'Natural Horsemanship'

[Shiny McShine]

What do you all think of when you think of Natural horsemanship? I find that the whole idea of it is very 'wishy washy' for want of a better term. The first time anyone ever really talked aloud about natural horsemanship was when parelli came into the public eye and introduced his methods under this name. It now seems that natural horsemanship has become a key term in describing certain trainers such as Parelli (justifiably), Monty Roberts, Mark Rashid and so forth rather than the actual training method.

For the past 6 or so years I was taught under a horseman who has that great understanding of horses which we tend to appreciate in a natural horseman. While many of the techniques he, and now in turn I use are very similar to what Parelli, Roberts etc. use I find my methods being quickly discounted because I am not using the Parelli rope, or I don't refer to working the horse in the round yard as 'join-up' or simply because I am not trained and 'certified' under one of these famous natural horsemen.

I find it really discouraging sometimes to see the term natural horsemanship generalised to such an extent that it no longer applies simply to any person working with the horse through communication and understanding but it means adopting all the jargon and the equipment and the methods.

I think natural horsemanship should be opened up to more people by not assuming that there are only certain ways of approaching it but that there are actually general principles that apply regardless of the equipment and the jargon used.

I mean you really don't need a Parelli rope (for example) to train a horse, even a problem horse. My trainer did alright without one for 40 yrs and on the other hand you can have the rope without the knowledge and get nowhere.

Don't get me wrong, this is not about knocking the natural horsemen that we hear so much about. I don't agree with everything they do but I do agree with alot of it. I just think that people need to take a different look on things.

What do you think?

[FreedomStar]

I TOTALLY agree with you Shiny. There is more than one way to train or work with a horse using natural horsemanship. It is just because those are the most common, that they immediately think of Parelli or Roberts when someone mentions Natural Horsemanship. Natural Horsemanship is basically communicating and working with the horse without the use of force, so there isn't a certain way to natural horsemanship, it just comes along, and whatever works best is that.

[virtuallyhorses]

Shiny, I agree with you 100% I suspect its a bit of a security blanket\uniform thing, the whole 'belonging to a group' thing that we humans love so.

The same thing happens in many areas - those who like to ensure that they own the latest dressage saddle, horse trailer, wear the latest fashions, have the 'right\best gear' for any sport, hobby or recreational pursuit etc ... its a distraction from the main event - the thing you're doing or learning or competing in :) if it makes them happy to have those things so be it but if you're more interested in the 'main event' itself, I know who I'd rather talk to :)

Recently at a hoof trim clinic held at our barn everyone turned up with their 'natural' rope halters etc but not a single horse lead nicely or stood to have its feet picked up - Shiny I'm sure you're familiar with the saying "All the gear, No idea" ;)

I like the trainers\horsemen (or women) that actively encourage you to think about things, make your own decisions and mistakes, (mistakes are so valuable and yet so undervalued!) and to listen and learn from many sources.

[Shiny McShine]

This whole natural horsemanship thing I've started on has really been annoying me. I feel as if there is something about it that really hasn't been sitting right with me lately and I can't put my finger on it. Out of my insane need to understand things I am asking this question and would really like to know more about natural horsemanship from other peoples perspectives, whether you agree with me or not.

There is nothing more frustrating to me than being in the dark about something and I feel the best way to enlightenment is by hearing what other people have to say as much as possible. If I appear at all anti-natural horsemanship it is because you haven't proved to me otherwise :). Mind you as I said before I am not anti-natural horsemanship I just don't understand the significance of certain things within it and why I must feel like an outsider in something which I feel I am rightly a part of.

Thanks to those who have replied to me, all though I would like to here from those who perhaps don't agree with me.

At the moment my biggest query with the whole thing is the perception that you need certain equipment when really I think good horsemanship comes down more to the methods. If you don't understand the horse you can go wrong with any equipment you pick up... but I know through experience that a good horseman does not need certain equipment. They may have equipment they perfer to use, but that does not mean it works for everyone.

