horse.

I get results. I change horses from unhandleable/unmanageable, fearful wrecks into calm, trusting, and willing partners. I then set about helping their owners to build a good working relationship with them for their future together.

That the majority of horse-owners can learn to do what I do, I have no doubt. Most sensible, compassionate horseowners want to do the best for their horses. Even those who misuse their animals to feed their own egos would do the right thing, if only they knew what that was.

I realise and acknowledge that I am very lucky to have my abilities. The horses I've worked with, and their owners, have helped me to believe in myself, and are the reason why I can feel free enough to say this.

The debate about what is and isn't 'NH' will go on for ever, But we need to remember that each of the prominent 'NH' practitioners have something to say, hopefully based on their realisation that there are an awful lot of sad, fearful, and (albeit with the best intentions in many cases) abused, and misunderstood horses and their owners in the world who need all the help they can get.

Getting bogged down in the why and wherefor of it all really isn't getting on with the job. Yes, people need to be able to understand why they should do a particular thing in order to achieve an end result, but the need and the result still exist, and should be addressed. The sometimes conflicting views of those 'biggies' who take on the mantle of world authorities, sometimes only serve to cloud the real issues.

We all need to remember that the horse and its welfare, fair treatment, and mental wellbeing should be the main concerns of all of us, while we trawl through the soup of 'NH' teachings.

[Drifted]

Thankyou AengusOg for your sensible post on this subject. Infact you've made me join this forum after weeks of lurking. I thought I was 'good' with horses - that they went well for me, until a bad accident which resulted in my horses broken leg last year made me get a quiet hacker. For quiet read switched off, didn't want to do anthing, wouldn't lead and rolled as a last resort, nothing I was doing was helping. In desperation I got out a NH trainer and in 4 weeks I now have a horse that will lead, let me touch him all over, will trot to the gate when he sees me comming and actually stands near other horses in his field and has a spark in his eye. I can't explain what has happened, except it is my attitude that has been changed, nothing much seems to happen on our lessons, a bit of ground work with a 12ft lead and rope halter and lots of talking, but it is working. Also have stopped riding him, I hated riding him, he wore me out, but I can see that he will be loads better when I do start (famous last words). Just doing the opposite of what my horse has had done to him in the past has given him a new slant on life and if that's NH or what ever someone likes to call it, I give thanks for it.

[TracyWilko]

