|
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 1/20/2010 9:45:53 AM
Posts: 2,359,
Visits: 5,227
|
|
Pretty much self explanatory.
I keep hearing different definitions of 'natural horsemanship' but none that I actually feel fits.
Horsemanship isn't 'natural' however you look at it. Being ridden is one of the most UNnatural things for a horse to put up with.
Some people feel that natural horsemanship is simply training while keeping the horse's natural instincts in mind. Using herd dynamics in order to reach one's goals. But that is no different than regular horsemanship.
Some people feel that natural horsemanship is training with the least amount of force and gadgets possible. But that is no different than regular horsemanship.
The conclusion I've come to is that 'natural horsemanship' is nothing more than a brand name people use in order to make money.
The old school trainers (Ray Hunt, the Dorrance brothers, Buck Brannan) never used the term 'Natural Horsemanship'. They just called it 'horsemanship'.
Good training is good training. Going back to ancient Greece, using the 'popular' definition of natural horsemanship, one could argue that Xenophon was the first real natural horsemanship trainer.
I guess what I'm trying to get to is where does regular 'common sense training' end and 'natural horsemanship' begin?
Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born. ~Garrett Hardin
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Awaiting Activation
Last Login: 8/29/2009 5:08:38 PM
Posts: 223,
Visits: 210
|
|
| Most people i have talked to consider 'natural' being able to keep in tune with their horses emotions more than they think they could have done 'regularly'. I find no difference between natural and just plain horsemanship.
I've never fully used 'natural' techniques or ideas, but i do try to apply them.
No one truly knows what is natural to their horse, but they work with what their horse likes and dislikes and with their surroundings. If we could look into our horses minds-which would help all of us so much when working with them-they could tell us what's really natural, and it's more than likely not having a saddle and rider on their back and a piece of metal in their mouth. To me, as long as you respect your horse and your horse respects you, you have a good bond and that's horsemanship. There's nothing natural to a horse about us, and i do agree that the term "natural" has been used to make money.
My Heart Has Been Painted
Sarcasm-the gift that keeps on giving.
♥
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:47:18 AM
Posts: 2,198,
Visits: 2,246
|
|
I think people view Natural Horsemansip in mostly two ways. One, like you described, as a brand name (this training MUST be good for my horse because it's natural!) and the other as a solid, respectful relationship with your horse.
My definition of natural horsemanship would be using the bet method of training that works for your horse (helps keep them calm, respectful, listening, ect.) without abuse or extra gadgets.
To me, it sounds like your barn is truly a natural horsemanship barn. When you say "normal" horsemanship it makes me think of the "assembly line" training. One trainer decides to use one method, and ONLY one method for EVERY horse he or she sets hands on. If that training doesn't work well for the horse (it's not his learning style) then usually force is used, in the form of beating into submission or using gadgets (tie downs, harsh bits, ect.) The trainer is not trying to build a relationship with the horse. He or she is trying to train it as quickly as possible, usually to be shown or sold.
Unfortunately, I've seen this method very frequently. It makes a "robot horse", which is impossible to have a relationship with.
That's the main difference I see when I think of natural horsemanship. Not all but almost every NH trainer will say the same thing before you train a horse- watch him for a day. Don't do any kind of training, just try to get to know his personality. Then, a correct (in my opinion) NH trainer will use a method that he or she thinks will work for the horse, based on it's personality and learning style.
He or she might try a training style that doesn't end up working. A correct NH trainer will sense that, and use a different method until the horse is understanding and learning, sometimes just using trial and error.
But there are so many definitions of NH. This is my opinion of NH. I hope my post helps you.
 
Join Today!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 1/20/2010 9:45:53 AM
Posts: 2,359,
Visits: 5,227
|
|
[quote]Swing_Away111 (6/27/2009)
I think people view Natural Horsemansip in mostly two ways. One, like you described, as a brand name (this training MUST be good for my horse because it's natural!) and the other as a solid, respectful relationship with your horse.
