Mark Rashids Passive Leadership

[shelby]

I have read "Considering the Horse', and all the threads I can find on this forum and others relating to Mark and his views on Passive Leadership. I haven't yet got any other of his books.

I tend to agree with him as I do not see that humans can ever take on the alpha role completely, as lets face it, we are humans and our friends are horses:rolleyes: I dont ever imagine my horse will stand beside me if a lion jumps out of the bushes, but then again, Ive seen Pats horse do just that...but hes in a different league to most of us. I also had to laugh at the anecdote I read, where someone said if they were the 'Alpha', and 'demanded' of their horse, when they fell off, they could imagine their horse thinking 'haha, you arent the alpha any more', as herds are constantly challenging the alpha, giving them the 'hooves' and blatting off home!

Parelli, Anderson et al have stated/inferred that they teach the 'Alpha' role, for our safety, as most women especially (and more women own pleasure horses than men) are not assertive enough (Yes, there are exceptions, but on the whole....don't shoot me for this :eek: ) and we let our horses walk all over us, quite literally.

I would like to know some specific differences between Mark Rashids methods and Parelli et al. I will be getting 'Horses Never Lie', but have to wait till the bank balance recovers as I have been buying up large recently and p and p to New Zealand isnt good!

Anyway, can anyone help with this?

Thanks:)

[FRED]

I have only read a little of Mark Rashid,I do like very much so far what I have read, certainly horses have taught me far more than any book/trainer.
I can't say Im anything near a true Parelli person,but think there is a lot of good both in the man himself and his training method{who hasn't made a mistake}
I think Pat Parelli would be amongst the 1st to congratulate you on your achievement.
I can't be doing with all this Alpha and licking and chewing talk business from varies trainers,its all so much exaggerated, but why I wonder..

I think horses are every bit fascinated in humans too:)
.

[katefarmer]

Personally, I think they're all tripping over their own jargon in an effort to "brand" their own systems. "Passive leadership" as Rashid describes it, is broadly lead mare behaviour, while "Alpha" is broadly stallion behaviour, under his terms. (I'm using this definition from Rashid's own website).

http://www.markrashid.com/passive_leadership.htm

Of course, tracing the term back, "alpha" actually describes predator social structure, so isn't strictly relevant to horses anyway.

Rashid does not make a gender distinction in this definition -which is a shame. He refers all the time to "the horse" as though it doesn't matter whether it's a stallion/gelding or a mare. I think once you get your head around the different roles and priorities of stallions and mares, it all becomes much clearer and you don't need the jargon.

Now, whatever he calls it, when you analyse Parelli's games and approach, most of it is about lead mare behaviour. Taking your example, Shelby, of the lion jumping out, it is the lead mare (passive leader) who would decide whether or not it is necessary to run, and if so in which direction. The stallion (alpha) job would be to chase the mares together from behind to keep them running as a tight herd, and, if necessary, even turn and take a pot at the lion himself.

If we seriously want the alpha role, if the lion jumps out, presumably we'd get off and chase the horse away to safety, fighting the lion yourself ourselves if we're not fast enought to run away!:D

I'm at a complete loss as to why the "gurus" don't usually make the stallion/mare distinction - I think it makes it all so much easier to understand when you put it in a herd survival context.

Kate
www.harmon-project.net

[johnb]

well said Kate
Johnb

[Francis Burton]

Kate, I agree the different terms can get in a bit of a jumble! However...

A horse (mare or stallion) who is 'alpha' dominant to other horses uses aggression or the threat of aggression to displace or drive other horses away (though 'Alpha' usually refers to the one horse who is dominant over all the others in the herd or group.) In contrast, the lead mare makes decisions when and where to go which the others choose to follow willingly (not from force or threat).

That seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Yet these distinct roles/concepts are often confused, a situation not helped by individual jargon.

Nevertheless, some trainers use language which makes it fairly obvious, to me at least, they are talking about alpha dominant behaviour (and not lead mare / "passive leadership" behaviour).