Thanks for all your comments. It’s interesting to hear what others have to say. I would like to respond to some of the comments and I hope it doesn't turn out to be too long!
That certainly seems to be a very good organisation (International Equitation Science Society), and I think a lot of what they are coming up with is confiming many aspects of NH to be valid. However, just because something isn't scientifically proven, it doesn't mean it is wrong or worthless. As a psychologist yourself, your intuition will probably tell you what makes sense and what doesn't, even if there isn't a published paper to back it up.
I really wanted to respond to this one, as my experience seems to be in direct contradiction to what you’ve said. From what I’ve read and understand the society was set up in response to what it sees an unscientific equitation and I believe it may include NH in that (but please refer to the site as I don’t want to provide misinformation.) On their website they refer readers to the work of Dr Paul McGreevy who is rather critical of ‘horse whisperers’ & the NH movement.
I’m not a psychologist just have a Masters in it. But to contradict your statement - this is what I’m trying to avoid. My ‘intuition’ [as you call it] is based upon studying and research where I can come to an informed decision about issues because I don’t just rely on subjective, anecdotal information. I think that is the essence of what I’m trying to say. Everyone who has a horse should try to make informed decisions through reading, research and questioning and not just blindly accept!
Keeping horses in a natural state, while a very good system, is not about 'natural horsemanship'. It is natural horsekeeping/management.
The science of how horses behave and how they live (with and without us) is a totally different area. Very valid in the grand scheme, and useful to know as a horseman, but not essential to a natural horseman.
I must say that I really don’t understand what you’re saying here! Firstly, there can’t be a distinction between natural horsekeeping/management and ‘natural horsemanship’. Anyone who interacts with horses has to deal with an animal whose behaviour is modified by their [whole] environment, whether feral or domesticated! For example, its’ relationship with other horses in the heard or whether its socially isolated in its yard. Trainers are interacting with these as well as the horse because these things shape behaviour or the lack of it!
Secondly, you say that the science of how horses behave and live is not essential to the natural horseman. It depends what you mean by essential – but it is important. Without some kind of frame of reference, how do you know what you’re doing is right? You may be just anthropomorphising with your work with horses if you don’t refer to anything outside of what you know? What ways have you used to objectively measure improvement/changes in your horses? What you think is an improvement may in fact simply be short lived and unsustainable. We all need a bit input from others. Also, be careful not to imbue natural horsemanship with supernatural characteristics!
Lastly, as a human being you can't possibly know what going on with genetics or say, the internal structure of the horse which may in turn affect its behaviour. If equine science can show us, for example, how under certain environmental circumstances, brain chemistry is altered to adversley affect functional behaviour, I would imagine that this would be very relevant to you as a trainer. This is because you would know how to better deal with it/avoid it. This is not something you would instinctively know!
It is based on empiric experience (not experiment) from gifted HORSEMEN, then pass on to larger public.
I don’t want to get into a semantic debate here as it’s about NH but it is pertinent. You’ve said ‘empiric experience’ – I don’t think you quite understand what this means. Empirical research is derived from experiment and observation rather than theory. So, it means that IT IS verifiable or provable. That is precisley what NH should be doing but I don’t think it necessarily is. It is rather using THEORY and doctrine that seems to marginalise those who don’t follow it.
In fact the definition of science is something that can be proved wrong
This is precisely why we have the positivistic method – we need to know, to the best of our understanding, that something can be disproved or proven. This is precisely why it would be interesting to subject NH techniques to more rigorous science as it could also be proved right! Or more likely, that some aspects are not merely based on subjective experience but have found to be ‘true’ as I’m not denying that some aspects are possibly useful and valid. You’re absolutely correct to say that you shouldn’t discard knowledge that hasn’t been scientifically proven. However, it remains subjective and therefore, cannot be proved to be correct [or indeed, incorrect.] When dealing with horses however, their welfare is my prime concern so therefore, what science and education give us is the ability to make INFORMED judgements about why we do what we do with them. Really that’s what I’m saying – there doesn’t appear to be much objectivity surrounding this debate.
[Can you bit a bit more specific? I can't think of any circumstances of this in the different "methods" I'm familiar with. I think most trainers/gurus are very clear in making sure the signals are given separately (to give the horse the chance to do the right thing) and a second signal only follows if the horse does not respond to the first. Reinforcement is always immediate - ie the signal stops immediately the horse gives the right response[/U].
I’m not sure what methods you use and indeed, you may not use learning theory at all (although it would be impossible to avoid). So, apologies if it’s all repetition. From a behavioural/learning theory approach horses learn through both operant and classical conditioning. Operant conditioning uses reinforcement to shape behaviour where there are amongst others, positive and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is where there is an increase in the future frequency of a behavior due to the ADDITION of a stimulus immediately following a response. Negative reinforcement is where there is an increase in the future frequency of a behavior when the consequence is the REMOVAL of an aversive stimulus (like releasing the pressure on the reins after giving the stop signal). Most horses are taught using negative reinforcement. However, I’ve seen a bit of ‘overshadowing’. For example, the ‘stop’ signal should initially be trained only by pressure from both reins equally. This should then be consolidated. However, it is often accompanied by a movement (however slight) in the seat BEFORE the horse has understood the stop response. An example of concurrent signals would be patting the neck (some etholgocal studies may appear to show that this has no relevance for the horse) to reward whilst still applying pressure on the rein/s (stop signal.) Therefore, the horse may learn to associate patting with stopping which is not the desired effect!
This is certainly true of Monty Robers style join-up, but not necessarily, I think, of round pen work where the horse is not chased, but rather encouraged to explore its environment and decide where the most comfortable place is. I think you might be equating the tool (the round pen) with one practitioner (Monty Roberts). There are many, many ways of using a round pen which do not involve fear or chasing, and have a very positive effect on behaviour.
Thanks for your advice on this one. I will endeavour to find out more about ‘round pen’ work. If you know of any articles that would be great or indeed, anyone who you recommend seeing I would appreciate that!
It may appear that I am competely closed to NH - I'm not. But I am closed to dogma and superstition without research and enquiry!

