...Natural Horsemanship? I just don't get it.

[Crystal Fire]

I've never ever heard of or seen one who actually stated he would really "bring it" if a horse crossed the line.

Well there you go ESE - and I've not yet met one who won't. It's about being appropriate to the situation. Maybe you need to get to a few more clinicians? Can't help you at all there, as you are in the US and I'm in the UK.
I can see a lot in what you say you do that is very consistent with the way that the NH trainers I learn from would work. You say that you believe the training side NH sprung out from old-fashioned techniques - well yes, of course it did. That's why there will be a lot in common with what you do. Haven't you heard/read Pat Parelli saying "This is so old it's new"?. However, as with all things, people learn and progress, so various trainers, including NH ones, have discarded some of the old-fashioned ideas and replaced them with new ways that they have found effective.
I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is for you. You are obviously very proud of your "techniques" and happy enough that you will continue to train in this way. On the other hand, based on your experience, you see no benefit in what you think of as natural horsemanship, which is fine, your entitled to your opinion. I can't see how anyone here is going to change your mind, so why all the typing?

 

[teabiscuit]

well all you NHers this is an interesting thread, thankyou all for your long answers. they have helped me to understand more about what this new fangled natural horsemanship is all about-its new fangled to me because i've not been involved with the horsey world at large for several years, just happy to pootle along in my own sweet way with my own horses. i was confused by all the similarities between NH and BHS and traditional and my own sweet way when they were all supposed to be so different.
thankyou

 

[de_Stille_een]

People learn and progress, so various trainers, including NH ones, have discarded some of the old-fashioned ideas and replaced them with new ways that they have found effective.
I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is for you. You are obviously very proud of your "techniques" and happy enough that you will continue to train in this way. I can't see how anyone here is going to change your mind, so why all the typing?

If you'll go back to my original post, I made this thread because I wanted to hear from people about their personal favorite trainers and clinicians, and hear more about their methods. I encounter a lot of NH-fans through my work (I'm a training rider for a clinician), and knowing about their training methods helps me relate to them much better. Also, when people send us horses that were formerly trained using NH methods for us to retrain (I'm assuming the NH was poorly communicated to the owners, or the owners simply weren't ready to be training and misused the training methods), it would help me to better mold my training program if I can understand how he was previously trained.

I just want to be able to connect the training approaches to names-- I know one NH clinician varies quite some from another, and I'd like to be more informed about this phenomenon that's spreading the States.

 

[Shadowlark]

HAHAHA so let ME go back to my original thought - Find Chris Irwin's book horses don't Lie.

Second thought.. go to his site - he has several articles posted there - see if you like what he writes.
http://chrisirwin.com/articles-chris.php

I have found his insight's facinating and applicable and really to be honest reading his stuff I learned more about MYSELF and how I handle horses then anything else.

I am going to go see him this summer down south of me just as a spectator. The clinic fees are VERY pricey and I find I learn more by watching the goings on anyway I have no intention of going through the levels etc blah blah blah - I just want to actually SEE him in action.

 

[Tootsie4U]

.....to be honest reading his stuff I learned more about MYSELF and how I handle horses then anything else....

I think thats the key sentence.

As I sit here, Im trying to think of what the big picture actually is. Most of the NH trainers out there openly state that they're in this business to train humans, not necessarily horses. So in that, is it fair to say that the main objective of NH is to train us so that way we can train our horses more effectively and appropriately?

Unfortunately, NH has become a commodity in that it is now a 'marketable' object rather than an overall understanding of a principle. Catchy phrases and head collars are being produced but what is it all really? Really, one mans' "Friendly Game" is another man's "Sackign Out" but in the end its all the same to the horse.

Cant say I blame them. You've got to put food on the table somehow and playing to our neivity and eagerness to learn is a good way to do it. But, I dont think its fair to confuse that with the underlying principle of what NH truly is. Its a means to an end to help us learn how to more effectively communicate with an animal of a completely different niche than our own. It helps bridge the species gap just a little bit by putting the responsiblity on the human to evolve and understand this flight animal a little better. And there will be those humans who have difficulty doing so (ie. Calsanjo's friend who was loading her mare) but that doesnt mean the fault lies in the trainer who is trying to teach you...

 

[casey]

HAHAHA so let ME go back to my original thought - Find Chris Irwin's book horses don't Lie.