My definition of natural horsemanship would be using the bet method of training that works for your horse (helps keep them calm, respectful, listening, ect.) without abuse or extra gadgets.
To me, it sounds like your barn is truly a natural horsemanship barn. When you say "normal" horsemanship it makes me think of the "assembly line" training. One trainer decides to use one method, and ONLY one method for EVERY horse he or she sets hands on. If that training doesn't work well for the horse (it's not his learning style) then usually force is used, in the form of beating into submission or using gadgets (tie downs, harsh bits, ect.) The trainer is not trying to build a relationship with the horse. He or she is trying to train it as quickly as possible, usually to be shown or sold.
Unfortunately, I've seen this method very frequently. It makes a "robot horse", which is impossible to have a relationship with.
That's the main difference I see when I think of natural horsemanship. Not all but almost every NH trainer will say the same thing before you train a horse- watch him for a day. Don't do any kind of training, just try to get to know his personality. Then, a correct (in my opinion) NH trainer will use a method that he or she thinks will work for the horse, based on it's personality and learning style.
He or she might try a training style that doesn't end up working. A correct NH trainer will sense that, and use a different method until the horse is understanding and learning, sometimes just using trial and error.
But there are so many definitions of NH. This is my opinion of NH. I hope my post helps you.[/quote]
What you call 'natural horsemanship' I see as 'good horsemanship'. You do what works for your horse. If that means showing up 2 hours before the show to take a walk around the property, you do it. If that means getting there 15 minutes before and walking right into the right, you do it. I definitely wouldn't call my coach's barn a nh barn in front of my coach. She'd be highly insulted.
Where I kind of disagree with you is your view on 'gadgets'. IMO, there's a difference between using an artificial aid as a 'gadget' and using one as a 'training tool'. Now, one could say I'm arguing mere semantics, but semantics can make a HUGE difference in the grand scheme of things. Classical principles state that you use as little force as possible, but as much force as necessary. Same thing goes with training equipment. You start out lightly as possible. BUT, there's nothing wrong with training equipment (i.e. leather, training aids, and 'gadgets') when it's used PROPERLY.
What I mean is that you can't simply throw a pair of draw reins on a horse to crank it into a head set and call it a day. However, there are legitimate uses to almost every single piece of equipment out there, draw reins included. You always start with as little as possible, and you try to fix the problem by going back to basics, going slowly, and training. But, sometimes a training aid will help the horse 'connect the dots' as it were. For example, if your OTTB is having a hard time keeping it together through canter transitions, one could try riding in a neck stretcher/bungee/drop reins (whatever you want to call them), in ADDITION to regular training. Training aids don't replace training, they supplement it.
Also, when you enter the jumper ring, things change up quite a bit. No matter how well trained a horse is, once the energy starts going, they can be a handful. A running martingale can save you a broken nose. An elevator can save you from plowing through a fence. These horses are perfectly capable of going in a snaffle. They just go BETTER in the bit their riders/trainers/owners have chosen for them.
As for the 'normal trainers' and the 'assembly line training', I can kind of understand your point of view. But another thing to keep in mind, barns usually specialize. Very rarely is a trainer just a 'trainer'. No, they're 'western', 'dressage', 'hunter/jumper', 'A-circuit', 'lesson barn' etc... They have their niche in which they work in. For example, my coach does the A-circuit hunter/jumper stuff. Sure, she'll start horses, but she's mainly working with buying and selling show horses. She has her system, her program, and if the horse doesn't really fit, she has no problem sending it back. Some could see her barn as an assembly line, as horses are always coming and going. "hey, I need this horse sold. Can he stay at your barn until you sell him for me?" or "hey, I'm looking for a horse. Who do you have that's available?" Sometimes she doesn't have TIME to spend a day simply watching a horse. Sometimes a horse comes and goes within 24 hours. Does that mean she cares about the horses less, or the training is less? No, it just means she runs a business and needs to be efficient.