[jinglejoys]

"Scientific"---Hhm always wary about that since the government use it to try to prove everything they do to farm livestock.
I remember a few years ago some university student being paid a huge amount of money to study goats and come up with the mind blowing information that they don't like getting wet! Any real goat owner could tell you that and they are lucky to earn any money at all thanks to DEATHRA and the U.K. version of European rules:D

[Kate F.]

On their website they refer readers to the work of Dr Paul McGreevy who is rather critical of ‘horse whisperers’ & the NH movement.

Hmm - I think most people who take NH seriously are very critical of "horse whisperers"!! :D Paul McGreevy has indeed done some very interesting and helpful research which I think has been of great help to some branches of NH. I think you might be generalising NH under the most well known proponents without fully realizing just how broad that label is - with "whisperers" at one end and some serious behavioural scientists at the other. The training principles outlined on the website match pretty closely to what I have learned under the branch of NH I follow - but fully admit there are many other NH forms and methods that do not concur so well.


For example, the ‘stop’ signal should initially be trained only by pressure from both reins equally.

Why? "Should" sounds very much like BHS dogma. The stop signal can be anything you want it to be, as long as it is clear to the horse what you want. If you're training a horse for a disabled person, you may want a voice command. If you're training a horse for liberty work, you may want a hand signal. Personally, I use pressure on both reins to shorten the frame and ask for flexion at the poll. "Stop" comes from the seat and inner energy being switched off, backed up by LIFTING the reins if necessary - ie changing the positon of the bit in the mouth. "Stop", IMO, needs to be distinct from "Shorten" - otherwise you will probably lose impulsion when you ask for collection.


However, it is often accompanied by a movement (however slight) in the seat BEFORE the horse has understood the stop response. An example of concurrent signals would be patting the neck (some etholgocal studies may appear to show that this has no relevance for the horse) to reward whilst still applying pressure on the rein/s (stop signal.) Therefore, the horse may learn to associate patting with stopping which is not the desired effect!

Sorry, you're losing me here. Yes, the person's body language changes before they give the traditional aid. This is very much part of NH - recognise those changes in your own body language and allow the horse to respond to that - you may not need the "correct aid" at all. This is how you get the horse really light and thinking with you.

I think it's pretty standard in all NH to discourage patting - as you say, it has no relevance to the horse - stroking or scratching are much more reassuring.

No NH practitioner I can think of would reward in any way before the desired response is offered - if not completed. It's also important to recognise the try! First reward for the correct response is stopping asking - relaxing, releasing pressure on the rein etc (negative reinforcement), followed by stroking (positive reinforcement). If the horse then does the wrong thing -for example moves off before you ask, you stop stroking and repeat the request.

I suspect you might have been observing some poorly interpreted and executed NH. For a good insight into where the real principles lie, I'd recommend "True Horsemanship through Feel" by Bill Dorrance and Leslie Desmond. It's a hefty-ish tome - but well worth the investment to get a proper view on the ideas NH is based on, and not the various corruptions and misinterpretations that inevitably occur as the ideas spread.


Thanks for your advice on this one. I will endeavour to find out more about ‘round pen’ work. If you know of any articles that would be great or indeed, anyone who you recommend seeing I would appreciate that!
It may appear that I am competely closed to NH - I'm not. But I am closed to dogma and superstition without research and enquiry!