[cvb]

I think a lot depends on where you are. I have been in Sweden for almost 3 years. Before that I was in Uk where it is all PP or Monty and nothing else - well except for the rare western trainer sitting there saying 'but we've been doing it likle that for YEARS'... with no one taking any notice of them !

But here in Sweden it is 'natural horsemanship' without the capital 'N' 'H'.. They have both local trainers and from the US like Leslie Desmond, John Moore and so on. Parelli really seems to be struggling to get a foothold here. They have some really useful books published - in Swedish - that would be so good to get translated and published in UK. Just the basic groundwork.

(Wish I could persaude someone to let me do it - the photos and everything are already there, just need to translate the text !).

OK, so in some yards you will still get odd looks if you swing a rope, but not so much. And you see a lot of people riding bareback, especially in the winter.

I'm really going to miss this place....

[Rakeli]

I agree with you Shiny too. I have to say that I've learnt a lot from NH people, though books, demos etc, but when your working with a horse you have to use your instinct. Its no use learning all the 'methods' if you haven't got the common sense to go with it. And that's what I think NH is... common sense, an open mind and the ability to learn what the horses are trying to teach you.

But the right equipment does help a lot. With groundwork I use the Parelli equipment, basically because I know that it's excellent quality and I can use it for whatever I want to use it for, Parelli 'style' or not. I'm not saying that you can't work with a horse without this piece or that piece of equipment, just that once you have the basics for learning NH, it is so much easier using equipment that you like using. I don't use the Parelli stuff just because it's his, it's because I like the feel of it. It works for me.

[Cathy Reynolds]

I'm with you Shiny. I pick up and read all I can then apply with a sound dose of common sense. And if things don't work I try a different approach. And SO MUCH depends on the horse or pony.

[Shiny McShine]

Thanks again for the replies. I really wish I could work out what my issue with NH is. Maybe I'm just jealous :rolleyes:.
I suppose it's just that I seem to be able to do everything they can but with different equipment and so forth. I guess I just want to be accepted :D.

Well that all sounded a bit corny but I think I have found my peace with NH. You are probably thinking, um...okay then? but in between this paragraph and the last I just sat thinking about it for a while and realised that I don't really have any problem with the whole thing, just with my own ego :).

Anyway, keep telling me what you think of NH, and perhaps what you are doing with your horse at the moment NH wise as I am interested to know.

[ros]

Oh dear. Years go in the UK Barbara Woodhouse was doing with dogs exactly what MR & PP were doing with horses. Except that Barbara Woodhouse actually came out with it and said that it wasn't the dogs that needed training - it was the owners. I think she hit the nail on the head ;)

[Sue Carnell]

Ooh, I dunno about that Ros. I'll never forget BW putting a choke chain on a tiny little dog and yanking it out of its owner's arms. When I did dog obedience choke chains were definitely out and considered pretty cruel even for large dogs.

The first 3 levels of Parelli are touted as people training, not horse training levels though.

Sue
sue@eclipse.co.uk

[LindaAd]

Maybe what you're objecting to, Shiny, is the idea that there is only one way to do things and everyone is doing it all wrong? I get that feeling from the Parelli people, and some of the others.

Sue, about the choke chain: when I did obedience training (they called it "socialising") they used choke chains rather like EE people talk about the pelham - better to have something strong so the dog respects it and responds to the lightest signal than tugging away at an ordinary collar. No question of using force, still less of hurting the dog.

[ros]

I know BW was a bit peculiar and sometimes appeared to go over the top, but I think she was right about the dog/person issue. My sister has been training dogs privately for years, and she also finds it's most often the owners and not the dogs that create any problems and who need the training :rolleyes:

[Kerry's Partner]

Natural to me means NOT subscribing to "there's only ONE way of "believing" things about horses, herds, etc. etc.". It means treating each horse as an individual.

I would not know how to treat (care for, train, or whatever) each horse I met as an individual because I have insufficient knowledge and experience to do so. I would treat with caution any "method" which is too prescriptive and doesn't allow for individuality - because that, imo, smacks of commercialism and not care and caring.

