# What does Natural Horsemanship mean to you



## kaimanawas (Apr 16, 2015)

To a lot of people the idea of Natural Horsemanship means different things. Like to some it means a partnership with there horsev(that's me) and to some it might mean a way to talk to the horse directly through body language (that's me as well). I would love to hear what Natural Horsemanship means to you. In this thread nothing is wrong.:faceshot:


----------



## waresbear (Jun 18, 2011)

kaimanawas said:


> To a lot of people the idea of Natural Horsemanship means different things. Like to some it means a partnership with there horsev(that's me) and to some it might mean a way to talk to the horse directly through body language (that's me as well). I would love to hear what Natural Horsemanship means to you. *In this thread nothing is wrong.:faceshot:*


*
*

Okay then! I consider natural horsemanship to be riding without a bra on.


----------



## kaimanawas (Apr 16, 2015)

Totally unexpected but ok


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I have never been able to figure it out, myself. Pretty much all the experienced horsemen and horsewomen I know think it's a silly scam, including the people who invested some time learning it, in the past. I've never seen it in person. It's a term which has been hung on a few trainers who seem to disavow it (the Brannaman/Dorrance group). 

I have to say everything I've heard about it has turned me off . . .


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

to me it mean the revolutionary approach (revolutionary in that it came at a time when average people looked at horse like some sort of machine) that puts the horse's mental state as the foundation for alll, ALL, work with a human being.


----------



## ApuetsoT (Aug 22, 2014)

A money grab.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

tinyliny said:


> to me it mean the revolutionary approach (revolutionary in that it came at a time when average people looked at horse like some sort of machine) that puts the horse's mental state as the foundation for alll, ALL, work with a human being.


Well, I wouldn't agree, speaking as an average person 'back then', that I thought of horses as machines at all, nor did anyone else I knew. But our understanding of horses was pretty crude. We used force when knowledge and patience would have been far more effective, but we didn't have that knowledge. We did the best we could. 

It was also a time when children and dogs were treated very similarly to horses. It was generally agreed that fear was the best and surest motivator. When you are raised that way yourself it's natural to apply it to those under your power as it was applied to you.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

my words were not good. I think what I meant is that prior to some of the natural horsemanship gurus getting out there, people did not take the time to be interested or curious about what the hrose's emotional stance might be. sure, the very best trainers ALWAYS had this in mind. but I mean the average person was just, "I pull here, push there and it goes".

of course, the concept that the horse is a thinking being can also be taken too far, in that folks start to think it thinks like we do, and then get very mixed up; treating a hrose like a child. 

but, you asked me what it meant to me, and I think it means both of those things. but, whether folks find it laughable or not, it HAS created a bit of a renaissance in horse ownership and care, and while it may have helped create some spoiled horses and clueless owners, at least it has gotten people interested in learning more about these thinking, feeling animals.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Agree with you, tinyliny.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

At its best, riding always involved the mind of the horse. Nearly 100 years ago, a French rider wrote:
."Therefore, everywhere - out-of-doors or in the haute ecole - success with horses is to him who applies this maxim of Baucher...

'*Let him think that he is our master, then he is our slave.' There dwells an eternal equestrian truth!*

*'The horse is the sole master of his forces*; even with all of our vigor, by himself, the rider is powerless to increase the horse's forces. Therefor, it is for the horse to employ his forces in his own way, for himself to determine the manner of that employment so as to best fulfill the demands of his riders. *If the rider tries to do it all, the horse may permit him to do so, but the horse merely drifts*, and limits his efforts to those which the rider demands. On the contrary, if the horse knows that he must rely on himself, he uses himself completely, with all of his energy.'" - 5 May 1922

-- Horse Training Outdoors and High School, Etienne Beudant (1931)
.​About 150 years ago, a cavalry officer wrote:
."The French say, when speaking of a horse that shows restiveness, "il se defend" - he defends himself...There is much truth in this expression, and it is one that riders should constantly bear in mind, *for insubordination is most commonly the result of something having been demanded from the horse that it either did not know how to do or was unable to perform*...

...There is another thing to be considered with regard to the horse's character - *it loves to exercise its powers, and it possesses a great spirit of emulation; it likes variety of scene and amusement* ; and under a rider that understands how to indulge it in all this without overtaxing its powers, will work willingly to the last gasp,which is what entitles it to the name of a noble and generous animal...

..Horses don't like to be ennuye, and will rather stick at home than go out to be bored ; they like amusement, variety, and society : give them their share of these, but never in a pedantic way, and avoid getting into a groove of any kind, either as to time or place, especially with young animals. It is evident that all these things must be taken into account and receive due attention, whether it be our object to prevent or to get rid of some bad habit a horse may have acquired ; and a little reflection will generally suffice to point out the means of remedying something that, if left to itself, would grow into a confirmed habit, or if attacked with the energy of folly and violence, would suddenly culminate in the grand catastrophe of restiveness...

...Here, too, we find a practical hint for the treatment of full-grown horses that shy at particular objects and sounds, or object to passing certain spots. Treat them as the English trainer does his young ones, lead them about as described above, and reward them for their docility with a bit of bread, sugar, or something of the sort ; you will thus avoid all conflicts, the danger and evil consequences of which are enhanced a thousandfold if you attempt to mount your horse under such circumstances. Of course, when shyness arises from defective vision, which is often the case, this method will be of no avail.

-- On Seats and Saddles, by Francis Dwyer, Major of Hussars in the Imperial Austrian Service (1868)
.​The above quotes are closer to what I call "Natural Horsemanship" than what I see in Pat Parelli or Clinton Anderson, although those two might agree with the above quotes. Much of what I see in Parelli and Anderson, however well intended, is rooted in harsh dominance. Much round pen work is done in a spirit of breaking the horse's will, rather than shaping it. Baucher and Beudant, too, were both were entirely willing to "break" the will, rather than shape it.

In honesty, for all of MY good talk, I often resort to cussing and "Just DO it!" (Is that the Nike School of Riding?) It is easy to TALK about understanding a horse, and working WITH him, but much harder to actually do so! It is like raising kids. The theory is so much easier than the practice!

But while I dislike the marketing of the popular "Natural Horsemanship" trainers, I'm glad they have popularized the idea of working with the animal and trying to understand it. Unfortunately, their target audience for marketing is the person who hasn't been around horses long, who is overhorsed and/or afraid, and their offered solution doesn't address the root of the problem for those riders - *the need to become more confident by FIRST becoming better riders, AND the need to start with a horse who doesn't overwhelm them*. And yes, I write that from personal experience! *I've lived it*. I know exactly where the target audience is coming from, and I think many of the solutions pushed on DVDs and in clinics fail to address the cause of the problem.

Wanting to understand horses is great. Expecting to with your first horse...very do-able IF your first horse is the right sort of horse. And then, with time and plenty of "wet saddle blankets" under YOUR butt, you can safely expand your horizons. Lacking the right horse, what many of the followers of NH need is good instruction - but then, good instruction is hard to find, too! 

I read Parelli's first book cover to cover, and found almost nothing that I would consider "natural horsemanship".

I'll finish this rant with one of my favorite pictures, taken near the front lines during World War One. In its own way, it says a lot about natural horsemanship:








​


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

To me it is the never ending personal journey seeking and understanding the nature of the horse.


----------



## jimmyp (Sep 5, 2013)

To me natural horseman ship is a joke. there are bits and pieces of it that make sense, but for the most part they have taken the human need for "bonding" and having a "relationship' and figured out how to make a buck from folks who need to feel good about their "connection' to the horse. 

The things that folks are calling natural horsemanship and putting their name on, are the same things that have been done with horses since they became a tool rather than a food source. But, if you give it a name, sell a fancy halter or other "magical equipment" with it, now its an income.....

Jim


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> To me it is the never ending personal journey seeking and understanding the nature of the horse.


All well and good; the trouble is, that is not what the phrase has come to mean. It's come to be identified with a bunch of specific techniques created by some specific people and marketed heavily to a certain segment of the horse-owning population, along with associated gadgets. 

My own experience is limited to listening to and reading about people who have become very stuck in their training because they are religiously trying to follow the instructions and come up against very common challenges with no way to solve them, due to the limited options, and narrow understanding available in this method. Seems that the large majority of OPs in this subforum can be classified that way.

In the dog training world there are many parallel developments, so I'm familiar with how our particular culture right now seems to be creating a fertile ground for people who are extremely averse to firmly controlling another being, yet long for a connection with the animal world, to get taken for a ride -- literally and figuratively.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Avna said:


> All well and good; the trouble is, that is not what the phrase has come to mean. It's come to be identified with a bunch of specific techniques created by some specific people and marketed heavily to a certain segment of the horse-owning population, along with associated gadgets.
> 
> My own experience is limited to listening to and reading about people who have become very stuck in their training because they are religiously trying to follow the instructions and come up against very common challenges with no way to solve them, due to the limited options, and narrow understanding available in this method. Seems that the large majority of OPs in this subforum can be classified that way.
> 
> In the dog training world there are many parallel developments, so I'm familiar with how our particular culture right now seems to be creating a fertile ground for people who are extremely averse to firmly controlling another being, yet long for a connection with the animal world, to get taken for a ride -- literally and figuratively.