As I'm not UK based, I don't know who would be the best to watch for more enlightened round pen work over there. If you ever come to Vienna, you're welcome to come and see how we do it - or if you find yourself in Quebec - Richard Thompson is a real master and well worth going to see at work! Some of the other contributors here will know better who is worth seeing in the UK, I'm sure. I think Silversands is more on the lines I'm talking about - if Crystal Fire reads this, perhaps she can advise on demos etc.

I think there is dogma and superstition in all areas of equestrianism -not just NH - and it needs to be treated with some caution wherever it crops up. In a way you've quoted one yourself with

"the ‘stop’ signal should initially be trained only by pressure from both reins equally"

this is modern dogma and goes against classical theory. I would refer you to Podhajsky - who was quite emphatic that halt should come from the rider's back, leg and seat, with the rein playing only a minimal role. He said - and it makes sense to me -that too much rein results in the horse losing the engagement of the hindquarters, and said the primary halt aid should come from a slight bracing of the rider's back. Podhajsky and most of the NHers are in agreement on this - based on centuries of experience, if not lab experiments. It's "modern dogma" that is out of step on this one! :D

[Anro]

"Scientific"---Hhm always wary about that since the government use it to try to prove everything they do to farm livestock.
I remember a few years ago some university student being paid a huge amount of money to study goats and come up with the mind blowing information that they don't like getting wet! Any real goat owner could tell you that and they are lucky to earn any money at all thanks to RA and the U.K. version of European rules:D

they also found out that dogs bark to warn their owner :eek: (in a sarcastic voice) I would of never known that!:rolleyes:

[TracyWilko]

Thanks Kate F. for the debate - some informative and thought provoking comments! Would be great to visit Canada/Vienna but finances dictate, unfortunately. None the less, if you could think of anyone here I would be interested in learning more in the way in which you describe. Have had a look at Podhajsky but will have another look.

[AengusOg]

TracyWilko.....I have done my best below to help you understand what I meant in my last post.

For some reason I have not managed to set your questions in clear quotation boxes, as I see in other posts. To help you, and anyone else who may read this, I have captured your quotes in italics and quotation marks, in the interests of clarity.

"I must say that I really don’t understand what you’re saying here! Firstly, there can’t be a distinction between natural horsekeeping/management and ‘natural horsemanship’."

The distinction between 'natural horsekeeping/management' and 'natural horsemanship' is blatant.

The former is keeping horses in as natural a state as possible, ie, probably living in a herd with natural shelter, shoeless (barefoot), bitless, in treeless saddles, herbally wormed,...........a state of natural existence (obviously within the confines of domesticity) which a growing number of horseowners aspire to for their horses. For the record I am not one of them, although I salute the commitment those people share.

The latter is a system or pattern of training methods used by trainers of horses......natural horsemanship (note, no capital letters) - the abilities and acts of a natural horseman. You have to take it literally.

I can't believe that, with your scientific background, you cannot recognise the distinction between the two?

"Anyone who interacts with horses has to deal with an animal whose behaviour is modified by their [whole] environment, whether feral or domesticated!"

I agree.

"For example, its’ relationship with other horses in the heard or whether its socially isolated in its yard. Trainers are interacting with these as well as the horse because these things shape behaviour or the lack of it!"

I don't dispute that.

"Secondly, you say that the science of how horses behave and live is not essential to the natural horseman. It depends what you mean by essential – but it is important."

I mean not essential...not fundamental.......not indispensable.

"Without some kind of frame of reference, how do you know what you’re doing is right?"

I know I am right in what I do because I change the way horses behave for the better.

"You may be just anthropomorphising with your work with horses if you don’t refer to anything outside of what you know?"

If you only knew how ludicrous that statement is when applied to me. I couldn't even watch Johnny Morris on Animal Magic, as a kid. :D:o

"What ways have you used to objectively measure improvement/changes in your horses? What you think is an improvement may in fact simply be short lived and unsustainable."

My clientelle tell me how much their horses have changed. Most of my work comes from word-of-mouth referal.

"Also, be careful not to imbue natural horsemanship with supernatural characteristics!"