For all that an individualized approach is nice, there ARE classical principles that all good horse people adhere to. De Kunffy states in very well in his book "The Athletic Development of the Dressage Horse."
"Expert coaching will demonstrate the ease with which a teacher or rider can choose between seemingly opposing principles. A highly individualized approach will only be used when standard remedies have been tried and failed an only something novel will solve the problem. However, a good coach will know standard traditional procedures and exhaust their training possibilities before asking for a rare solution."
I suggest you read it (if you haven't done so already). He discusses training philosophy at length, and it's quite a good read.
Anywho, back on point. Adhering to the classic principles of horsemanship and riding, you will be successful over %95 of the time. Sure, there will be differences between horses such as 'do I go 'ask, tell demand' or simply ask once nicely then go to my crop?' But those things are small differences. The fundamentals are the same.
Also, I don't really feel my secondary question was answered: What is the difference between good regular training and natural horsemanship?
Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born. ~Garrett Hardin
|
|
|
|
|
Average Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/3/2010 2:13:50 PM
Posts: 537,
Visits: 3,173
|
|
Very interesting topic.
Now that I come to think of it, I believe that 'Natural Horsemanship' isn't different than 'horsemanship'.
This is because good horsemanship, is 'natural' IMO. (IF DONE CORRECTLY). Alot of people think using crops, spurs ("abusively"), and what ever else, and get their horse to do what they want, is horsemanship. But no...horsemanship, is connecting with the horse, thinking with him, and using (as Parelli says) love, language, and leadership. Now, you might think I'm quoting Parelli, just because I used to be a HUGE fan of him, but no, I believe that (love, language, and leadership) is one of the best parts in his training...could I say, the foundation of horsemanship.
Now, there are alot of dressage, h/j, western, and other, riders, who I would not call horsemen/women. Using force to make the horse do what you want is NOT horsemanship.
I hope you understand, and please point out to me, if you think I said something "wrong".
--------------------
For horses can educate through first hand, subjective, personal experiences, unlike human tutors, teachers, and professors can ever do. Horses can build character, not merely urge one to improve on it. Horses forge the mind, the character, the emotions and inner lives of humans. People can talk to one another about all these things and remain distanced and lonesome . In partnership with a horse, one is seldom lacking for thought, emotion and inspiration. One is always attended by a great companion.
~Charles de Kunffy
Post on my blog: http://forums.westernhorseman.com/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=59&
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:47:18 AM
Posts: 2,198,
Visits: 2,246
|
|
I'm putting my type in bold.
[quote]Misfit Style (6/27/2009)
What you call 'natural horsemanship' I see as 'good horsemanship'. You do what works for your horse. If that means showing up 2 hours before the show to take a walk around the property, you do it. If that means getting there 15 minutes before and walking right into the right, you do it. I definitely wouldn't call my coach's barn a nh barn in front of my coach. She'd be highly insulted.
It sounds like what you call "good horsemanship" is what many people call "natural horsemanship". You think about the horse instead of forcing it into whatever's most comfortable to you.
Where I kind of disagree with you is your view on 'gadgets'. IMO, there's a difference between using an artificial aid as a 'gadget' and using one as a 'training tool'. Now, one could say I'm arguing mere semantics, but semantics can make a HUGE difference in the grand scheme of things. Classical principles state that you use as little force as possible, but as much force as necessary. Same thing goes with training equipment. You start out lightly as possible. BUT, there's nothing wrong with training equipment (i.e. leather, training aids, and 'gadgets') when it's used PROPERLY.
What I mean is that you can't sim, and skipping a part of solid training throw a pair of draw reins on a horse to crank it into a head set and call it a day. However, there are legitimate uses to almost every single piece of equipment out there, draw reins included. You always start with as little as possible, and you try to fix the problem by going back to basics, going slowly, and training. But, sometimes a training aid will help the horse 'connect the dots' as it were. For example, if your OTTB is having a hard time keeping it together through canter transitions, one could try riding in a neck stretcher/bungee/drop reins (whatever you want to call them), in ADDITION to regular training. Training aids don't replace training, they supplement it.