Just off topic here, well kind of! I had a dream about Chris Irwin last night. Not a rude one you'll be pleased to know. I was reading that book before I went to bed. How wierd

 

[Crystal Fire]

I see what you mean DSE. Well, to be honest I think you're on to a loser to try to understand how all these screwed up horses have been trained, whether NH or not. The approaches will vary so much. And then if it's a student or just someone who's watched a DVD and put their own slant on... well, it could all get really confusing. The best of NH trainers with vary, you can't possibly get to know how they would each deal with every step of their training. For example, Pat Parelli would teach a horse to go out on a circle differently to my friend Steve Halfpenny. So you could end up studying endlessly!
I agree with something Steve said on a clinic, although some people kind of misunderstood what he was saying. I can't quote exactly, but he said that we can't worry too much about the long history of the horse in front of us. It is probably relevant to how they are, but we have to deal with the horse as it presents to us now. Just look at what they are doing and deal with it appropriately.
(I've also heard more than one NH trainer say that if we've had a horse for 3 months then we are solely responsible for the way it is, not anything or anyone who has happened in it's history. Very controversial )
After all, we don't always have the benefit of a half hour ramble from the owner about their horse's history, and if we do we don't know how much of that they imagined, or coloured from their own perspective. If we just look at that horse, as he stands before us, we can treat him as an individual and go from there. If we are fair and just in our training it isn't going to matter to him that we don't understand why he is like he is.
An example - headshy horse. Does it help to know that he is specifically headshy because of ear twitching? Not a lot. We just realise that he is scared and treat him the same as if he was a scared horse that mysteriously appeared in the yard overnight.

 

[teabiscuit]

CF i agree. as an individual you are always going to treat the horse differently anway, even if you know exactly how he was trained, and though you may try your best to do things the same the horse will spot glaring differences. the simple truth is, its just you and the horse at that particular moment in time.
i don't agree that after three months you are soley responsible for the way the horse is. One example: Malnutrition when young can affect brain development.

 

[cvb]

So I ask-- Who's your favorite (NH) clinician/trainer? What's their system/method/doctrine/whatever you'd like to call it! Ahh-- process? Perhaps that's the word. Anyways-- I'd like to hear about how Natural Horseman train and why everyone likes it so much better than the good old fashioned training methods.

Mmm - I modified the question a little. If I think about who I would chose to work with, given an open choice, the "short list" would not all be people who necessarily call themselves "natural horsemanship" people but they would all be what I would call "good horseman" (or women ). (Ok, so I probably have to define what I mean by good.. )

And I think that, for me, characterises it for me. Its not about what process they use specifically, its about how the horse interacts with the process as well. I figure horses are pretty good judges I want to help my horse realise his/her full potential which means I need to work with them the best way I can.

I just came back from a conference on education and one workshop had a speaker from a "second chance" school. She commented that they don't just work with their pupils in terms of their school work and behaviour in school. They look at it holistically and check out eyesight, health, diet and so on. That makes sense - if a child can't see, hear, etc., how can they learn ?

And doesn't that apply to our horses as well ? So another key word for me would be "holistic" i.e. that it looks at the whole horse...

Mark Rashid would be high on my list. He works a lot on the rider, helping them help their horse. But he will not work with a horse that has movement issues (like the child who can't see or hear) - oh I should add another word to my list - "integrity" !

But the list is open... and I'll add more people as I find them !

I haven't met Steve Halfpenny, but his approaches have produced a lovely pony in the mare my mother has (trained under his system).

 

[Afellpony]

Wow. Cant believe this woman Casey has written about. P'haps she really is tired of living!!!!

 

[cvb]

If you'll go back to my original post, I made this thread because I wanted to hear from people about their personal favorite trainers and clinicians, and hear more about their methods. I encounter a lot of NH-fans through my work (I'm a training rider for a clinician), and knowing about their training methods helps me relate to them much better. Also, when people send us horses that were formerly trained using NH methods for us to retrain (I'm assuming the NH was poorly communicated to the owners, or the owners simply weren't ready to be training and misused the training methods), it would help me to better mold my training program if I can understand how he was previously trained.

I just want to be able to connect the training approaches to names-- I know one NH clinician varies quite some from another, and I'd like to be more informed about this phenomenon that's spreading the States.

Do you do the same thing with the non-NH horses and people that come to you ? Ask about their training approach and who they follow and then explore it ?

just curioius....

 

[teabiscuit]

Afellpony i know what you mean, that's why i'm not entirely easy with NH-unfortunately its become fashionable, so it gets hijacked and interpreted wrongly and the results can be disasterous for horse and human.

 

[cvb]

Woo hoo. I think your just asking for trouble posting this here I rarely venture in here, as I find it (this part of the forum) quite agressive in it's debate.