:D:D:D What?.......like vampires and werewolves, you mean? :D:D:D:D:D

"Lastly, as a human being you can't possibly know what going on with genetics or say, the internal structure of the horse which may in turn affect its behaviour."

I agree, but I don't feel alone there.

" If equine science can show us, for example, how under certain environmental circumstances, brain chemistry is altered to adversley affect functional behaviour, I would imagine that this would be very relevant to you as a trainer."

I assume that would apply to humans as well.

"This is because you would know how to better deal with it/avoid it. This is not something you would instinctively know!"

I dont think dwelling on that would really achieve much.

You see, in the course of my work I am presented with a variety of horses whom, although they may present with different symptoms, all have the same predisposing cause for their 'problems'.........they have none of them ever been fully appreciated for what they truly are....some of them have never been handled fairly, ever....some have been (knowingly or otherwise) abused........some have been mistreated...........and some have been just plain misunderstood. Without exception the fault lies with the owner/handlers' anthropomorphising approach (funny that you mentioned that). Most owners, when their mistakes are pointed out to them, do respond very well and manage to maintain any necessary changes in attitude/behaviour.


You make a mistake if you assume that I am ignorant of all things outwith what I describe as my work. I do have a curious mind, and I'm very diligent in my reading on subject matter which appeals to me. I do, however, find that not a lot of it matters when I am confronted by a horse which has been made into a problem by the blissful ignorance of the human(s) charged with its wellbeing and care.

Helping horses be horses is not complicated.........it relies on a basic set of rules, and is best not muddied by over-consumption of 'NH' soup.

[Wally]

Jinglejoys, do you want to apply to get a government grant and we could both get paid a lot of money and come up with a thesis based on the blindingly obvious! :D :D :D

My take on it, the whole thing, "Natural Horsemanship" is nothing more than a money making package, fine if you want things set out in bite sized chunks and have no experience of training anything.


Sadly, and I am going to be shot down in a huge fire storm here, but in my expereince there are some folk who will NEVER be able to succesfully train some kinds of horses using any method, however packaged and presented. They cannot observe and learn about human body language let alone subtle horse and animal cues.

It does not mean they cannot be horse riders and owners, they just need the right kind of forgiving horse.

[AengusOg]

Thank you Drifted

Hope you're happy here.

[Kate F.]

My take on it, the whole thing, "Natural Horsemanship" is nothing more than a money making package, fine if you want things set out in bite sized chunks and have no experience of training anything.

Sadly, and I am going to be shot down in a huge fire storm here, but in my expereince there are some folk who will NEVER be able to succesfully train some kinds of horses using any method, however packaged and presented. They cannot observe and learn about human body language let alone subtle horse and animal cues.

It does not mean they cannot be horse riders and owners, they just need the right kind of forgiving horse.

Not a fire storm, Wally, but don't you think you're being just a little too "black and white"? It sounds as though you are saying that everyone is either a totally gifted natural talent who knows everything instinctively and needs no instruction, as AengusOg says he is, or complete no hopers. Rather like everyone is either a Mozart or tone deaf! :D While both these extremes exist, and I wouldn't deny that there are some people who will probably never "get it", just as there are some natural talents - the vast majority of people fall somewhere between the two extremes and can benefit greatly from learning from others.

My personal experience is mostly in the natural horsemanship I learned from Richard Thompson - which is admittedly rather more scientific and carefully put together than some "brands" - and I can say that there are several very successful instructors and trainers who regularly attend his courses and workshops and find them very helpful indeed. These are people who were successful trainers and instructors before - but found this branch of NH opens up new horizons and helps them to hone their skills further.

For myself, I am certainly no natural talent, but a reasonably competent rider who through studying nh has not only developed far better relationships with my own horses, but also helped other people do the same.

I think in the days of rollkur and the horrifying spread of "kick and pull" instruction in riding schools - anything that encourages people to look at their horses as a living, feeling, thinking creatures and relate to them as such has to have some value, even if you feel it is irrelevant to you.