It seems to me that we already know several different people who can teach us an "individual" approach. These are the people who often post challenges on this board and enter into friendly debate over things they see as issues (of individuality imo)!!

These same people do what I would regard as real natural horsemanship but probably don't earn a penny from any commercial enterprise called natural horsemanship.

Sandra

[BeccaH]

The whole argument over having the right equipment intrigues me! I am lucky in that I have studied with some great people, including Kelly Marks, and I have for a while now helped out people with so called "rougue" or "naughty" horses. I don't use any specific techniques, what I do isn't called anything, it's just from a lifetime blessedly full of horses and the enlightenment that occured when I finally had the courage to stand up and say that's wrong, go away, un-learn everything I thought I'd learnt and start again. I make my own equipment, especially my leadropes because I can't afford to buy the ready made "approved" ones (I never charge for helping the horses). I am astounded by the number of people who want to buy the rope off me when I have finished as they seem to think it's a "magic" rope. I tell them where they can buy the rope cheap and how to make it, but no they want my rope. I think it's a sad indictment for our civilization that if you have a problem you fix it by throwing money at it. Horses know what to do and how to behave, we just have to get a whole lot better at asking them nicely...

Never stop asking why.

[Kerry's Partner]

AND listening to them MUCH more carefully so that they don't have to be labelled before, if the're lucky, anyone even tries to help them. There are SO many ready made phrases aren't there?
Like: "Time of the year" "Mareish". "Feed time." "Anxious owner". And many more.

I'm sure most of these have some substance but my problem is that they seem to have become phrases used too readily to explain "mis"behaviour. It's as 'though, sometimes, humans think that horse behaviour corresponds somehow to some kind of rigid formula - x means y, z means x - which kind of reduces their behaviour to something like that of a woodlouse!!!!!!!! And I'm sure they are much more complex than that.

[BeccaH]

A BIG part of the problem in my experience is the way we humans view things and internalise everything. Horses are basically ego free animals. They are like children in the way they have very little concept of the future. They don't plan they just react. No one would ever conceive of a horse stood in it's box thinking to itself "right then, tomorrow when she rides me I'm going to buck her off when she asks me to canter..." yet the amount of times I've heard people say "he's taking the mickey out of me", "he's making me look a fool", "he's doing it on purpose". I've often been asked if horses are intelligent. i don't think you can measure them in intellect, they are instinctive. When you consider we only really have two words to communicate with horses, basically yes and no (and most people don't say "yes" very well) I'm amazed they learn what we want at all.

[Kerry's Partner]

I would challenge that view, I'm sorry. Your first statement is about humans internalising things "equine" - but I think that is just what you have done re their concept of the future. I think they anticipate lots - and anticipation is to do with the future.

[Shiny McShine]

I think I have lost touch with the subject of this thread! I can't quite make out what we are talking about here so feel free to fill me in.

I shall have some additional questions for you all as well but not right now as I am going insane :D.

[BeccaH]

I would agree that horse anticipate lots - just seeing our lot at feed time is the most spectacular display of anticpation I've ever seen! There is also strong evidence of latent learning in horses, for example you spend an hour trying to achieve something with your horse - no joy. You get on the next day, try again and hey presto - your horse has read the book in the night! What I was trying to say, obviously not very well!! was that I don't belive horses ever set out to make us look foolish or be deliberatley malicious, they just react to what is happening at that moment, ie pain, rider's aids, hunger, boredom, tigers disguised as binbags etc. A problem I see a lot however is people humanizing their horses and putting the horses reactions down to deliberate pig headedness rather than a natural reaction. It's a natural recation for a horse to be wary of something scary in a hedge and want to avoid it and run away, in the wild their survival depends on this innate wariness and flight instinct, yet I still hear people describing this behaviour as naughty and punishing their horse for it. This ends up as perfectly good horses being labelled as nasty, evil, dangerous or naughty when they are just doing what comes naturally. Hope I'm making sense here!!!

[Kerry's Partner]

That sounds a bit like a threat - when are we about to undergo an inquisition???????