[katefarmer]

A horse (mare or stallion) who is 'alpha' dominant to other horses uses aggression or the threat of aggression to displace or drive other horses away (though 'Alpha' usually refers to the one horse who is dominant over all the others in the herd or group.) In contrast, the lead mare makes decisions when and where to go which the others choose to follow willingly (not from force or threat).

That seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Yet these distinct roles/concepts are often confused, a situation not helped by individual jargon.



Yes and no. I think the male/female distinction is very important. The aggressive behaviour you describe if shown by a female is usually a low ranking mare who does not want to be last in the order. It's very easy to be misled by this, and interpret a female behaving this way as dominant. When such aggression is shown by a male, it's generally "stallion" behaviour (even if in a gelding!) where the male is trying to establish his groups of mares. Mares showing aggression are usually feeling threatened or insecure, while stallions/geldings are making a claim.

I'm afraid I get a bit frustrated by the lack of this distinction being made, and being called out to "problem mares" who are supposedly "very dominant" to find a mare who's jumping out of her skin and in any direction she can think of to try and save her life after her insecurity has been interpreted as dominance.;)

This is why I don't like the term "alpha" being applied to horses - it's used to describe aggression, when the reasons for the aggression are usually not considered.

Cheers

Kate
www.harmony-project.net

[Peace]

My observations are different from Kate's - I've known plenty of mares who would display aggressive behavior in a herd situation and insecure is not a term I'd have used to describe any of them.:D By the same token, I've known geldings who were excellent "passive leaders": my Bram is one, and I believe Red, the horse Mark Rashid used for his model passive leader, was a gelding also.

My observations of how men and women interact with horses are also different from the OP's. I don't know nearly as many horsemen as horsewomen, of course, but "assertiveness" or confidence, as I'd describe it, with horses seems to me to be a function of a person's experience level, not gender.

I have only read a little of Mark Rashid,I do like very much so far what I have read, certainly horses have taught me far more than any book/trainer.<snip> I can't be doing with all this Alpha and licking and chewing talk business from varies trainers,its all so much exaggerated, but why I wonder..
I think horses are every bit fascinated in humans too

LOL, FRED, I agree completely.:D

To answer the question in the OP, my definition of passive leadership is as Francis posted, although without the gender distinction. Can't say about Parelli, though, as I don't know anything really about his methods.

[Francis Burton]

Yes and no. I think the male/female distinction is very important. The aggressive behaviour you describe if shown by a female is usually a low ranking mare who does not want to be last in the order.
I agree the distinction can be extremely important. But isn't it the case that high (dominance) ranking mares may also show threatening, even bullying behaviour towards lower ranking mares? For example, if you put out one pile of hay in a field containing several horses, which one gets priority access to the food? The 'alpha', I would have thought, not the lowest ranking mare.

I'm afraid I get a bit frustrated by the lack of this distinction being made, and being called out to "problem mares" who are supposedly "very dominant" to find a mare who's jumping out of her skin and in any direction she can think of to try and save her life after her insecurity has been interpreted as dominance.;)
Oh, I'm not surprised if that happened quite a bit! Lots of problems are ascribed to dominance (usually with the word "issue" or the phrase "lack of respect"), and the solution is "establishing" something or other - when other reasons for aggressive, bolshy, pushy or otherwise "difficult" or uncooperative behaviour may be neglected.

This is why I don't like the term "alpha" being applied to horses - it's used to describe aggression, when the reasons for the aggression are usually not considered.
I can see what you are getting at, but what term do we use to describe the horse who is able to displace all the others, by whatever means, to gain priority access to a resource (or possibly for the sake of it - though bullying behaviour is apparently much less common in 'wild' herds - perhaps because it wastes energy and there is more space)? Ethologists would say the 'alpha' (most dominant) individual. To me it seems sensible to use the same word, while of course keeping in mind the different roles of mares and stallions, and also the varying importance of dominance in different species.