While there is certainly some profiteering and there are some dodgy practices parading under the NH banner - I think it's wrong to dismiss the whole genre as worthless because of these few. Also, when you say is it all in "bite size chunks" I guess you are generalising Parelli to all branches and forms of NH? A bit of an over generalisation, isn't it?! :D

[Crystal Fire]

Personally, I don't care a stuff what anyone thinks of the fact that my training is firmly rooted in "NH" style - it works for me and my horses and that's all that matters.
I think it's a shame if anyone decides that all of NH is to be dismissed - babies and bathwater come to mind. However talented we may consider ourselves, how ever many "old men" we learnt from when we were younger, the world is a big place and there always going to be something out there that we can take new ideas from.
I have been around horses all my life, learnt from some amazing people, benefitted from the "traditional" approach. But it wasn't until I met the right NH trainers that my horsemanship went to a new level. I could have done fine without it, but NH has added a whole new exciting element to my life with horses.
If anyone wants to meet some of the NH students that I know pm me, and I will see if I can put you in touch with someone who understands the subtleties of round pen work. :D

[AengusOg]

I think I should point out at this juncture that I am by no means an all-singing-all-dancing horseman.

I wouldn't presume to instruct anyone on the arts of showjumping, dressage, eventing, or the joys of the hunting field, for example. I hack/drive my own horses.

I start young horses and ponies for riding and/or driving, and I help spoiled horses and their owners to get back onto the 'straight and narrow', but I fully acknowledge that there are other people who are more able than I to address riding issues, and I yield to their expertise.

I think that is the key to being successful in a chosen field of horsemanship.....knowing ones limitations.


Crystal Fire, my methods are a bit of a mixture of so-called 'NH' and a scattering of well tried and tested 'traditional' ways.

You are flagging up a very important point when you speak of the "subtleties of round pen work".

I have witnessed some attempts at 'Join-up' in a round pen, where the handler has totally failed to recognise the (sometimes) subtle signals from the horse, resulting in a very determined/frustrated handler and a very confused and fearful horse. In fact I believe that some horses (depending on how their problems were brought about) are totally unsuited to round pen work.

When I started doing this work I quickly realised that not only were some horses not gaining from the round pen experience, but also that very few people (and I include myself here) were actually able to consistently use the round pen to good effect. To my mind there is huge potential to further spoil some horses by insisting on using join-up as a pivotal tool in horse training. For those reasons I now do not always use a round pen in my training; instead I work some horses in hand to (for me anyway) much greater effect.

The round pen is a valuable tool in that it provides a safe area in which a horse may be worked in many ways, but I've seen too many variations on the join-up theme for me to be comfortable enough to recommend it widely.

There are people who can, and do, use join-up very well. I wouldn't take anything away from them.

Go Wally...

[Joyscarer]

As with most threads discussing NH, it usually ends up mostly commenting on personailities and what the word itself means rather than the relative practical benefits/disadvantages of any given technique.

I like reading around the NH topic and cherry pick the bits I like and don't bother with the bits I don't.

I don't pretend to go all sciencey about its merits (sorry to dumb down this thread) but do like to see the effects any given technique has and mine and my horses behaviour/relationship.

Call NH what you will but from my observations most people in my area use techniques asociated with NH in certain situations. After all NH isn't a completely new and evolutionary concept and is bourne of the trial of millions of horsemen that have come before using many differently labelled 'ways'. :)

Saying that you don't do NH is too sweeping a statement to make IMHO as the various labelled techniques will overlap but if it makes people more secure in their actions to call it different names then call it what you will :p

[AengusOg]

That sounds about right Joyscarer.

[Wally]

This is sadly seen so often!

I have witnessed some attempts at 'Join-up' in a round pen, where the handler has totally failed to recognise the (sometimes) subtle signals from the horse, resulting in a very determined/frustrated handler and a very confused and fearful horse. In fact I believe that some horses (depending on how their problems were brought about) are totally unsuited to round pen work.


I have also witnessed folk so caught up in round pen work that they have oversensetised their horse and turned it into a worrier.