Call me a rebel!  but I don't care what it has come to mean, I agree that is unfortunate. Inevitable, but unfortunate. 

The question is what it means to me, which is all that really matters when it comes to my interaction with the horses I come in contact with. So I just keep trekkin' :cowboy:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

my trainer would never call herself a natural horsemanship trainer, yet that is probably the closest description of her approach. she is not training for a particular discipline. she is training the human to be clear to the hrose, and the horse to be relaxed and available to the human.

she uses almost NO tools, just a rope leadline/halter, and sometimes a stick (ANY sticklike thing will do) and a flag.

no surcingle, no boots, or tie downs, or martingales, or sliding boots, or gag bits, or hoof stacks or elevator bits, or stud chains or ?

talk about having / using fancy tools!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Tiny, same thing with my trainer. If you tried to pin him down as to what well known trainer his methods are most like he'll tell you "I'll tell you next lesson" Dang Vaquero types always talking in riddles they leave for you to figure out for yourself!

And ditto on the fancy tools!


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I think "Natural horsemanship" is a term used to coin the latest fad of this generation of horse people.

Nothing we do to our horses is natural. However I do strive to know how to communicate with my horses like a "lead mare" might and in a way they understand. I can see my success at it too, as being able to move my horses in situations without any tack to guide them - In the round pen I can make them go, stop, turn into me, guide them into a sidepass, movement of hips and forequarters - If I let three or four of my horses into the barn aisle loose, I can direct them each into their stalls without a rope. My good lesson horses can run around bareback and bridleless with me. To me that is not very impressive, it is simply understanding communication and hours and hours and hours of training and preparation. Nothing anyone else couldn't do given the appropriate tools.

As far as a "relationship" goes...Yeah, okay, I think my horses like me. I don't think it's some "Oh , Precious only loves me because I'm her human and I do only natural horsemanship..." BS, but when I go to the barn they nicker at me. They come to me to halter them. When I take the halter off and put the bridle on, they turn their heads to me and accept the bit. They don't pin their ears or swish their tails at me. Again, just something you accomplish by spending time with them.

"Natural Horsemanship" is something people chose to coin on because it attracted people who don't know anything about a relationship with a horse and it told them they can be the gentlest, kindest person in the world and have a superior relationship with their horse than anyone else and it would all be sunshine and daisies and rainbows in the horse world.

I'm just not into it.

Clinton Anderson though, he is my style. He is not afraid to get after one and really get results, which sometimes happens in horsemanship of any kind. He replicates what a herd really does, without the fuzzy wuzzy stuff. That I like. It's not all sunshine and rainbows out here.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Pat Parelli trademarked the term Natural Horse-Man-Ship. Bill Dorrance' reaction was "You did it. You gave it a name, this horsemanship thing. For 50 years my brother and I have been calling this 'it'. It's now got a name. It's natural horsemanship."

That doesn't mean the Dorrance brothers thought everything Parelli did was right. When Pat asked Tom one time what would make the best round pen Tom said "Chicken wire, for cowboys like you who are too strong in the arm and not strong enough in the head. With chicken wire, you won't put too much pressure on the horse."

I think for Parelli the term boils down to using techniques that make sense to the horse. He started as a bronc rider and a colt starter and his early methods were pretty rough. After five years of working for Troy Henry he concluded that most of the previous approaches he had seen to dealing with horses had often been cruel and ineffective, so he wanted to share a better way.

If you want to say that good horsemanship would be a better label than natural horsemanship, and that there has always been good horsemanship all the way back to Xenophon, I wouldn't argue. Unfortunately, good horsemanship is still not common.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I hadn't really heard about it until I came here 10 years ago and after quite a lot of research I honestly believe its little more than a money making machine
I didn't ever treat my ponies or horses like machines and although my grt grampa was born in the days when horses were very much work animals he didn't ever treat them like machines either. His cobs were all treated like individuals with respect and kindness. 
There were and still are people who are cruel to horses but NH will never change that mind set
Most of the NH stuff has been around for long before anyone called it NH so I fail to see why its considered a 'new' thing


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Joel Reiter said:


> Pat Parelli trademarked the term Natural Horse-Man-Ship. Bill Dorrance' reaction was "You did it. You gave it a name, this horsemanship thing. For 50 years my brother and I have been calling this 'it'. It's now got a name. It's natural horsemanship."
> 
> That doesn't mean the Dorrance brothers thought everything Parelli did was right. When Pat asked Tom one time what would make the best round pen Tom said "Chicken wire, for cowboys like you who are too strong in the arm and not strong enough in the head. With chicken wire, you won't put too much pressure on the horse."
> 
> ...


I would 'like' this for the chickenwire story alone!


----------



## Cowgirlupyup (Jan 31, 2016)

Well what I see as natural horsemanship, is like not using a chain or anything like that. Working with the horse not at horse. Something like this 



.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Good horsemanship is good horsemanship, whether you stick NH in front of it, or traditional, and the NH label does not make methods that use empathy towards the horse,.
\ exclusive to NH trainers, nor is all NH labelled training programs kind or better.
There are good and bad trainers in each.
NH label has just been applied as a marketing tool, in an age where organic, natural, has the subliminal message that it is better.I could not even be bothered to watch Pat parelli at this year's Mane Event, but I think I passed him, walking out to one of the large arenas, to watch horsemen that I have so much more respect for, like Steve Rother and Doug Mills
I liked their approach to colt starting. When you can take acolt that has had a total of 4 one hour sessions in the round pen, then ride him through a pattern, drag a log ( yes, Tiny,, riding with just a halter), lope that horse both ways, swinging a rope, then that is horsemanship, with that colt for the first time in large arena, with a huge crowd, getting his confidence and focus from that trainer. Doug Mills, in his time for free style, took that halter off, and rode that colt at a lope , all over that large arena, with nothing on his head. This is a colt that was bucking in the round pen just two days previous.
Steve swung both a rope and cracked a bull whip, while loping his colt, and then carried a flag. He calls himself the `horse teacher`and not NH trainer

This is an exaMPLE, of what he achieves in 4 days on acolt. Yes, sped up for the competition, but that horse is relaxed and moving free

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheHorseteacher


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Smilie said:


> Good horsemanship is good horsemanship, whether you stick NH in front of it, or traditional, and the NH label does not make methods that use empathy towards the horse,.
> \ exclusive to NH trainers, nor is all NH labelled training programs kind or better.
> There are good and bad trainers in each.
> NH label has just been applied as a marketing tool, in an age where organic, natural, has the subliminal message that it is better.I could not even be bothered to watch Pat parelli at this year's Mane Event, but I think I passed him, walking out to one of the large arenas, to watch horsemen that I have so much more respect for, like Steve Rother and Doug Mills
> ...



not sure what you mean singling me out, but that's cool.

I agree that good horsemanship is good horsemanship.

how long has the "Mane event" been going on?

could it be that the Mane Event's origin has any connection with the growth in popularity of so-called Natural horsemanship?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hi Tiny
Sorry, not meaning to single you out! Just tried to show that many trainers use techniques like your trainer, and don`t have the label NH attached
The Mane Event has been going on for , I think, at least ten years, and Is a hi light for me each year.
The colt starting challenge is just one aspect, as they also have clinics by various trainers in the two large arenas, plus all the horse shopping booths you could hope for!
There are also talks by equine nutritionists, dentists, saddle fitting demos,barefoot trimmers, farriers, and many other topics. One has to pick and chose, as the topics and events over lap

Here is some info, and the 4 trainers that took part this year

https://red-deer.maneeventexpo.com/clinicians/trainers-challenge/


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I am sure the Mane Event is a hoot. if I lived near it, I'd be there, for sure.


my point is that these sort of activities have only started happening as a result of the whole revolution in taking horse training 'to the people'. these sort of events are a by-product of the so-called "Naural" horsemanship revolution.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Xenophon wrote 'The Art of Horsemanship' back in 350 BC or so. So no, 'Natural Horsemanship' is neither a new or radical idea, and those who claim it is are completely misinformed.


Buck Brannaman despises the term, and many people consider him the ultimate horse whisperer. I have to agree with Buck; it's a stupid term designed to make people feel warm fuzzies about their 'special bond' with their horsie. Time, respect, good training, and proper discipline at the proper time are what form bonds, not 'magickal' tack, 'horsenality' garbage, or 'games'.


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

To me Natural Horsemanship is a way to separate empty nesters from their money. People act as if this hasn't always been around , but until Parelli named it, it was just called training a hoss. Ray Hunt was doing it in the 70's the Dorrance brothers in the 50's and 60's, My Grandfatheer was doing it in the 40's, John Solomon Rarey, was doing it in the 1850's. Hell, as speed racer points out Xenophon was writing about it before Christ. As it says in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> ...my point is that these sort of activities have only started happening as a result of the whole revolution in taking horse training 'to the people'. these sort of events are a by-product of the so-called "Naural" horsemanship revolution.