[Yann]

I would like to know some specific differences between Mark Rashids methods and Parelli et al

One asks and one tells? :)

[Skib]

I think there is some misunderstanding behind the questions here.
There can't be an answer because Mark Rashid does not claim to have a method. Rashid does not have a course either to teach riders, train horses or break and back foals.
All he does is tell you what he does (at the moment) or what he has been taught by the "old man" who educated him in horsemanship or improved on in his own work with horses. Much of the tack he uses or his methods, Mark says, are simply what has been regarded as normal in the area where he lives or by the people he learned from.
Rashid does not claim to be a "natural" horseman. What Mark does for a living is to help people who bring him their horses. So as more and more people use Monty Roberts or Parelli methods or use bitless bridles or treeless saddle, he tends to meet and therefore recognise some of the problems which sometimes result from "natural horsemanship".
Mark Rashid has a gift for facilitating communication between horse and human, whether it is handling horses on the ground or riding. And he thinks this out as he goes. Which means his own riding alters over the years. There isnt any right. What he offers is a sum of individual experiences. And his books are best read as chapters in an autobiography (from the public library perhaps?).

[Colorado Sunset]

Im with Skib :)

Shelby- "Horses never lie" is my favorite out of his books, it made me really think about myself as a person not just as a horseperson :) quite emotional! :p

[cvb]

backing up Skib :D

there are some quite subtle differences. For one of the less subtle examples, Parelli uses "phases" of pressure which are basically an escalation - you increase the pressure until you get a response.

Mark R doesn't escalate.

[Yann]

Judging from the books (not seen him in person) he doesn't escalate, he doesn't repeatedly drill exercises and his approach would usually be if at all possible to set the horse up in a situation so that it chooses the right thing for itself.

Everyone has a method, whether they codify and package it or not. I don't believe Rashid is any different in this, but what he communicates is more a way of being and a frame of mind than a specific set of dot to dot steps. Such an approach can and will evolve because it isn't set in stone, and because of this is a very different kettle of fish to Parelli IMHO.

[Skib]

Yann, everything you say is right. My difficulty is in seeing it as Rashid's method, or something belonging to him.
usually be if at all possible to set the horse up in a situation so that it chooses the right thing for itself.

Doesnt differ from what I am taught by a teacher trained in classical Spannish dressage. 1. Set the horse up for what you want it to do, 2. cue the horse (minimum needed) and 3. leave the horse to do it without hampering him.
Similarly, after winning jumping at Windsor last summer William Funnell said that after the first fences, he let his mare go and take the decisions herself. One can see that this is (was) different from the riders who directed and controlled their horses every step of the way.
I can think of things where Mark has innovated in his own riding. His recent refinement of backing up, for instance, in devising a way of steering to back straight without resorting to leg. Since he avoids using leg to cue backwards motion. But these small suggestions and solutions are what one gains from any good teacher. I am not certain that you can say his use of, say, bit and rein is Mark's method, in the sense of posession. But that he has failed to codify it.
Whereas Monty Roberts and Parelli have designed equipment the use of which is integral to their method. Both IH join up and the Parelli games could in a sense be patented as inventions.

[Francis Burton]

Not branding or codifying might be considered a strength rather than a weakness?

[katefarmer]

I can see what you are getting at, but what term do we use to describe the horse who is able to displace all the others, by whatever means, to gain priority access to a resource (or possibly for the sake of it - though bullying behaviour is apparently much less common in 'wild' herds - perhaps because it wastes energy and there is more space)? Ethologists would say the 'alpha' (most dominant) individual. To me it seems sensible to use the same word, while of course keeping in mind the different roles of mares and stallions, and also the varying importance of dominance in different species.

How about just plain "higher ranking"? In the natural situation horses don't usually compete for a resource - grass is everywhere. As you suggest, we see the personal space "bubbles" bumping into each other a lot more in the domestic situation where the horses are in a more confined space than they would naturally be, or where we put a resource (eg hay) in a specific place which means the horses are infringing on each other's personal space.