Although I think some people use NH as an addition to common sense. Alot use it in place of.

For instance, I was reading an article in Your Horse mag. It was a June 05 issue I believe.

Anyway, this woman had a 12.2hh stallion, and stated that this stallion, quite bolshy in nature reared up and started waving its legs. So much so, that she "could feel his breath" on her face. So what did she do? "I stood there, and after a while, he stopped doing it, and I realised I gained his respect" WHAT??? How stupid/ignorant and dangerous is that?

The same article, and indeed the same woman goes on to say that her other horse, while out on a hack decides to gallop off full belt, she couldn't stop him. Then went on to say, the next day she took him to the same point galloped him full pelt again, because "I believe he was saying he was bored" hence the bolting. PLEASE! It went on to say that she had been studying Parelli.

Where does NH begin and plain stupidity end?

I believe NH should be practised as an ehancement of skill's already learned, and not as a only source of information.

This is one example, I know, and one article. But other people read this stuff, and frankly its worrying.

Edit to add:- Although NH has its place, it has certainly helped some people out of the dark ages where training is concerned, and anything to make people think more about methods of training can always be good....But NOT in place of common sense.

I guess that is one of the issues at the moment with "natural horsemanship" being both a process/approach AND a "brand"... people may use the name to describe a process/approach which really does not fit the description...

how do you know that if you are outside of NH looking in ?

But we should all remember that just because someone is "practising" a particular approach does not mean they have it perfect - after all, how many of us manage that ! if our own initial understanding is less than clear, then we may describe something using language that is not really accurate - and only realise it later when we are further in our learning journey ?

 

[teabiscuit]

cvb to my mind its like biology physics and chemistry-you study them in depth enough you realise they are all interlinked, they are not separate. NH is not separate either, therfore you cannont be involved with horses and be on the outside of NH looking in as you put it.
this is what annoys me about NH and some of its advocates-its not separate, it is part of equesrianism.

 

[The Flying Irishman]

Well said Teabiscuit

 

[cvb]

teabiscuit

I like your analogy and agree with it BUT before you study biology, physics, chemistry "in depth" you don't realise the interconnection and might describe each subject to someone in a way that is not full correct (if you HAD studied in depth).

Its kind of like "total quality" - which also MUST be integrated in everything you do or its all nonsense !

 

[Kate F.]

I was thinking about this thread last night... and another analogy came to mind. It's a bit like playing a musical instrument. Let's say the horse is the instrument - and different diciplines are like different styles... classical, jazz, pop, rock... whatever you like.

Different trainers (NH or otherwise) can in some ways be likened to composers - they suggest ways the notes can be played - but at the end of the day, that's just the starting point. It's how much you learn, practice, study, listen and observe that will determine how good a player you are. (It's not a perfect analogy, but I expect you get what I mean!)

If I sit down at a piano with a sheet of Beethoven in front of me - it will sound horrible - but that doesn't make Beethoven a bad composer! Similarly if someone has read the book/seen the video but can't translate it into effective communication with the horse, that doesn't mean the person who wrote the book/made the video is a bad trainer or has ineffective methods - it just means this particular individual hasn't got it right.

Going back to the music analogy - whatever style/s you play, there will be certain common skills you need - a good ear, timing, rhythm, feel, co-ordination -that same with horses. Whatever style you ride, whoever your teacher, whatever teaching methods they use, the basic skills will be the same if you are to do it well.

No one would blame Beethoven for my inability to play the piano, but there seem to be plenty of people who will blame, for example, Parelli, for someone possessing a carrot stick and using it wrongly or ineffectively, or with insufficient instruction.

NH is certainly as valid and effective as any other training approach (and to my mind it's better) - but how well any individual applies it is up to them and how much effort they are willing to put into it. The old maxim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is as relevant to horses as to anything else!

 

[Tootsie4U]

No one would blame Beethoven for my inability to play the piano, but there seem to be plenty of people who will blame, for example, Parelli, for someone possessing a carrot stick and using it wrongly or ineffectively, or with insufficient instruction.

Awesome post!

 

[casey]

This thread has actually given me food for thought.

Perhaps we do only hear the horror stories regarding alternative approaches. Before this thread, the 'Your Horse' woman, and her attitude to training, were what I perceved as a 'Parelli person'. Sorry guy's. I'm normally the first to say "theres good and bad in every discipline" but I obviously didn't apply it here. Interesting thread.

 

[teabiscuit]

the difference between a piano and a horse is that a piano doesn't care if you get it wrong. it matters if you get it wrong with a horse.