I'll have to disagree on this. Folks used to go watch effective trainers and riders demonstrate their ability, which was done in buildings designed specifically for it.

I think the big difference is that 100+ years ago, EVERYONE had to deal with horses in some fashion, so many who had no interest in them were forced to use them - for work. Now, many of us ride purely for the pleasure of being around horses. My approach to gaining a horse's trust may or may not be correct, but no working cowboy has the time to waste doing it my way. 

Of course, a lot of working cowboys have a zillion times more experience around horses than I do, and about the same amount more riding skill than I do, so they have options I don't have. But it was a working cowboy who did this to Trooper, so not all working cowboys have the sense God gives a goose:








​ 
To the extent that working with a horse or trying to understand a horse defines natural horsemanship, it has always existed.

OTOH, I spent 2 hours yesterday watching videos by Pat and Linda Parelli. Not everything they did or said was wrong, but plenty of it showed no understanding at all. The 3 people they were 'helping' didn't know how to saddle a horse. Linda told one her horse was cinchy, not because the owner had used a poor-fitting saddle, or saddled up wrong, but because the horse's 'horsenality' didn't like being hugged...or something like that. 

Pat Parelli, working with a "spooky horse" who was calmer than my horse's TURDS are, clearly viewed backing a horse up with a shaking lead line as a dominance thing - teaching him who the boss is. Smacking a horse in the face with the lead line and metal attachment isn't MY idea of working with a horse's nature! It might be an acceptable cue for backing, although I don't like it. I don't have to like a lot of things that work just fine. But there is nothing "natural" about smacking a horse's face to show him who the boss is - not when there are simple & QUIET ways of getting a horse to back up!

Dominance isn't a dirty word. Horses live in a society where dominance plays a big role. But there are dominant horses who are respected, and there are bully horses who are hated and whose influence extends only as far as their teeth can reach. I don't want MY dominance to be rooted in being a bully.

Bandit is the most submissive of my 3 horses. He is #3 of 3 in the corral. But oddly enough, if something strange is happening, he is the one the other two hide behind. He is the one expected to make decisions for them. And he accepts his role as decision-maker and protector, but an hour later either of the other 2 horses can chase him away from his food. The ways horses interact is obviously more complex than simply "He who bites hardest is the leader!"

I read a bunch of books last year about Custer's Last Stand. In one, there was a story by a guy who was split off, and found himself surrounded. He said he leaned forward and kissed his horse's neck, expecting to be dead within a minute. Moments later, the horse bolted, broke through, and by chance the man was reunited with others and survived. But what struck me was that a military guy freely admitted that what he expected to be his last act before dying consisted of kissing his horse goodbye!

And there is this 1895-ish story by Kipling:.
"But the Maltese Cat stood with his head down, wondering how many legs were left to him; and Lutyens watched the men and ponies pick themselves out of the wreck of the two goal-posts, and he patted the Cat very tenderly.

‘I say,’ said the captain of the Archangels, spitting a pebble out of his mouth, ‘will you take three thousand for that pony-as he stands?’

‘No, thank you. I’ve an idea he’s saved my life,’ said Lutyens...

...‘Hurrah! Bring him in,’ said the Archangels; and his _sais_, who was very happy indeed, patted the Maltese Cat on the flank, and he limped in to the blaze of light and the glittering uniforms, looking for Lutyens. He was used to messes, and men’s bedrooms, and places where ponies are not usually encouraged, and in his youth had jumped on and off a mess-table for a bet. So he behaved himself very politely, and ate bread dipped in salt, and was petted all round the table, moving gingerly; and they drank his health, because he had done more to win the Cup than any man or horse on the ground.

That was glory and honour enough for the rest of his days, and the Maltese Cat did not complain much when his veterinary surgeon said that he would be no good for polo any more. When Lutyens married, his wife did not allow him to play, so he was forced to be an umpire; and his pony on these occasions was a flea-bitten gray with a neat polo-tail, lame all round, but desperately quick on his feet, and, as everybody knew, Past Pluperfect Prestissimo Player of the Game."

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kipling/rudyard/days/chapter9.html​.
There have always been people who loved horses, and who understood their nature and worked with it. Maybe not in the same way I would, but then again, maybe better! And those who loved horses always gathered around to watch a master trainer doing his thing.

"_Therefore, everywhere - out-of-doors or in the haute ecole - success with horses is to him who applies this maxim of Baucher...

*'Let him think that he is our master, then he is our slave.'* There dwells an eternal equestrian truth!_"


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

I've read Xenophon's _The Art of Horsemanship_ a couple of times (also his _Anabasis_, which is a fascinating look at the ancient world and should be made into a movie). I still find clinician live demos and DVDs to be very helpful. My grandfather and my father were both way too busy trying to scratch out a living to spend the time they wanted to with the horses they loved.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'll add this about bonding - in the military, I was told "shared misery" created a bond. A real bond doesn't come from a round pen. It comes from man & horse being challenged together, and prevailing together. That is why many cowboys or troopers or lowly trail riders have a strong bond with a horse, and why many "empty nesters" will fail to find it in a round pen or using a carrot stick.

It can happen in a dressage arena, a polo field, a ranch, or a neighborhood road. Working as a team to do something worthwhile creates a bond, as much of one as the personalities of the people and horses allow. Not a round pen, or poking their sides and calling it a game. It requires an element of risk to the rider, like the polo player in the story above "_spitting a pebble out of his mouth_". Without shared risk of failure, there is no shared achievement of success. Horses have "horse sense", and cannot be fooled forever.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I don't think members of the horse industry will ever come to a consensus about this term.

To me, it's become a ploy.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

All of the folks thinking riding tackless is magical don't seem to understand that those horses were all trained under saddle with bits and bridles _before_ they could advance to tackless. It's an advanced riding form, not an end all-be all way of riding. 


It's impressive, but it's not the first form of training. Horses have to be well trained and already respectful of their owners/trainers before they can go completely tackless, and if you show up at a ride or show and expect to ride Pookie tackless, you're going to be sent home, and rightfully so.


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

Speed Racer said:


> if you show up at a ride or show and expect to ride Pookie tackless, you're going to be sent home, and rightfully so.


 I used to host or sponsor several big ( like 100+ riders) trail rides a year, if you showed up at one of mine bridleless or even bareback, you didn't ride.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I think what has been marketed as “Natural Horsemanship” fills a niche in the horse world. Not everyone was blessed to grow up surrounded by horses and riding. Not everyone was blessed to grow up with parents or a grandfather/grandmother who had a farm with using horses. If you were, that is wonderful and you are very lucky to have had that knowledge imparted to you. 

With the urbanization of society, many people these days are starting from square one. Natural Horsemanship gurus may be the very first exposure someone has ever had to an experienced horse person who can explain clearly and concisely in terms that are easy for a non-horsey person to understand, how to gain obedience from a horse.

….but that is only the beginning and a lot of people get “stuck”, never moving beyond the commercialized training because it is so accessible and provides step by step instructions. 

They never look beyond and experiment on their own, perhaps out of fear of screwing up or a misplaced idea that there is only one way or even because they have seen results and so take the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude.

HOWEVER, the same thing can happen to experienced people who shun any ideas that differ from the way they have always done things, whether they learned that from grandma, pappy, experience or a DVD.

The danger isn’t how the ideas are learned in the first place, the danger is in getting “stuck” in what should be a continuous journey of ever expanded learning for a better way. 

As Tom Dorrance said often said when asked about how to get a horse to do something, "Well, that depends..."


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

To me it means a little extra cash in my pocket fixing horses some people mess up.


----------



## jenkat86 (May 20, 2014)

To me there is nothing about horsemanship that is natural...for the horse or the man.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

What mostly 'bugs' me is the idea that some people have that anything that isn't NH involves some form cruelty


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> ...The danger isn’t how the ideas are learned in the first place, the danger is in getting “stuck” in what should be a continuous journey of ever expanded learning for a better way.
> 
> As Tom Dorrance said often said when asked about how to get a horse to do something, "Well, that depends..."


Well said! I prefer books to DVDs, but one still needs to TEST those ideas. The stories great riders tell aren't meant to be rules written in stone, but ideas that expand our horizons. And some of the dumbest things I've heard about riding have come from live instructors on the ground.

Bandit had his third ride bitless today. We worked on good turns and good stops and good transitions, only at a walk and trot, and 95% in our little arena. There is no way he is ready to go bitless on a trail, and even less so on paved roads in a neighborhood. But when (if?) he gets there, it will be based on habits of obedience and trust built using a bit. If we get there, it won't be due to our magical bond, but paying our dues and doing the training. And there is no certainty *I'll* be able to train him well enough to get there. If not...riding with a bit is not cruel. Not unless one makes it cruel via stupidity and thoughtlessness.