I am not being "black and white" what I am trying to say is that just becuase you spend an awful lot of money on a "package" it might not work. There is an attitude in the world these days that everyone is entitled to "instant gratification" and all you need to do is throw money at it.

I assume we are using the term "Natural Horsemanship" in it's copywrited form? In which case I feel it is a cynical attempt to make money.

If we want to use another term, which most folk who are attracted to NH styles, and then use their own judgment, perhaps it should be given a different name. Thoughtful horsemanship, gentle horsemanship, There's a chap I have studied with who calls his methods "from 2 to 1" meaning two minds into one. It's just a name though when all's said and done.

[Yann]

In fact I believe that some horses (depending on how their problems were brought about) are totally unsuited to round pen work.

This point is made very clearly indeed on the IH courses where Monty Robert's version of join up is taught in the UK. It's also made clear that the same results can be obtained by other means.

[Kate F.]

I assume we are using the term "Natural Horsemanship" in it's copywrited form?

Is there one? Whose copyright is it? I think, strictly speaking, one could trademark "Natural Horsemanship" as Parelli has with PNH and Monty Roberts has with "Join Up" - but I don't think there can be copyright in just two words, can there? Even so, I've never heard of a trademarked "Natural Horsemanship" - but perhaps I'm behind the market there! :o

[Joyscarer]

Whatever term you use it will be mis-used or misinterpreted or corrupted.

It's not the term itself that is the problem, it is the fact that is used to cover so many different concepts which even those with a keen interest in NH don't all practice in the same manner.

I think that when discussing NH we would be more productive in taking examples of methods and discussing relative merits or otherwise of.

For example I personally am not a fan of what I would term as conventional join up. I get the same results from Joy after working her in hand and then letting her go free. She'll join up without the formalised process or the need for a round pen.

As for the terms thoughtful horsemanship or gentle horsemanship, let me get them copyrighted and then feel free to interchange them for natural horsemanship ;) :D

[Crystal Fire]

Well, there's already a thinking horsemanship forum, and here's gentle horsemanship http://www.eddabney.com/ ... and here's thoughtful horsemanship... http://www.thoughtfulhorseman.com/
I've already registered my 3 domain names, I'll let you in on the secret name when I'm ready. :D
The term Natural Horsemanship isn't copyrighted (I think it would be trademarked rather than copyrighted), and never will be, as there is plenty of demonstrable prior use of the term. That is why Equine Ethology (in the UK) never got that term trademarked by the way...
I think a lot of people think that round pen work is all about Join Up, which it most certainly is not. There is a wide variety of work that can be done in a round pen, and many who use round pens as a regular part of their training wouldn't be seen dead following Monty Roberts Join Up.
I think that when discussing NH we would be more productive in taking examples of methods and discussing relative merits or otherwise of.
I thought that is what we do here... over and over again... :rolleyes:

[calamity jane]

Good onya Harry Hobbes :D

[calamity jane]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the reason why Parelli and Monty promote their idea's on horse training.!! :confused:
Many trainers have been through a similar thing. You start a young horse for an owner, its going well is soft and trusting, you send it home soon it has bad vices, caused by a lack of understanding the horse, by the owner. They send it back to you you, you retrain the horse. The owner doesnt learn. The horse is sold on.
Parelli realised the need to teach people to train their own horses, which included horse phsycology and human psychology. That way if a problem arose they could correct it themselves.
Monty saw the cruel way horses were being started and looked for a better way.
NH was about giving the horse a fair go and educating people to understand them.
Some people should never have horses because they arent willing to learn and change to a better way.
They will go through life with their horses being the boss and not knowing the difference or their horse too scared to move a muscle.
NH has certainly been an enlightening experience for me. I had worked with horses for 35 years but its only the last 15 years that I beleive I have come to understand the horse a little bit better through NH. I know I have by no means learned all there is to know and hope to continue learning.

[kt_luvs_smartie]

woo go parelli n monty roberts! ... loving natural horsemanship it rules!! there should be no other way of dealing with horses!