When I said using gadgets, I meant as using them to force a horse into something. What you're talking about sounds a bit like gentle persuasion, which is actually many people's definition of NH.
Also, when you enter the jumper ring, things change up quite a bit. No matter how well trained a horse is, once the energy starts going, they can be a handful. A running martingale can save you a broken nose. An elevator can save you from plowing through a fence. These horses are perfectly capable of going in a snaffle. They just go BETTER in the bit their riders/trainers/owners have chosen for them.
As far as jumping goes, I do H/J, so no comment here.
As for the 'normal trainers' and the 'assembly line training', I can kind of understand your point of view. But another thing to keep in mind, barns usually specialize. Very rarely is a trainer just a 'trainer'. No, they're 'western', 'dressage', 'hunter/jumper', 'A-circuit', 'lesson barn' etc... They have their niche in which they work in. For example, my coach does the A-circuit hunter/jumper stuff. Sure, she'll start horses, but she's mainly working with buying and selling show horses. She has her system, her program, and if the horse doesn't really fit, she has no problem sending it back. Some could see her barn as an assembly line, as horses are always coming and going. "hey, I need this horse sold. Can he stay at your barn until you sell him for me?" or "hey, I'm looking for a horse. Who do you have that's available?" Sometimes she doesn't have TIME to spend a day simply watching a horse. Sometimes a horse comes and goes within 24 hours. Does that mean she cares about the horses less, or the training is less? No, it just means she runs a business and needs to be efficient.
[b]Again, I was talking about something different. I should have been more specific. I was talking about the "assembly line" breaking barns. The barns who get 2 or 3 year olds, and their main objective is to get it under saddle as quickly as possible, in only ONE method. Like I said, some horses work with the specific trainer's style, some don't. That's when force is used.
I have no problem with barns who get horses to train for a specific discipline. I especially respect the trainers who will realize when a horse isn't suited for the discipline, and put it up for sale so that it can be useful in it's talent.[/b]
For all that an individualized approach is nice, there ARE classical principles that all good horse people adhere to. De Kunffy states in very well in his book "The Athletic Development of the Dressage Horse."
"Expert coaching will demonstrate the ease with which a teacher or rider can choose between seemingly opposing principles. A highly individualized approach will only be used when standard remedies have been tried and failed an only something novel will solve the problem. However, a good coach will know standard traditional procedures and exhaust their training possibilities before asking for a rare solution."
I suggest you read it (if you haven't done so already). He discusses training philosophy at length, and it's quite a good read.
That sounds like a little bit like what I was taking about, trial-and-error training.
Anywho, back on point. Adhering to the classic principles of horsemanship and riding, you will be successful over %95 of the time. Sure, there will be differences between horses such as 'do I go 'ask, tell demand' or simply ask once nicely then go to my crop?' But those things are small differences. The fundamentals are the same.
[b]Sometimes the small differences can make a difference in the horse's attitude, willingness, trainability, ect. I'm not exactly sure what you call "classical" as most everyone has a different definition of classical.
I'm just trying to say that each horse needs it's training program tailored to it's personality. Some more or less than others, but individual nonetheless.[/b]
Also, I don't really feel my secondary question was answered: What is the difference between good regular training and natural horsemanship?[/quote]
That question can't really be answered, as everyone's definition of "good regular training" is extremely different. In my opinion, there isn't a difference between "good regular training" and NH training, but loads of difference between 'regular training" and NH training.
Join Today!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 1/20/2010 9:45:53 AM
Posts: 2,359,
Visits: 5,227
|
|
See, my problem with that is that your definition of 'regular training' is by far the minority. Most barns don't do the 'assembly line' training, and they put their horse's well being above all else. So, in that sense, I don't think your definition of 'regular' training is that 'regular' at all.
Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born. ~Garrett Hardin
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:47:18 AM
Posts: 2,198,
Visits: 2,246
|
|
Misfit Style (6/28/2009)
See, my problem with that is that your definition of 'regular training' is by far the minority. Most barns don't do the 'assembly line' training, and they put their horse's well being above all else. So, in that sense, I don't think your definition of 'regular' training is that 'regular' at all.
I think it depends alot of what's popular where you live. If I remember right, you live in Canada? I live in the U.S. (although I don't want to give out any more info on my location). I'm really happy for you that you've seen alot of good horsemanship. But around where I live (and I mean, a tri-state area) NH the way I defined it is by far the minority, actually. Assembly-line training is more than 80%, being generous, but probably close to 90-95%. So in my case, "regular" training is very "regular" to me.
Join Today!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Starting Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 7/26/2009 10:52:48 AM
Posts: 27,
Visits: 57
|
|
| May I make a comment? I think today's tv trainers are trying to sell a product. I attended a horse fair and asked a famous clinician a question. His response was" Buy my video". I did not repond but just walked away. I thought to myself "I guess my horse and I will figure it out by ourselves. I always open for different ways of training so I watch rfd. I think they all sound the same. They might call things by different names, but the underlying factor is the same. My father knew some of the older trainers who have now passed. He tells me those guys could train. They could read a horse. They knew when to push and when to stop. I know some of the old ways were harsh, but some of the new ways are too soft. Can't we meet in the middle? My son's horse came from the Amish. In my area that is easily more money. Most people think the horse will be 100% perfect if the Amish have it or train it. My son's horse was far from perfect( excuse me, in my son's eyes the horse was/is perfect). A friend of my father purchased the horse, but when he got it home, he realized it was way too much horse. Rebel, my son feels that is a perfect name,was very green. I hopped on and rode him a few times before letting my son take over. My son and Rebel are a good match. My son has gotten Rebel to let us touch his ears. Rebel was extremely head-shy when we got him. Rebel still does not like strangers getting close. My father firmly believes in just hopping on and ride. He doen't think a horse needs constant roundpen training. What will happen when you leave the roundpen? Of course now I'm the one getting on the horses their first time. I have been the one since I was eight years old(I am not bragging). I believe if you work with your horse, you will be able to sense what he is "thinking". If you work with your horse, you will know his "bad" ways and he will know yours. You will be a partnership. To me that is horsemanship. I can feel my horse tense. I know when something has got my horse's eye. Likewise my horse knows when I get in the saddle it is time to go. I hate standing around. I told my son to make Rebel HIS horse. Trust me, my son can get Rebel to mind him better than anyone else would be able to.My son has no desire to neckrein a spin, do a dressage pattern,show western or english pleasure. Rebel definitely has the ability to. My son loves the fact Rebel will go anywhere( I mean trails or parades. We are outriders for my father's six-pony hitch). I am sorry to go on and on. My point is I believe true horsemanship is having a true partnership with your horse. You being able to be in tune with your horse, making it yours. If you can "read" what the other is thinking that is special. I know some people train horses for a living and their motivation has to be different. That doesn't mean one way is wrong or right. Don't all of us want the best situation for horses. I feel when things get labeled(natural horsemanship) that's when problems occur. I will end by saying.....please go out and enjoy your equine, that's real horsemanship.
|
|
|
|
|
Average Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 1/27/2010 1:33:08 PM
Posts: 872,
Visits: 1,346
|
|
| "Natural Horsemanship" aka "Easy way to make $". There just simply isn't a such thing. Riding a horse is NOT natural, therefore how can there even be a "Natural" in the "Horsemanship"? It's all just hoax--an easy way to make $millions (or for Parilli,at least). It's just a brand name people have gotten cought up with. I agree woth some of their practises, but I would never call it "natural".
|
|
|
|