Oh - and I will NEVER try riding him bridleless. I just don't see the point.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I myself wonder how much my dislike of "natural horsemanship" stems from people who believe it is a path to their passionate dream riding a very tall very long-maned very hairy legged very high-necked horse through crashing waves with nothing but a rope around its neck. 

My apologies to all those who feel this is the apotheosis of horsemanship but it really chaps me.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Oliver's first ride on the trail (and it was a cacophony of chaos with 13 horses and riders, dogs the whole 9 yards) was bitless with a bosal and mecate.....he rode as well in it that day as he did in a snaffle months later......but he also had four months of some pretty picky training (including groundwork) before we did that. It worked for us, so we went with it. 

It wasn't to prove some point about bits being cruel, it was a step in a phase in his bridle horse training. The Vaquero traditions that create a bridle horse provided much of the ideas for what has become "Natural horsemanship". (though NH, as well as many "other" modern training techniques threw out many of them, such as the idea of Manana and went to four hours of training and ride, mostly IMO as a crowd/client pleaser). 

My 12 yo daughter has ridden her green horse bitless in a Dr. Cooks from day one because at two, according to x-rays her horse had a cracked jaw (which had healed) and a cracked unerrupted adult tooth, so he was trained and ridden bitless starting at age 3. At five she still rides him in a rope halter and bareback when she jumps on for a quick ride between school, homework and dinner. Again, not some ethical statement, it is practical. 

JMO but it is just as prejudiced to assume that a bitted horse is being treated cruelly, as it is to assume a bitless horse is ridden that way to make a statement. Sometime you just do it because what works for you and your horse.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Natural Horsemanship, The Promise:










Natural Horsemanship, the Reality:










*MY* Natural Horsemanship, which is often neither natural nor horsemanship, but is OK for my horse & I:










No one is ever going to make a mythical movie about Bandit and I strolling on an ATV trail. Oh well. The longer I own him, the more I seem to like him. 

Natural Horsemanship, as Bandit sees it, between bites (today):


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I've thought a bit more about this thread since I've posted.

Something that's interesting to me is the concern I've noticed people have for others and their horses. 
There is a lot of judgement of the commercialized NH (myself included), as it has become, but really what does it matter? Provided people (and their horses, of course) aren't getting hurt, they're welcome to wave as many carrot sticks and play as many games as they see fit xD It's really no concern of mine, or anyone else's...

Until they start asking for opinions or help, of course xD
There is a caveat to everything.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Zexious said:


> I've thought a bit more about this thread since I've posted.
> 
> Something that's interesting to me is the concern I've noticed people have for others and their horses.
> There is a lot of judgement of the commercialized NH (myself included), as it has become, but really what does it matter? Provided people (and their horses, of course) aren't getting hurt, they're welcome to wave as many carrot sticks and play as many games as they see fit xD It's really no concern of mine, or anyone else's...
> ...


The special problem with NH is that those who run into problems are so averse to taking any advice which isn't just more NH. That gets old.

It's a philosophy vs reality issue which I see in all the romantic types of animal training.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Meh, the OP asked for opinions and got them. If they're less than flattering, them's the breaks.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Zexious said:


> ...There is a lot of judgement of the commercialized NH (myself included), as it has become, but really what does it matter?...It's really no concern of mine, or anyone else's...


After watching two hours of Parelli video yesterday, I view it as false advertising and deceit.

I spent my first 3 years riding bitless, because "Bits are cruel". That is part of how Mia GOT messed up. Part of it was her nature, and part my lack of experience, but she was also a horse who really flourished when she discovered (with my help) curb bits and this advice from a book:








​ 
"Living the Dream" was more a nightmare for Mia, who needed understanding, trust - and firm, clear direction! Trying to be "natural" almost killed us both. I discovered via pain and an injured back and a lot of scary happenings that left me more afraid of horses the truth of this rule: 

*Ride the Training, Not the Bond!*​ 
From what I've seen with a small handful of horses, any "bond" you get from groundwork or round pens falls apart at times like these:








​
And Mia taught me, painfully, that a horse can be totally confident in you when you are on the ground, and forget that you are there when you are on her back.

I also view the attitude that natural horsemanship was discovered in 1990, and all riding prior to that was cruel and abusive, slanderous to the many people who HAVE cared about horses and ridden well for as long as humans have ridden horses. I've had a person on this forum, a few years back, tell me there was no reason to read anything written before 2000 because '_people didn't understand horses back then_' - which might surprise the folks on this thread who were actually RIDING prior to 2000 AD!


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I think a lot of people coin the term NH as "Gentle" as though you will never need to discipline your horse.

That's just not true. Look at the herd dynamic, the most natural thing for a horse. If the lead mare asks for something and the subordinate horse does not respond, she will bite, kick, strike, etc until that horse respects her. Once she does, it's over, and they move on. Boundaries.

But people freak out if you tap your horse on the hind with a whip.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I’m trying to find an article that I ran across a while back where some of the people who worked along side Tom Dorrance (probably the closest thing I have to reaching guru status for me) for many years on his ranch, spoke of him after his death. 

One of them mentioned how often people really misunderstood what Tom meant and gave the example of “Make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard.” The author states that what Tom meant by that is completely misused. With Tom, there was no additional punishment such as circling or backing up involved with making the wrong thing hard. 
Ray hunt (Dorrance’s protégé) put it this way.

“You ‘open the door’ to what you want him to do, and simultaneously ‘bar the way’ to what you don’t want—by making it uncomfortable or difficult. Then the horse can figure out and choose the option you want.” 

Easy to interpret uncomfortable or difficult to your own idea of what that means.

I watched one time when we were just starting to train Oliver to cues where my trainer sat there and held the cue as is, as soft as possible, for minutes without increasing pressure until Oliver found that open door all for himself. That softness was the starting point and lead to further softening as time went on until some cues have become feather light (he still has a long way to go). 

Could he have been made to find it faster by adding punishment for a wrong answer? Most likely yes, but then is that really making my idea his idea or is it forcing my idea down his throat? I ponder these things. 

The concept of opening doors and _waiting_ for the horse to find it is the Vaquero concept that Dorrance was talking about and what IMO was supposed to be the difference in training to the horse’s nature, rather than what it has become. Probably not a practical approach for most horse owners or trainers for whom time is money. 

As many things, what a metamorphosis that phrase has undergone once it was sent through the marketing wringer!


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

bsms

what possessed you to watch two hours of Parelli? you already know what you think of him.

I know I would find it irritating, so I'm gonna keep my two hours.

I expect my level of closed mindedness is just about on a par with the average horse person, as expressed from all sides here.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

bsms said:


> I've had a person on this forum, a few years back, tell me there was no reason to read anything written before 2000 because '_people didn't understand horses back then_'


The real problem with so-called natural horsemanship is a huge share of its adherents have barely scratched the surface of comprehending it, yet their opinions are set in stone. Training a horse takes knowledge and skill and effort and time. People are lazy and busy and ignorant and incompetent. It's an unfortunate combination. The results give natural horsemanship a bad name.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

It undoubtedly is the people that are so terribly blinkered by their perception of NH that give it a bad name, the one's that become too judgmental, too obsessed, too stubborn to accept that just maybe what they're doing isn't working, but they always seem to be the one's that make the most noise which explains why its that way


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

@bsms -- "false advertising and deceit" 

You can find this in any facet of any industry.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^ Does that make it wrong to discuss it? Or make it right to do it? The guy who coined the term "natural horse-man-ship" and literally wrote the book on it is arguably its best example of why many are turned off by "Natural Horse-man-ship"...


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

tinyliny said:


> bsms
> 
> what possessed you to watch two hours of Parelli? you already know what you think of him.
> 
> I know I would find it irritating, so I'm gonna keep my two hours.


we do it as a drinking game


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

@bsms -- Not wrong at all; I was just sharing my opinion on the matter. 
You know, discussing.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

In the end, Natural horsemanship means zip to me.
There have always been great horsemen throughout the ages , that trained horses and had every bit as much empathy as many of these modern NH professed trainers.
The main difference was that many of these horsemen got lost, over shadowed by methods used to make horses useful, for anyone, in a day and age when man truly relied on horse power. That means that 'everyone' in those days had horses, whether they even liked horses, or even wanted to have a bond with them
Thus, training for the masses, if you wish, included methods that made that horse useful asp, to till the fields, get from point a to point b, work the mines, ect
Today, horses are mainly a luxury, for recreational purposes, with at least most people that own horses, also liking/loving horses.
Therefore, those people/trainers that in the past, were out numbered by those that just made horses into useful tools, using whatever method to get that done, are now coming into the own, because people thirsty for horse training knowledge today, want also a bond and connection with that horse, versus just having a tool to get them from point a to b, or to work a field


----------



## kaimanawas (Apr 16, 2015)

To me Natural Horsemanship is a way of connecting and understanding your horse better. A lot of people don't like natural horsemanship just because it scares them. They might be weary of it because they don't know the basics of it and they have no understanding of it. New things scare people and for some people that new thing may be Natural Horsemanship.
The way Natural Horsemanship is used varies between people as do clothes. Not all people fit the same size and not all people like the same style or fashion. I think that natural horsemanship comes around when your partnership with your horse on ground and ridden is 50-50 and you start trusting your horse to choose the right path because of footing and generally allowing your horse to have input into when he's had enough and when he's hungry. All these things are usually decided by man but the truth is that man may know a little bit but until you start listening to your horse and reading his signs you just can't see the hole picture. When you choose to do Natural Horsemanship with your horse you choose to let your horse have a say and you will listen to his point of view.


