Just clarify something for me...

[EquiPortal]

I have always hated agression towards animals, horses included. I used to ride for a lady that was agressive with her horses, after a while I couldn't take it anymore and left - heartbraking to see it and not be able to stop it

Anyway for the last couple of years I have followed the Monty Roberts / Kelly Marks methods - I love it I am just starting to read into Parelli methods and will be seeing him at the NEC this weekend

I hear people referr to NH (Natural Horsemanship) am I wrong in assuming that this is all training techniques which don't show aggression or force towards the horse? Or is there different categories for different teachers? I know Kelly Marks runs 'Intelligent Horsemanship' - can anyone clarify please?

 

[MrKia+Me]

I would not say that NH was a non aggressive approach. You can personally choose to have a non aggressive approach to horses no matter what method you use.

People say that people beat their horses and that they are cruel but it is all your perception.

I carry a stick and will use it when needs be but that doesnt make me cruel.

NH is just another method and sometimes it can be a gimmick. most of it I see as common sense masked and there fore available to everyone if they use their head no matter who is teaching/marketing it.

Nikki xxxx

 

[Whatanejit]

Oh, if I were you I would do a search for Natural Horsemanship on NR and read for the rest of the week.

this has been discussed many times on here and is very interesting.

Enjoy exploring, experimenting and making up your own mind - that is what I am doing - certainly havn't finished doing it

 

[Shian89]

I wouldn't have said NH is a non aggressive way, just a way that is more natural to the horse, e.g. you are acting as the alpha mare/stallion in the herd and showing your horse who's boss in the same sort of way that they would IMO NH is a way of communicating with the horse in a language he understands e.g. through body language

ETA i wish i was going to see parelli this weekend!!!!! I do a little bit of parelli with my horses, more so with my shetland as she can be quite dominant and pushy(LB extrovert), and also my other horse (LB introvert) goes lame quite easily so didn't want to chance it

 

[annareeves0]

It is all about perception - you can do NH aggressively or do traditonal without any aggression but... I would say that I feel NH is at least in part about non agression but lots of assertion and thats a vital difference. Its certainly the aspect that first attracted me but the more I get into it, the more I like the whole package.

I think Parelli have in some ways made the term 'natural horsemanship' their own as in 'Parelli natural horsemanship' - thats what they call themselves, and why others call themselves 'intelligent horsemanship' or 'quantum savvy' or 'natural horsecare' etc etc in an atempt to differentiate themselves.

However i kind of think the term is too broad to be linked with any one stream - its a bit like 'hoover'. Really its the name of a specific brand but we all call the machine that picks up dirt off the carpet a hoover regardless of which make we have.

To me natural horsemanship is about (not an exhaustive list by any means);

• building a mutual, respectful relationship with the horse
• communication BOTH ways
• understanding and working with the predator/prey instincts
• trying to do things for the horse's benefit not just your own
• teaching them to do and understand things rather than forcing them to
• encouraging a more natural lifestyle i.e shoeless, bitless, comfie saddle, less 'equipment' more feel, live out not in
• working in partnership with your horse, but with you having the 51% veto rights.
• to coin a parelli phrase - love, language and leadership in equal doses

I could get all gooey thinking about the little horsey nirvana I try to create. Of course this isnt always the reality but Ill give a blooming good go.

Hippyness for horses!

 

[Kate F.]

I hear people referr to NH (Natural Horsemanship) am I wrong in assuming that this is all training techniques which don't show aggression or force towards the horse?

Very broadly, in thoery yes, but it all depends on what you mean by aggression. As soon as one says "alpha" - some degree of aggression is implied. Personally, I don't think "alpha" is a term relavant or applicable to horses as it refers to predator social structures, but you nevertheless hear quite a lot of NH people talking about being the "alpha" to their horses.

What NH attempts to do is to communicate with the horse using the horse's own frame of reference - but of course there are very wide discrepancies in the various interpretations of what its own frame of reference is, and how it may be appropriate to use it. Quite a lot of NH people consider Monty Roberts/Kelly Marks to be not NH at all, as they use some techniques (particularly the "buck stopper") that many people consider abusive and contrary to all the principles NH is based on. Many others are happy to overlook or excuse such details as they find the overall message appealing.