I'm only joking!!!!!!!I just responded to the last post. Anyway please don't go insane, it isn't worth it whatever it is.

[BeccaH]

Sorry Shiny - I started by talking about ropes and now I'm off on all sorts of tangets!!! I do that a lot I'm afraid - I'm trying to get better - honest - if anyone has any good suggestions for therapy that stops you talking incessantly about horses as well as dreaming about them, doodling them at work, thinking about them and especially spending money on them I'm open to suggestions!

[Kerry's Partner]

Thanks for the clarification - I would tend, now, to agree with your view. Hope you'll forgive me nevertheless for the following:

It's this thing about tigers!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think people really believe that all of today's horses have a tiger imprint in their long-term memory??

[BeccaH]

I have absoloutley no idea!!!!!!!! I know it's a bin bag. As to what my horse thinks it is - rhino, attack piranah, swarm of killer bees.... How on earth would you tell if your horse had a memory imprint of a tiger? What a weird theory! Did someone take their horse to the zoo and show it some tigers or something...?

[Kerry's Partner]

Yes that just about sums up what I think too.

[Sue Carnell]

Heheh. I read all this stuff about folk using spurs and whips to get their horses going, I reckon they should all just carry black plastic bin liners, or even better, red, yellow or green ones. I bet they'd have no problems getting their horses going then. Might have a problem stopping of course. :D

Sue
sue@eclipse.co.uk

[Dizzy]

In my opinion 'Natural Horsemanship' is treating every horse as an individual, but always having the same goal - build a trusting relationship, address thier fears and insecurities, and develop thier willingness to accept and look forward to the new challenges you ask of him/her.

To me it doesn't matter a jot, whether your a PP disciple, or a religious MR follower - or like myself, read everything available, and pick out bits and pieces. When you think about it, these people regardless of whoever they are, have shared thier methods, ideaology and experiences with us - giving us many, many different exercises, insights and ideas to work with.

You don't have to agree with everything they say, but I don't think anyone can too many strings to thier bow;)

Anyone who can create a willing, happy, horse, is well worth listening too.

[Shiny McShine]

Okay everyone I have regained my composure. I have been analysing as per usual and my analysis is that natural horsemanship appears to be the best approach to breaking in horses and retraining problem ones. I am wondering how it extends itself after that point. This may sound as if perhaps I am still slightly mad but it is a serious question!

I guess to clear things up natural horsemanship for me is a good method of breaking in and training horse. I have no aspiration to take it further but I suppose I am wondering if anyone else does and in what way.

Oh well, I have lost my train of thought, that will have to be all. Let me know what you think about this, if it was at all coherent ;).

[Esther.D]

Like Dizzy I tend to take a combination of different methods and blend them in with my own ideas and experience (I am largely working with shetlands here so they don't always have text book responses). I think a lot of the methods concentrate on the initial training as this sets the foundation for the rest of the horses career. However I think they do apply later, but what applies is the mind-set as much as the methods. ie. there is no point in continuing to do join-up with the shelties who are so 'joined-up' that I can't physically lose them even if I wanted to (and they very very rarely get treats so it is not that, they just like people). But they do enjoy things such as the parelli games which continue to build on this relationship, reinforcing co-operation while still seeming like fun. Join-up (as an example) may not be necessary after intial training if you have a good, 'joined-up' horse but the ideas - eg. the use of body language with them - can be used everyday. Our riding instructor is one of Kelly Marks' pupils and can walk into any of the stables at the yard and send the horse of his choice to sleep within moments (even leaving their feed) using synchronised long deep breaths. Techniques like this for calming the horse can come in useful in daily life.

I hope this makes sense:)

[Kerry's Partner]

Composure - I most certainly wish I had some of that atm.

Anyway, my replies at any rate aren't to do with taking anything further - I couldn't for the life of me (English expression) break or retrain a horse (well I don't think I could anyway).