----------



## kaimanawas (Apr 16, 2015)

I hope that people don't take offense at what I have said but mearly take it as my oppinion.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If that is natural horsemanship, then it is very old and not limited to horses:

"You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing." - Deuteronomy 25:4...about 1000 BC.

"The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." - Proverb 12:10

Xenophon, writing around 400 BC, was clearly aware of working with a horse's personality, although he never called it a horsenality. What tends to irritate people is when it is sold as a new idea...


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

bsms said:


> , although he never called it a horsenality. What tends to irritate people is when it is sold as a new idea...


 when I hear/read the phrase my horse is a ____ brain ___vert, I quit taking the person seriously.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

kaimanawas said:


> To me Natural Horsemanship is a way of connecting and understanding your horse better. A lot of people don't like natural horsemanship just because it scares them. They might be weary of it because they don't know the basics of it and they have no understanding of it. New things scare people and for some people that new thing may be Natural Horsemanship.
> The way Natural Horsemanship is used varies between people as do clothes. Not all people fit the same size and not all people like the same style or fashion. I think that natural horsemanship comes around when your partnership with your horse on ground and ridden is 50-50 and you start trusting your horse to choose the right path because of footing and generally allowing your horse to have input into when he's had enough and when he's hungry. All these things are usually decided by man but the truth is that man may know a little bit but until you start listening to your horse and reading his signs you just can't see the hole picture. When you choose to do Natural Horsemanship with your horse you choose to let your horse have a say and you will listen to his point of view.


New things don't scare me and the principles of NH are not new.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

_


6gun Kid said:



when I hear/read the phrase my horse is a ____ brain ___vert, I quit taking the person seriously.

Click to expand...


"Right brain horses when they have saddling or girthing issues its because they don't trust and they tend to worry. Right brain Introverts they tend to be very claustrophobic, so they are naturally girthy horses. You just have to go really slow with them. Left brain horses is more like "I don't want you doing anything to me...Once the relationship improves, that is gone_"

Lesson with Linda Girth Issues - at the 4 minute mark.






Me? If my horse blocked me with his nose, his nose would get pushed out of the way. Naturally.


----------



## semper (Apr 29, 2016)

kaimanawas said:


> To a lot of people the idea of Natural Horsemanship means different things. Like to some it means a partnership with there horsev(that's me) and to some it might mean a way to talk to the horse directly through body language (that's me as well). I would love to hear what Natural Horsemanship means to you. In this thread nothing is wrong.:faceshot:


 
It means a clever marketing ploy that I liken to a religion.

It is a way for individuals to make money teaching ideas that have been around for thousands of years and remarketing them. It is a way for these people to draw followers in and keep them spending money, through the use of "tools" that are required and a series of "steps" to learn and follow.
As far as I can see the only Natural thing about it is the fact it is a form of horsemanship that has been practiced so many thousands of years. The synthetic ropes, halters etc....are certainly not natural and add (in a small way) to the carbon footprint on the world.

At its best it has helped a few middle aged woman (cynical me) and others get out and do more with their horses than just pat and groom them. No, seriously, done well it has helped many people worldwide to form a better relationship with the horse they work with.
At its worst, well just say, the reasons are there in plain view....most horse dentists will not touch a NH trained horse where I live, it has given incompetent people the confidence to go out and ruin very good horses. I have worked with a few very screwed up horses that people have tried to practice NH on. Given time and calm, sensible handling these have come right.
It has made more than a few people question their ability (generally these people were good horse people to begin with and became bad from trying to follow an airy fairy system and feeling inadequate because they did not seem to do it just the manual tells them to.


The religious fervour created around the market has clouded the fact that for 5000 odd years, a large number of people have had great/excellent relationships with their horses without buying special halters and leads and ropes and sticks and whips and saddles and tie up rings and all the other gumph.


The way I see it, much knowledge has been lost in the short period of time since the car has taken over as the main form of transport worldwide. The "teachers" (showmen) of this are filling a gap that would have once come from parental knowledge passed on. (good on them if they can make a buck, just remember there is nothing new in the infomation they sell)
There have always been BAD horsemen/women/children. There have always been AVERAGE horsemen/women/children. There have always been GOOD horsemen/women/children. There have always been a few EXCELLENT horsemen/women/children.......and there always will be.


Hats off to those who wish to practice this religion. Many of them genuinely have the welfare of the horse at heart and are trying to improve their lot in life and save them from incompetent handlers by educating the handlers. Please just remember that the horse/human relationship has been around a since humans hunted horses for food and NH itself has been around what...30 years? 
People must have had some pretty good knowledge in all that tim. the best hunters would have been the ones who studied and understood the herd dynamics and how individual horses behaved. Sadly much Knowledge dies each time a great horseperson dies, but some gets passed on or re-learnt from trial and error.

That is all these people are doing is passing on knowledge, but making people pay through their noses to get it and making them feel the need to keep returning for more (the next "level") so they can reach the unnatainable "heaven" with their horse. Once apon a time this knowledge was free to just the locals around the area the person lived. Transport systems did not allow for the travel that modern "teachers" do to reach out to their disciples. The odd showman has always been around, in more recent history Rarey was one of them.


At its best, just like religion is does no harm and may even help a some people and their horses to form a closer and worthwhile relationship, it helps a some earn a living either those who teach it or those who pick up the peices if things go wrong. At its worst, just like relegion it can cause harm to the relationship between, and the sanity of both horse and human. It can make them feel obligated to spend more and more money when often they cannot afford to.
Just like religion, and politics it should maybe not be discussed in polite society?? (Just joking!!:wink






PS, What do I know anyway?


----------



## semper (Apr 29, 2016)

I had a weblink in my post that did not appear. Would there be some reason why I wonder?


I will try again, if unsuccessful, it is about a recent Australian study done which has found (a certain proponent's) round penning methods may well cause more harm than good to the psychy of the horse. Interesting that methods which many of us have felt uncomfortable about doing/watching, are now showing under scientific behavioural scrutiny to be flawed.


Rethink urged of Monty Roberts' horse-training method - News - Horsetalk.co.nz


----------



## my2geldings (Feb 18, 2008)

To me its learning how to communicate the way horses do, to better my training and communication with my horses.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hate to say it, but we all have our own form of “micro-horsey religions”. 

How many times have you been around people who say “Don’t feed your horse that junk! I use XYZ brand and it is so much better, just look at your horse and then look at mine.” OR “No. You are tying that cinch off all wrong, use this knot it looks neater.” OR “You know, your really shouldn’t ride your horse outside the arena, he’ll get bad habits” OR, my personal recent favorite that came from an old timer “You don’t ever ride a black horse with spurs.”

And having been on the receiving end of such unsolicited advice, what is your most common response to it? Maybe a polite "thank-you I'll have to give that a try next time" but then you never do because truth be told, you are happy with the status quo even if someone else isn't.

We all have ways of doing things that someone somewhere out there will tell you is all wrong and is going to irreparably screw up your horse. Doesn't matter that your particular horse is responding well, its just wrong.

Are there NH enforces walking around always willing to jump right into your business? Yep, and there are anti NH enforcers walking around as well who are perfectly willing to do the same with an added eye roll thrown in free of charge. 

Where either camp becomes a problem is when you become willing to automatically accept or reject a concept out of hand because of the "group" the person who suggested it has been put in. 

That is what is called prejudice. Pre-judgement. Not considering things on their own merit but instead accepting or rejecting it based upon which group or person said it. That has become incredibly common today in politics and religions of all veins, including devout equestrianism.  

Whether that advice is coming from a NH guru or the old timer up the road, if you reject it without thought or contemplation, fail to ask questions and then, reject it without having actually engaged your brain for a brief moment, that is the epitome of being narrow minded.

Secondly, talk about gadgets! Tie downs, pants with grippy fabric, sticky seats, draw reins and specific bits that give more control, this halter, that halter, these reins, this helmet, that saddle, this spur and that stirrup shape. Horse people are gadget-a-haulics quite often searching for that quick fix. 

In short, I really don’t see much of a difference between one group or the other; we all have our ways about us and are slow or down right resistant to give any others a real consideration much less a try.