I think in the search for non-aggressive methods you'd do best to just look at each method or trainer individually, and not worry about the label they are put under or put themselves under. Mark Rashid, one of the very wise men of non aggressive methods, is widely considered to be NH but never uses the label himself. There are some wonderfully non-aggressive people working under other labels, and some fairly horrific things going on under the name of NH. As NH has become something of a commercial bandwaggon it has attracted a huge following of more and less scrupulous practitioners, and I don't think one can make any assumptions any more about what one will find under the label.

 

[Meovcorz]

Oh, if I were you I would do a search for Natural Horsemanship on NR and read for the rest of the week.

this has been discussed many times on here and is very interesting.

Very very true, but I think you will be reading for a YEAR!

 

[Wally]

If you use aggression towards a horse you will get nowhere.

 

[laceyfreckle]

If you use aggression towards a horse you will get nowhere.

Completely agree, and it always surprises me how many people think it WILL work especially if they want a quick result.

Being firm and being aggressive/impatient are two completely different things from my point of view.

 

[shandy84]

You can definatly use firmness and not agression with horses, horses respond well to having good boundries such as those that the lead mare would put in place

where you get problems are when

people use proper agression towards them (e.g hitting etc)

Or use NH as an excuse to not train their horse, or have the wrong idea about the methods used so are unsuccessful training the horse. (e.g using pressure and release but never offering the release when the horse has been good)

It is not necessarily NH that uses non agression, good horsemanship does that

 

[EquiPortal]

Thank you your reply is very helpful, the fog is clearing a little

 

[Bay Mare]

Not all 'NH' methods are free from aggression and some actually advocate hitting the horse (to teach him to stay out of your personal space!). I'll speak to you privately about that though.

Some methods deliberately steer clear of the 'NH' tag because it's become more of a marketing tag than what it should be, which is common sense, ethical horsemanship.

Clicker, for example, has it's basis in sound scientific principles and learning theory. The more I learn about it the more fascinating it becomes. Becky Holden is coming to Sheffield in September if you want to come along and watch her in action. She uses it for everything including ridden, in hand, long reining and groundwork.

The best thing to do, though, is to look around and see what works for you. I'll be interested to see what you make of Parelli.

 

[Kate F.]

Clicker, for example, has it's basis in sound scientific principles and learning theory.

That sounds as though you believe NH isn't - which actually I think most of it is. Stripping it down to these principles:

clicker = signal + negative reinforcement (release) + postitive reinforcement (food, or food asssociation),
NH = signal + negative reinforcement (release) + postitive reinforcement (tactile - stroking, scratching etc).

In "scientific" terms the only difference is the use of a food reward as positive reinforcement as opposed to a tactile one. The application of learning theory is the same in both (most) clicker and (most) NH. They may look different in the equipment used and way they are explained, but at this level, they are basically very similar.

 

[AengusOg]

That sounds as though you believe NH isn't - which actually I think most of it is. Stripping it down to these principles:

clicker = signal + negative reinforcement (release) + postitive reinforcement (food, or food asssociation),
NH = signal + negative reinforcement (release) + postitive reinforcement (tactile - stroking, scratching etc).

In "scientific" terms the only difference is the use of a food reward as positive reinforcement as opposed to a tactile one. The application of learning theory is the same in both (most) clicker and (most) NH. They may look different in the equipment used and way they are explained, but at this level, they are basically very similar.

I can't understand why release of 'signal' pressure is seen as negative reinforcement, when it is clearly a positive thing for the horse.

 

[laceyfreckle]

Or use NH as an excuse to not train their horse, or have the wrong idea about the methods used so are unsuccessful training the horse. (e.g using pressure and release but never offering the release when the horse has been good)

It is not necessarily NH that uses non agression, good horsemanship does that

Agreed, although it should also be noted that slight changes in pressure and release can take place without it looking like much is being done to the outsider. It is a technique that works on timing as much as anything else.

Also for a lot of techniques that do not use violence, patience is required and work can be undone easily by confusing the horse with different techniques or resorting to bullying. A horse has no concept of time, that is a human perception.

A lot of the time humans put their own perceptions onto their horses, horses do not 'misbehave' because they are out to annoy.

 

[katefarmer]

I can't understand why release of 'signal' pressure is seen as negative reinforcement, when it is clearly a positive thing for the horse.