My replies come from me as a person (more mature in years than I'd like to be) and having owned my first horse for about three and a half years. So what I'm exposed to is all of the bewilderment attached to my own situation with a bit of critical thinking thrown in - but of course this thinking comes from my non-equine past experience and learning.

I can't wish for mself to be anything other than something called "natural" in my relationship with Kerry (who is 13 now and most certainly DID have problems when I bought her). Any questions or challenges I post usually come from my "other" experience of life and learning. But, some of course do come from my limited but very rich experience with Kerry which has been coloured by some not so good experiences with others from the equine world but also some really brilliant ones.

There you are I've probably put you back into an absolute state of confusion now - sorry.

[Shiny McShine]

Yes I am confussed now :), however I don't know if I should be on the boards at the moment as I have mid-course exams at school for the next 2 weeks and it is sending me nutty!

Thanks, Esther you have reminded me of a good point there, that it does actually apply to everyday situations as well, such as handling horses more easily. Fun is also something which I had overlooked! How sad and serious I must be :D. Yes fun is a good reason to do natural horsemanship. You see coming from my perspective where training and re-educating are my interests I look at some things and think 'what a waste of time' but I think I have forgotten about the majority of people who aren't me and don't have my goals :rolleyes:. The lessons I learn here are incredible!

Actually I understand what you are saying now I think KP. Am I right in thinking that natural horsemanship is a good way of new horse owners with little horsey background to understand their horse? Seems logical?

Anyway, I'm sure to be back here again soon as I cannot dedicate more time to study than NR, that would be an abomination!

[BeccaH]

I started getting into "natural horsemanship" after spending years doing things the "British Horse Society" way and not always being happy with the results. I'm not saying the BHS is bad or wrong, but I found it very restrictive and methodical. It is quite formulaic, like someone mentioned earlier, if you do X for long enough, eventually your horse will understand and do Y. Being told that practise made perfect endlessley, yet to me practise only makes permanent whatever you are doing, ie if you spend an hour a day practising sitting trot really badly, you get real good at doing sitting trot badly. NH opened my mind to the actual process of learning and made me not afraid to constantly ask "why", a question which, in my own experience, in the British Horse Society system was met more often than not with the answer "because it just is ok". The one most important thing I have learnt throuhg NH, which may sound really obvious, is that with horses there is no right or wrong way, no magic formulas, there are lots of different ways. NH isn't just about learning what to do when, it's about learning to ask why and pick up cues from your horse when they are offered. In NH the horses are your teachers, in the BHS it's the scary woman in the middle who you pay lots of money to to make you feel crap about yourself!

[Tootsie4U]

Natural horsemanship - NOT natural horsemanship, it doesnt really matter to me. I think that even defining it is pointless. Whatever works best for each individual horse should be used. Not a general concept. Training should be tailored to each individual horse based on its own specific needs, insecurities, personalities, mental ability, and so on.

Anyone who chooses to teach under the natural horsemanship theory SHOULDNT have to deal with what you describe Shiny. I'd be very discouraged too if I were you. Just becuase you dont use John's technique or Parelli's rope means nothing in my eyes. Keep up the good work and be an individual!!!!

[Shiny McShine]

Thanks Tootsie,
It can be really frustrating! All I am ever interested in is helping the horses and the riders who I see having problems everday. To be turned away is really heartbreaking sometimes.

I love NH (at least as I know it) for the insight and the greater potential I feel it has given me in the world of horses. Funnily when I was first exposed to it the most exciting lesson I learned was all the things I was doing 'just because' like BeccaH has said.

I am now amazed at what I can acheive with horses through understanding them. I think there is alot of people going around misinformed and uneducated about horses, in fact I would say the majority are. I know I have been at many stages in my life that is why I appreciate this so much now, it allows me to accept where I am going wrong and improve. Infact I would go as far as to say if forces me to improve and improvement is growth and growth is good!