----------



## semper (Apr 29, 2016)

*Reiningcatsanddogs*, what a fantastic post. Thank you for your reasoned logic.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Already said but the basic principles of NH aren't even remotely new in fact the old traditional ways of breaking and training horses that involve spending a lot of time on groundwork and treating each horse as an individual go back centuries - if anything is 'new' its the fast track production line methods that were (and still are) used to get horses into ranch work as quickly as possible

The new dictionary that's grown out of NH are either words given to practices that no one really needed words for before - desensitizing, sacking out, imprinting are simply 'getting your horse used to stuff' - what level you go too to do that is really down to the person doing it and the horse but none of that is new
The other things like left brain/right brain are kind of pointless phrases used to sell books and an 'image' because those labels mean nothing at all in the greater scheme of things. What matters is that you recognize the things that your horse struggles with and deal with them in the most effective way.
The majority of horses that dislike the girth have a problem that's nothing at all to do with right or left brain


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

To me, NH is about what it's NOT.


It's not treating a horse as if it's a machine. 
It's not "breaking" a horse by riding it until it can't buck any more.
It's not about making a horse submit, without regard to its own safety.
It's not about blaming the horse.


These are attitudes I've grown up with, and still see around me today.

I guess NH is a lot about liking horses for what they are.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Beling said:


> To me, NH is about what it's NOT.
> 
> 
> It's not treating a horse as if it's a machine.
> ...


None of the above is even slightly limited to NH though. These are things that are widely taught in my part of the world, and they don't call it NH. I think they just call it horsemanship. If the choice is between Parelli-style training and what you are describing as "what it's not", that not a lot of choice there. Many people here are strongly influenced by the Dorrances (this is where they lived) and their students now teaching, but they don't call it NH.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

I would find it more helpful if people talking about Natural Horsemanship would name names. If you're talking about Parelli, say so. If you're talking about Richard Winters or Chris Cox or Stacy Westfall or Mark Rashid or Clinton Anderson, none of them apply that label to what they teach. Furthermore, all the people who want to ride bareback and bridle free on the trail are on their own -- I have never come across a clinician that advocates that fairyland fantasy, so I'd love to have someone point me to anyone who teaches it.

There's a current post on another thread by a person asking if a Monty Roberts halter will cure her horse's trailer loading problem. I hope Monty Roberts hasn't ever made that claim. If he has, shame on him. I have a couple of Clinton Anderson rope halters and a lead rope with some other big name on it, maybe Buck Branaman. Nothing magic about any of them but all of them are superior quality to 90% of the stuff in the tack store and the discount prices I paid were quite competitive. Clinton Anderson spends a lot of time pimping his products during his presentations, but I've never heard him say his halter or his stick or his lead rope will train your horse. You can talk about how that stuff is a ripoff, but the funny thing is you can't find anything of equal quality for less.

And one other thing. Yes, we all know people who spent money on clinicians and their horses are a mess. And that never happens to people who spend their money on trainers, right?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

My current reins were bought from Parelli's website. Very good quality at a competitive price. But I don't own a Parelli saddle, nor will I.

However, I did buy a used Clinton Anderson saddle, made by Martin. If my horse needed FQHBs, I'd still be using it. But a Semi-QH Bars horse is a poor match for a Full QH Bar saddle, so it is sitting in the closet. I probably ought to sell it. It is a very good saddle.

But I didn't buy them BECAUSE they were Parelli reins, or a Clinton Anderson saddle. It wasn't the name that attracted me.

As for the training...I've watched a few Parelli videos and found it painful. He coined the term "Natural Horse-man-ship" - the title of his book back in the 90s - and his idea of a "spooky horse" and mine differ dramatically. I'd suggest flushing his "Horse-nality Analysis" too. I think "Join-Up" is a fraud, and I've seen too much emphasis on ground work that seems to never end up in riding.

I guess what I really resent about NH is the idea that it is new. I've been told Pat Parelli and others admit it is not, but the books I've read sure seem to present it as something new. Pat's 1993 book is...full of Pat! But I've seen stuff written 150+ years ago teaching people to work WITH a horse's nature, and not against it. It is a very normal approach for anyone who enjoys being around horses.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Tom Dorrance is the man anyone who has gone down the path of using a horse's nature to train will eventually run across. If you study the idea, I mean really learn, not from one guru or the other but all of them, all roads lead back to Tom, the Vaqueros, the Iberian Pennisula and so-on and so forth. Horsemanship is like playing telephone in that it morphs and changes over the centuries and generations often based in goals, societal norms, and the eye of the beholder who places an individual emphasis on certain aspects that they personally find most useful. 

Excerpt from interview:
Tom: “When I was born, I was very small and wasn’t expected to live. But I slept good and ate good and I’m still around. So I didn’t have a lot of power to manhandle a horse; still don’t. Don’t even try.”

Larry: “So your approach was to do what?”

Tom: “Try to find out a way that I could present myself to the horse or to be understandable to the horse. Instead of having an end to a turmoil, I’d try to work things out so that the horse would be happy and I would be happy. I found out that when that gets to working, they’ll work their heart out for you. I’m not a believer in punishment to get the horse to respond.”

Therein lies the problem that a lot of people have with the concept of what Dorrance taught and what spilled fourth into what many think of as "natural horsemanship". 

Without punishment how the heck do you get a horse to do what you want it to do? It must be voodoo mumbo jumbo and is a ridiculous concept that leads to spoiled horses. I suppose in the hand of the uneducated, it does and could. It also leads to a misunderstanding and misapplication by those who employ more behavioral based methods. 

No, what Dorrance advocated is not new. The difference between then and now is that people who practiced this sort of thing back in Old Europe were occasionally burnt at the stake for practicing it. The belief was that communicating with animals was witchcraft and sacrilegious. Dominance, physical force and not communication were what trained animals.

A much bigger revolution in society generally was advent of behaviorism and its use of classical conditioning (Pavlov 1849-1936) and operant conditioning (B.F. Skinner) which emerged in the early twentieth century changed the way people viewed teaching and learning. Through either well timed punishment or reward even an unintelligent animal could be made to comply, even though they didn't have the mental capability to choose. That was scientific, everything else was hear-say and outdated. 

Behavior conditioning does work, but it often removes from the consideration things such as individual differences, establishing communication, differences in cognitive processes and emotion in lieu of Stimulus-response, reward-punishment. This said, it does have its place. This is the world that Dorrance was born into in 1910.

I’m not going to go into all of the details, but in the times he grew up, we were doing some horrible things to PEOPLE not just animals in the name of science and the betterment of society as a whole.

Even though many of the concepts he later taught took their roots in very old ideas (training methods of the Iberian Peninsula brought to America by the Spainards and subsequently influenced by the Spiritual views of Native Americans, which was “new”), in the name of science and modernization, they had fallen out use by the 1970’s when Dorrance’s methods started to re-spread via the likes of Ray Hunt and others. 

How many of you own a pressure canner? How many of you know how to preserve your own food? You don't need to because you can just buy it in the grocery store. Disuse leads to skills being forgotten in one or two generations.

Now back to the concept of “I’m not a believer in punishment to get a horse to respond.” So how do you get a horse to respond without using at least the threat of punishment for non-compliance? 

BTW, Dorrance, according to his wife, never owned a horse in all the years she knew him. Dorrance believed that a horse by its very nature seeks cooperation, safety, peace. You just needed to learn how to offer the horse what he seeks in a way the horse understands the offer so that he can choose for himself  to take you up on it and then the need for punishment is eliminated from the eqation. 

He believed that with the right approach, you could get the horse to give to you willingly, without creating fear, without punishment, without causing pain. This is the concept of using the nature of the horse to create willingness. Sounds fantastical doesn’t it? But it works. The problem isn’t the idea, it is us.

“The slower you go the quicker you’ll find it” -Ray hunt

We are hurried, rushed, impatient and obsessed with our wants, our needs and our timelines be it a show or a sale or wanting to put the horse on the payroll. As a matter of practicality we work on our timeline, not the horse's. 

If there is one thing that I think was the most important message that Dorrance wanted people to understand and Buck Brannaman carries it through today, is that it is in giving TO the horse without ego, without a need to "win", without our preconceived expectations, that we will receive the most in return. That doesn’t commercialize well because most people, as predators can’t get there. 

As Brannaman says ““Your horse is a mirror to your soul, and sometimes you may not like what you see. Sometimes, you will.” 

That is a hard pill for people to swallow.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> ...No, what Dorrance advocated is not new. The difference between then and now is that people who practiced this sort of thing back in Old Europe were occasionally burnt at the stake for practicing it. The belief was that communicating with animals was witchcraft and sacrilegious. Dominance, physical force and not communication were what trained animals...
> 
> ...Even though many of the concepts he later taught took their roots in very old ideas (training methods of the Iberian Peninsula brought to America by the Spainards and subsequently influenced by the Spiritual views of Native Americans, which was “new”), in the name of science and modernization, they had fallen out use by the 1970’s when Dorrance’s methods started to re-spread via the likes of Ray Hunt and others...