If you put one big pile of hay in the middle of the field, you will almost certainly see some fights as the hunger instinct comes into conflict with the herd order instinct. If you take the same amount of hay and make lots of little piles all over the field, you will see less fights. The wider you spread them, the less conflict there will be. This is nothing to do with dominance as such - it just allows each horse to resolve the conflict between hunger and herd rank.

In the natural situation there can be competition if resources are scarce - eg in winter. In this situation the higher ranking horses will get whatever grass there is - ensuring survival of the fittest, strongest members of the herd. The weaker, lower ranking ones may or may not survive. Again, it's about survival, not asserting dominance in the way we see it in predator species where the alpha will usually lay first claim to the food, even if there is plenty to go around, and the others have to wait.

I suppose to me the important thing is to appreciate that the herd order is a mechanism for cooperation as much as it is for any sort of pecking order. The herd order allows the herd to escape from predators, and is a crucial element of the "herd brain". To look at it as a "dominance" phenomenon is to miss a large part of it's significance, and hence I prefer the terms high- or low-ranking with all the implications for the herd they carry with them.

Interesting discussion - again! :)

Kate
www.harmony-project.net

[FRED]

I have found it very interesting reading the Biographies of the big names in NH and those that claim to be different., you can see lots common ground in all and understand their despair too.

Personally having watched lots of Alpha horses in a herd and during winter feeding of hay,I just can't see how you can train and teach your horse by being Alpha,I just cant see how it would work, horses run away from the Alpha types or in rarer case stand and fight{Alphas tend to have a healthy respect for Alphas in a herd and avoid fighting,making bluff gestures as intimidating as they can} maybe this is where the confusion comes in with people,be the Alpha and your horse will respect you, its small wonder there are problems if people believe you can actually be Alpha.I'm no Parelli expert,but can't see such a wise man advising be Alpha horse in your approach, it would be courting disaster.

I see the same arguments about 'join-up', but to me I'm seeing a whole bunch of horse instincts being used, what ever way join up has been achieved.





To me amongst the NH or none NH common ground, seems to be using reverse psychology, but what trainers are saying,my ways nicer than yours in a roundabout way.
I try to see way ahead of that stuff.

[Skib]

Some thoughts on Fred's observations of herd behaviour. We simply lack enough experience to respond.
I am not even clear what we mean by herd? Herd behaviour in the wild , say ferral horses in the Big Horn Canyon, is not the same as it may be in a domestic herd in a field.
In order for any of us to understand and have a meaningful discussion, there would need to be long term studies of the social groups - as there are for instance of chimpanzees.
I have not observed the behaviour as Fred has, but I can describe what took place at the trail ride centre where I rode at in the Rockies, similar to the centre where Mark Rashid worked and must have watched the horses interact. I only saw it and watched briefly on the evening of our arrival.
I didnt count but there must have been at least 50 working horses. They were gradually released after work into a large fenced paddock. No grass. Earth under foot. There were about ten racks spaced round this area. The tractor drove in pulling a trailor of hay. The men forked hay into the first rack near the entrance. Many horses, particularly those who were newly released went to get hay as soon as possible. A few horses that had been in the paddock all day, did not rush for the new delivery of hay. As the tractor went round, more and more racks got filled with hay. Large numbers of horses gathered round the first three racks. But some horses seemed content to wait or stand by the farther racks. They had to wait for the tractor, but there was less competition once the hay arrived.
In such a situation there would be little point in being the Alpha in the herd, since the alpha could not dominate all the feeding racks. But it was a complex feeding situation and if I hadnt been on holiday I would have liked to take out a notebook, identify the horses and observe. A fair amount of "passive" behaviour was taking place, avoiding conflict at the most crowded racks, and one could see that it was rewarded. One could see also that horses who did not succeed in getting through the crowd at the first racks, drifted off to racks further along the line. But they walked to the next nearest rack, where by now there was already hay. The horses did not split into neat groups, distributing the herd round the feeders. And the later the racks were filled, the fewer horses ate from them.
In the wild, the horses we saw were widely scattered, often on their own. The pasture was desert, very poor and it would take a large area to support one horse. So though food was scarce, the horses did not compete for it in the same way as they crowded round the first hay rack at the trail ride centre.