I would love to hear more about what natural horsemanship or it's practices or theories have done for you. :)

[Zingy]

I guess I was really disappointed when I first came across Parelli - I was expecting something astounding that was going to be the answer to everything, yet I found out I was doing most of it already. People just have to learn to play with their horses. BeccaH - you said they were just like children, and they are in more ways than one. Children learn best when they don't think they're working and horses are the same. It's nothing new - all the NH folks have done is label it. If you play together you will understand each other better, you'll enjoy your time together more, and you'll learn to listen to each other. It doesn't need special equipment, it just needs time and patience and a little bit of imagination :) .

[cvb]

Becca

I am sorry to hear you describe the BHS like that. Personally I have had some wonderful BHS teachers, none of whom have asked me to ride in a particular way just because it is the BHS way.

I guess a lot of people might describe these trainers as 'non-BHS', which I find really sad.

IMHO, the kind of behaviour you describe is lazy teaching. People who are maybe don't fully understand it themselves and are just teaching parrot fashion, or are lazy teachers, or..... That we lable them as typical BHS teachers is soooo depressing. Yet I suspect these people lurk in many forms of teaching - its just that the main 'classification' of riding instructors we have is BHS. (Nor forgetting ABRS - are their trainers different somehow ?).

Plus the teachers who seek out innovative methods are often self-selecting as more likely to be motivated about their methods, understanding them or seeking to explore them, etc etc.

Please don't write us BHS trainers off that quickly. (I'm qualified even if I haven't taught formally for a long while).

[BeccaH]

oops! I knew this would happen!!! I'm not writing the BHS off I myself got to Intermediate Instructor level, I just found the people teaching me didn't have all the answers that was all. I found there was a big emphasis on riding, when I wanted to understand more about behaviour and handling. I had a horse that was very difficult to load and even some of my very experienced teachers just suggested lunge whips... one Monty Roberts demo later and my horse, who I'd been struggling with for 1 year was scooting up the ramp. No lunge whips no vast armies of people required, no pain, no fear... I still use lots of stuff I learned through the BHS, I just found it was quite narrow in it's outlook at times and accepting and embracing NH has just taught me lots of other ways.

[KarinUS]

I love Mark Rashid's books but I am a bit turned off by the commercial aspects of NH such as selling the kits and all the special rope, etc.
Practical Horseman Magazine just started a series on pros and cons of NH that seems rather indepth. I'll be following that and then make up my mind.

I think it's dangerous to just accept any new method as useful and valid just because it's the newest thing in training. Like some of you mentioned before: Learn as much as you can of everything and then use common sense.

[cvb]

BeccaH

no problem :) I wasn't upset just a bit sad that BHS always seems to get tarred the same way.

Now I am living in Sweden and I see a very different way of doing it. Not necessarily better - but different.

Why don't you get taught long reining when you are doing your BHSAI ? (Hypothetical Q). My theory is that its because very few people know how to do it, so prefer to do lunging and not cover long reining. Then it becomes self-perpetuating. As an AI, I could not teach anyone long reining properly because I myself have never been taught it.

(Have a lesson booked in April - which should be fun !).

I also don't see why BHS is only about one way - not sidesaddle, western, driving etc. Are they a British Horse Society or a British Riding Socety (hesitate to use the word classical to distinguish from western - not sure what we'd say ?!)

But having said that I do not see ANY alternative doing any better (in UK). So we always yell at BHS, but isn't it actually riding instruction/training in UK ? (Unless ABRS are better, but I've never heard anyone say that ??)

[Kerry's Partner]

We couln't use "classical" to distinguish because BHS is not "classical" - I'm not being judgemental about this btw.

Sandra

[cvb]

Sandra

No problem - thats why I did NOT use it. But sometimes we need to think more internationally. For example

in Sweden western is western and 'english' is classical. What would be 'classical' in UK is called 'baroque' here.

Whatever - BHS still seem to have a narrower remit than their name suggests. For me this is a real missed opportunity. I'd love to revise their strategy !;)

[Kerry's Partner]

Yep I agree. And perhaps the first step to help everyone is to develop some kind of equine/riding "classification" system so we all can refer to it to understand better what others are talking about regardless of the language(s) we speak - couldn't do it myself of course, I just wish someone else would!!