Disagree. Why?

_The French say, when speaking of a horse that shows restiveness, "il se defend" - he defends himself...There is much truth in this expression, and it is one that riders should constantly bear in mind, for insubordination is most commonly the result of something having been demanded from the horse that it either did not know how to do or was unable to perform...

...There is another thing to be considered with regard to the horse's character - it loves to exercise its powers, and it possesses a great spirit of emulation; it likes variety of scene and amusement ; and under a rider that understands how to indulge it in all this without overtaxing its powers, will work willingly to the last gasp,which is what entitles it to the name of a noble and generous animal...

..Horses don't like to be ennuye, and will rather stick at home than go out to be bored ; they like amusement, variety, and society : give them their share of these, but never in a pedantic way, and avoid getting into a groove of any kind, either as to time or place, especially with young animals. It is evident that all these things must be taken into account and receive due attention, whether it be our object to prevent or to get rid of some bad habit a horse may have acquired ; and a little reflection will generally suffice to point out the means of remedying something that, if left to itself, would grow into a confirmed habit, or if attacked with the energy of folly and violence, would suddenly culminate
in the grand catastrophe of restiveness...

...Here, too, we find a practical hint for the treatment of full-grown horses that shy at particular objects and sounds, or object to passing certain spots. Treat them as the English trainer does his young ones, lead them about as described above, and reward them for their docility with a bit of bread, sugar, or something of the sort ; you will thus avoid all conflicts, the danger and evil consequences of which are enhanced a thousandfold if you attempt to mount your horse under such circumstances. Of course, when shyness arises from defective vision, which is often the case, this method will be of no avail.

----------------------------------------

Bolting. The first step to be taken is to ascertain why the horse bolts. A nervous and excitable temperament is sometimes the cause, and the only remedy will be quiet and judicious treatment...

...The first impulse of the great majority of riders whose horses bolt is, to put a sharper bit into their mouths, or at least to shorten the curb, and perhaps rig the horse out with some sort of martingal or running-reins that gives them a good hold of the head, to secure which more effectually they plant their feet firmly in the stirrups, probably at the same time throwing their own weight as far back as possible towards the horse's loins. Energy is an admirable thing, but the energy of stupidity seldom avails much ; and the above plan of proceeding is nearly sure to make matters worse, and convert a terrified animal into a vicious one. For whether the anguish the poor horse endeavours to escape from has its seat in the hind quarters or in the head and neck, severe bitting is sure to aggravate it, and a rude hard hand will do the same. The best, in fact the only, remedy for a bolter is, a very carefully fitted and well adjusted bit, a perfectly painless curb, a light hand, and last, but not least, a very firm steady seat, somewhat forward with horses that have weak hind quarters...

...Let us take the case of a horse running away in a field or open space, in the first instance, as being more easy to deal with. Here the principal object must be to take your horse off the straight line and on to a circle at first, of course, a wide one, but by degrees gradually narrowing. On a circle one has room enough even for the tiring process, seeing that it never ends, but the thing is to know how to get and keep the horse on to it. In the first place, then, it requires simply coolness and self-possession sufficient to enable the rider to sit well down in his saddle, bringing his legs well back and keeping his body upright the legs being required there to regulate the action of the horse's hind legs in the manner already described, whilst the upright position of the body affords a basis from which the arms can work. Next, instead of pulling a dead pull on both reins alike, the rider must take intermittent pulls on the one at the side he wishes to turn towards, gradually increasing the strength of the pull, and then as gradually relaxing to begin again...

...The circle affords, however, not merely an opportunity for avoiding dangerous obstacles ; its great value is, that it also enables the rider, by gradually obtaining command over his horse, to demonstrate to the latter the utter futility of its attempt to get rid of him by running away, and that, too, without violence or severity. One single attempt at bolting away, if taken advantage of in this manner by a judicious rider, may prove the means of effectually subduing a troublesome animal...

...Rearing would occur much less frequently if it were well understood that it is almost always the last stage of disobedience, and very seldom if ever the first. In fact, its occurrence is evidence of injudicious management of some kind, either from untrained horses being brought into positions for which they are as yet unfitted, or from something being demanded of them that was beyond their power ; or from the rider not knowing how to recognize and subdue the very first symptoms of disobedience; or, finally, from his using violent and intemperate methods of doing so._

*On Seats and Saddles, by Francis Dwyer, Major of Hussars in the Imperial Austrian Service (1868)*

That was in Austria, and long before Tom Dorrance was born. And notice this phrase:

_"...Here, too, we find a practical hint for the treatment of full-grown horses that shy at particular objects and sounds, or object to passing certain spots. Treat them as the English trainer does his young ones, lead them about as described above, and reward them for their docility with a bit of bread, sugar, or something of the sort ; you will thus avoid all conflicts..."_

Not Spain, the Iberian Peninsula and no modification "by the Spiritual views of Native Americans" - just what he cites, in 1868, as an accepted practice by ENGLISH riders. It was common, in the mid-1800s, in England!

There was the horse Comanche, who survived the Little Big Horn. He spent his life out, wandering around a fort, getting drinks of beer and treats from the cavalry men.

There was a famous horse breaker in the 1800s, who said he took his time and gave a much better product when he could, but "not many want to put a $40 finish on a $10 horse" - but he KNEW a better way of working horses.

_"Therefore, everywhere - out-of-doors or in the haute ecole - success with horses is to him who applies this maxim of Baucher...

'Let him think that he is our master, then he is our slave.' There dwells an eternal equestrian truth!

'The horse is the sole master of his forces; even with all of our vigor, by himself, the rider is powerless to increase the horse's forces. Therefor, it is for the horse to employ his forces in his own way, for himself to determine the manner of that employment so as to best fulfill the demands of his riders. If the rider tries to do it all, the horse may permit him to do so, but the horse merely drifts, and limits his efforts to those which the rider demands. On the contrary, if the horse knows that he must rely on himself, he uses himself completely, with all of his energy.'" - 5 May 1922

-- Horse Training Outdoors and High School, Etienne Beudant (1931)_

Long before Dorrance. And Baucher: _'*Let him think that he is our master, then he is our slave.'*

_Not what one associates with Baucher.

There was James Fillis, writing in 1890:
_
"In place of first putting the blame on the horse, which is only natural,the rider ought perhaps begin by trying to find out if he himself is not the culprit." (pg 150) Published 1890


"The impressionability of a horse can be greatly diminished and modified by breaking. Custom establishes mutual confidence between horse and rider. If the animal has not been beaten, or violently forced up to the object of his alarm, and if the presence of his rider reassures him, instead of frightening him, he will soon become steady. It is a sound principle never to flog a horse which is frightened by some external object. We should, on the contrary, try to anticipate or remove the impression by "making much" of the animal.

I have already said that a horse has but little intelligence. He cannot reason, and has only memory. If he is beaten when an object suddenly comes before him and startles him, he will connect in his mind the object and the punishment. If he again sees the same object, he will expect the same punishment, his fear will become increased, and he will naturally try to escape all the more violently....

...My only advice about the management of nervous horses is to give them confidence by "making much of them." If we see in front of us an object which we know our horse will be afraid of, we should not force him to go up to it. Better let him at first go away from it, and then gently induce him to approach it, without bullying him too much. Work him in this way for several days, as long as may be necessary. Never bring him so close up to the object in question that he will escape or spin round ; because in this case we will be obliged to punish him ; not for his fear, but on account of his spinning round, which we should not tolerate at any time. In punishing him, we will confuse in his mind the fear of punishment and the fear caused by the object. In a word, with nervous horses we should use much gentleness, great patience, and no violence." (186)

"We should keep calm, and at the slightest sign of cadence, that is to say, at the first, or later on, at the second time, we should stop using the "aids", pat the horse's neck, give him time to become quiet, and begin again.

A horseman who has great delicacy and tact, will stop the animal at the first time and pat him. But the less tact he has, the less capable is he of judging if the time is in cadence. Such a man will continue in his attempts to catch the cadence, and will succeed only in upsetting the nerves of his horse. These remarks explain the fact that a clever and tactful horseman will obtain all he wants from his mount, without making him either vicious or unsound. Being able to recognize the slightest sign of obedience, he immediately stops the work, in order to make the horse understand, by pats on the neck, that he has done well. The quickness with which he perceives the slightest signs, saves him from overtaxing and disgusting the horse, and provoking him to battle, which will wear them both out.

The unskilful rider, who is slow in catching the cadence, will continue to use the spur, in order to obtain several cadenced times, and to be sure he is right, and will thus punish the horse, who, not knowing why he is punished, will defend himself, while the rider is spurring him. The result will be, that when he wants the horse to again do the passage, the animal will think he is going to be punished, and will become mad at the approach of the spurs.