In scientific language, negative reinforcement means the removal of something (a pressure, request, signal) that was there before the response was offered, while positive reinforcement is the adding of something that wasn't there before (a treat, stroking and scratching etc.).

It's nothing to do with how the horse perceives either - it's just a convention of the terminology used in scientific circles.

A very common misconception is equating negative reinforcement with punishment - which is absolutely not the case!

I usually try to use the more non-scientific terms on NR to be clear to everyone what I mean, but BayMare seemed to be calling the scientific intergrity of NH into question and suggesting that clicker is in some way more scientifically sound. I was just making the point that in scientific terms, the two approaches are pretty much the same.

 

[shandy84]

Agreed, although it should also be noted that slight changes in pressure and release can take place without it looking like much is being done to the outsider. It is a technique that works on timing as much as anything else.

I have been taught by a well respected NH instructor that sometimes the better the release the more obvious it is, for example in catching a horse, when you give the release when he looks at you, you turn your back, round your shoulders etc it is very obvious, after all sometimes the release is not noticed by the horse if it is not obvious.

Horses do not misbehave to annoy generally they are poorly trained and are confused by what is being asked.

I also have taught my horses with traditional common sense and NH principles and have two very well behaved horses so the techniques obviously work.

Others unfortunatly are less fortunate.

It really gets to be a problem when handlers refuse to recognise their own weakness and blame exterior influences, when in NH the first thing they work on is the handler and then the handler and the horse as 98% of the time the problem is miscommunication from the handler.

 

[capalldubh]

I can't understand why release of 'signal' pressure is seen as negative reinforcement, when it is clearly a positive thing for the horse.

First of all, the "negative" and "positive" in learning theory aren't to do with not nice vs nice... they're used the same as they are in maths: negative means something is removed. Positive means something is added. You can thus have negative and positive reinformcent, and negative and positive punishment. So for negative reinforcement, something which has been present is removed when the animal performs a behaviour. Logic will point to the fact that this is unlikely to be something the animal likes or values: by definition negative reinforcement as used in training means the human applies something the horse would normally avoid, and then removes it when the horse does what they want. This is the basis of pressure and release. Positive reinforcement means that something is added - this comes after the behaviour and strengthens - "reinforces" the behaviour because it is something the animal would normally want or act to obtain (food is pretty universal. Some animals prefer not to be touched (horses are not naturally very tactile) and a cheery "good boy" means nothing to the horse unless it has had a chance to learn it signifies something good). It is entirely possible to have positive reinforcement without any aversives, the research was originally conducted with animals who couldn't see where their food reward came from

A release of pressure can reinforce behaviour when it happens immediately the animal performs the behaviour - but it is a reinforcement, not a reward. In terms of how the animal perceives release of pressure, it is processed by an entirely different brain system from the one that processes reward - you could best equate it with the relief that comes from taking off uncomfortable shoes. It is not a good motivator - it works in the instant when the animal has no options, but since it is something the animal will work to avoid, unless they have no other option, they will not get themselves into that situation again. This is why most pressure and release has to begin either on a line or in a round pen, where the horse can't just remove himself from the situation as he would if another horse applied similar pressure.

The confusion between a reinforcement and a reward seems widespread in NH circles.

 

[Yann]

I can't understand why release of 'signal' pressure is seen as negative reinforcement, when it is clearly a positive thing for the horse.

What capalldubh said On that score the negative reinforcement bad / positive reinforcement good thing is rather silly, especially since a lot of clicker training incorporates an element negative reinforcement in some shape or form.

As far as I'm aware most NH is soundly based in learning theory, even if some of it has been arrived at empirically. However all the theories in the world are no good if you don't have the feel, flexibility and timing to put them into practice with the horse in front of you.

 

[feebilly]

All the points above are very valid and the whole NH principles are a minefield.

However, with me it boils down to common sense, respect and trust. It is commonly assumed that most people believe beating their horses into submission is not the way to go.

Parelli states "be as gentle as you can, but as firm as is necessary". That to me does not mean fluffy, but takes into account stages in assertiveness. Giving the horse chance to respond to the slightest pressure, then a bit more if it doesnt work, and so on. My horses respect me because I treat them with common sense and trust that I will not be harder than is necessary.

All methods try to immitate what horses do in the wild, so therefore I think 'horsey horsemanship' describes it better than 'natural horsemanship'.