[julia gulia]

I have always been fascinated about herd behaviour.However, recently, it was pointed out to me that really, we can't be guided much by herd behavior in the wild(many books out there on this) because our horses are now domesticated and not enough research has been done on herd dynamics in the domesticated horse and herd.
I have read all of rashid's books and have seen him in person. He is breathtaking!!!!!!
His take on passive leadership makes perfect sense.So???? What we may see as a dominant horse out in the field may not be the horse who is really influencing the decisions of the herd. He may be bossy and move everyone where he wants or thinks he wants them to be but, do the other horses respect him as a leader or would they prefer to be with the more passive, confident non confrontational horse who is laid back and simply enjoys life and isn't high maintenance as a companion.
Sorry to interrupt your conversation but I have never been on this particular area of new rider and have enjoyed reading the threads immensely. I couldn't resist jumping in as this area of horsemanship is so exciting to me.
Thanks for listening!!!!!!! Please read more about Mark Rashid, if you can.
I also love John Lyons!!!!!

[FRED]

I think many of us think along the same lines too.
We can so easily influence bad behaviour/manners and environments with domesticated horses whether there be one, two or dozens and not even realize,feed times being a good example of the obvious. How many a good horse has been ruined by the wrong feed and poor routine/practise.

The foremost reason NH attracts me, because you are encouraged to study horse in ours and their natural environment,I don't mind hanging about with our horses in snow or pouring rain,they don't mind me being around and its surprising that such a humble approach gets you lots of respect. I do find it surprising that some people actually think NH is 'natural' ,indeed Parelli's dream is that one day we will understand horses enough to be able to drop 'Natural' and at the same time respects people who find no need,because their horse/training work just fine.

When watching the fell ponies last weekend,I couldn't help thinking how happy they all looked,yet their life is hard in the real world.
There is such a mixed bag of environments horses are kept in by us, plus so many are not allowed to be in groups ,its understandable how some get frustrated, but there will be exceptions and loners.
There are times the different coloured horse will hang out in their own groups,I have seen mares protect their off spring even though their off spring is 5,6 yrs old.The Alphas would no not to dare mix it up with these mares once there on the case.I've seen a mare outraged at the prancing antics of a new horse amongst the herd,but her bullying ways were blocked by another mare, no physical contact,within seconds the 'dominant mare' kept her head down and got on with eating.-------there's a difference between dominant and lead that seems to get mixed up as much as Alpha.

The thing that makes me smile,when a horse forgets manners, how"oi!" cuts the daftness out,but it has to be a confidant "oi ! " as with most things,not Alpha or Dominant.

Before I bore you all to death, the approach that I have taken with my horse has resulted in a horse that stays by my side when frightened/spooked,low flying jets,shotguns suddenly going off in the woods and even staying when those scary things we humans don't hear get heared;) .

[KateWooten]

I agree with this The thing that makes me smile,when a horse forgets manners, how "oi!" cuts the daftness outso much !! I have read and learned so much this past year, about horse behaviour, the revolution in horsemanship, equine massage, barefoot trimming... etc etc etc '.. it took me completely by suprise this week when I was trying to figure out how to stop my little mare constantly playing and fiddling with her very soft, slim comfortable french-link snaffle... nothing was working... then, in exasperation I shouted 'Oi!'.... problem solved. btw, I met my DH the same way, by shouting 'Oi!' at 3000ft over Florida... but that's a different story.

Sometimes, I realise, I over-analyse things :)