Hence, the important point is to recognize the slightest signs of good will, and to be content with little. If the horse does not fear the approach of the legs, and if we are not too exacting, a time will always arrive when he will take up the cadence of the passage with ease and pleasure. We may then ask more ; because, as the horse understands us, there will be no fear of over-exciting his nervous system. (284)"_

This was not, in any sense, something that started with Dorrance. Nor Spain, nor the religious beliefs of the natives of America. Just the difference between people who cares about horses, and people who used them as tools - and in the 1800s, many DID use them as tools because there were no machines to take their place.

"all roads lead back to Tom, the Vaqueros, the Iberian Pennisula".

Nope. Tom was traveling a well worn path, and one that had many branches, including all of Europe. Heck, there was another Tom, Tom Roberts:










No one was waiting for the Dorrance brothers. It was there all along.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Interesting discussion and I am gathering my thoughts. First I am riding cause the weather us gonna SUCK this weekend.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I see things have not changed much since the dark ages, when they burned horse “whisperers” at the stake. 

It was the Iberian peninsula that exported the Vaqueros to the new world to work on the ranches of the Don’s and missions of the “new” west (was the west really new or just new to the Europeans?). They worked alongside of the Native Americans who imparted their own way of looking at horses not just as animals but as spirits, having a soul. Something that to this day is still rejected by both the religious and non-religious alike.

I didn’t say that the concepts of NH were dead or non existent, only that they had fallen into disuse, much like a pressure canner today. 

People know what it is, they know you can preserve food with it, but they don’t know how to use one because they never have. My father was 8 when the great depression hit full force. His father was a farmer. My grandfather was not a nice man, but he sure was practical! Among other things those hard times swung the tide back to “practical” use of animals.

Since I began riding in the mid -70’s I can testify that the concepts of Natural Horsemanship are far more prevalent today, than they were back then. Back then, when I started. Horses were a tool. They either made you money or had a use or they went into the freezer. You did whatever it took to get the horse to do what needed doing, didn’t matter a lick if the horse was doing it out of fear, pain or willingness. It was the same opinion if it was at my lesson barn, at the dairy farm up the road or at my friend's house who kept a couple of horses. So YES, things have changed!

Bolting
If I was to use my understanding of Brannaman’s philosophy, I think he would probably tell you that you should work until you can perform a one rein stop (which I believe you have rejected). And if you cannot get your horse to do a one rein stop even in a panic, then you missed something in communication either for the horse or for yourself and you need to go back and figure out what that is. Again, something people don’t like to hear.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_I see things have not changed much since the dark ages, when they burned horse “whisperers” at the stake_."

Actually, the horse whisperers of the 1700s and 1800s were celebrated and admired.
_
"It was the Iberian peninsula that imported the Vaqueros to the new world to work on the ranches of the Don’s and missions of the “new” west. They worked alongside of the Native Americans who imparted their own way of looking at horses not just as animals but as spirits, having a soul. Something that to this day is still rejected by both the religious and non-religious alike._"

Irrelevant, because people in France, Austria and England were regularly practicing horsemanship based on understanding the horse. A cavalryman, surrounded at the Little Big Horn and expecting to die, kissed his horse goodbye. Moments later, the horse bolted, broke thru, and the guy lived to tell the tale - and admit, freely, that he had kissed his horse goodbye.

Black Beauty was published in 1877. It was a huge and immediate success, now with some 50 million copies sold.

The book by James Fillis, which I quoted earlier, has been continuously in print since it was first published in 1890.

This was Tom Roberts riding with "The Captain", an American who was brought to England to teach British cavalry men about horses...prior to World War ONE:








​ 
Both men loved horses, and taught how to work with the nature of the horse.

"_Since I began riding in the mid -70’s I can testify that the concepts of Natural Horsemanship are far more prevalent today, than they were back then._"

I did some riding around 1980. The biggest difference is that we now have the Internet and YouTube. Before that, much of what you COULD learn had to be learned from someone near you. And I lived in a town for a while where the only bookstore operated out of the corner of a laundromat. But the ideas never stopped being used by good horsemen. And bad ones are still with us. And I suspect there were fewer badly spoiled horses back then, and I don't remember meeting anyone who owned horses who was afraid to ride them. I know some now.

"_If I was to use my understanding of Brannaman’s philosophy, I think he would probably tell you that you should work until you can perform a one rein stop (which I believe you have rejected). And if you cannot get your horse to do a one rein stop even in a panic, then you missed something in communication either for the horse or for yourself and you need to go back and figure out what that is._"

I used a curb bit. 3 lessons about 45 minutes long in the arena, then Mia and I went out. A few days later, she was scared by some motorcycles. I harshly abused her by using the curb bit to hold her in place...and the motorcycles went away. Hmmmmm...you could see the wheels turning in her noggin! About a month later, she dragged a leg against some cactus, covered it in spines, jolted forward - and 3 bumps on the rein stopped her. I dismounted, pulled about 100 spines out of her left rear leg, and we rode on. *She never bolted again*. She'd SPIN 360 when scared, but she never bolted again.

Bandit isn't a bolter, so I"ll probably never need a "one rein stop" with him. But there is nothing special about a ORS. It is a cue, and not a solution for a horse who is too scared to pay attention to a light cue. It wouldn't have been worth a bucket of warm spit on Mia, particularly not in places like this:








​ 
That picture was taken about 50 yards from where Mia rubbed the cactus.

" _And if you cannot get your horse to do a one rein stop even in a panic, then you missed something in communication either for the horse or for yourself and you need to go back and figure out what that is."
_
Depends on how hard they panic. If Bandit, Trooper, Cowboy and Lilly had been my only horses, I might agree with you. But Mia would panic at a level where a ORS would have been worthless, just like a Two Rein Stop. A Pulley Rein Stop would still get her stopped, and may have saved our lives on a bolt prior to moving her into a curb, but those are hard on the mouth.

Buck can think anything he wants about me for putting a nervous, spooky horse into a curb bit, but the fact remains: *It worked. And it worked very well.*

It isn't all about communication, and punishment is not a bad word. Yesterday, Bandit repeatedly wanted to canter. I did not. He wasn't interested in compromise, so we didn't - and I won. Not the way I like to ride, but it happens sometimes. And when I rode him today, he was cheerful and relaxed.

I'm very fond of Tom Robert's ideas on training:

_TRAINING PROCEDURES:

“That will profit you” - “That will profit you not”
“Quiet persistence”
“End-of-Lesson”, what it means
“Old Hat”
Use of voice in training

Few people who set out to train and educate a young horse give any thought to the great difficulties that face the horse.

How many of us setting out to teach him have given serious thought or study of HOW to teach him: how to establish a system of signals or aids that most riders grow up with and accept as being natural, but of which the horse has no knowledge whatsoever?

I am going to ask you a question, and before you read on I would like you to answer it clearly – to yourself.

Question: “Why does a horse stop or go slower if you pull on the reins?” If you answer, “Because it hurts the mouth,” I am sorry to have to break the news to you – you have failed.

But no, I'll give you another chance: “Why do you jump up instantly if you sit on an upturned tack or drawing pin?”

If you answer again: “Because it hurts” - you really do need to read every word in this book!

The horse stops – and you jump up – not just because it hurts, but to stop it hurting. By no means the same thing.

And there isn't any doubt: if jumping up didn't stop the pain, you would try doing something else. So, too, eventually, does the horse. These are not trick questions. If you really believe in and act on the answer you gave to the first, then you think that all you have to do is to hurt your horse's mouth and he will stop.

On the contrary, the important thing is to let him know – to teach him – how, by doing what you want of him, he can avoid any pain, irritation, inconvenience and discomfort the bit (or whip or spur) might otherwise cause. Good trainers do everything they possibly can to avoid hurting the horse or even letting him hurt himself. Our real goal should be never to have to hurt our horse.

Reward and punishment is often cited as the secret of successful horse training and undoubtedly both rewards and punishments have their place. But – we should seldom, if ever, resort to punishment when teaching our horse anything new.

Punishment, when we use it, should be reserved for exceptional occasions. Don't think “Reward and Punishment.”

Encourage and discourage is a better guide, as it drops the term “punishment.” When riding a young horse we alternate from encourage to discourage very frequently and quite often change from discourage to encourage several times in a matter of seconds.

But the term “discourage” still has the drawback that it can include punishment; and we should discard any term that could include punishment as a normal training procedure. Punishment and teaching are “divorced.”

It is to avoid using any expression that could possibly include punishment as a normal teaching procedure that I suggest you think in the terms:

“That will profit you – that will profit you not.”

These terms mean exactly – exactly – what they say.

“To Profit” is to benefit or gain: to be better off. The profit to the horse can be any reward or encouragement the trainer may think his pupil should receive – and it must, of course, be available to give.

“To Profit Not” means that the horse will gain or benefit not at all. Just that. It certainly does not mean that he will suffer a loss or be worse off – as he would be if he were punished.

This is what is so important about these expressions – and why I use them. By no stretch of the imagination can “Profit you not” be construed as punishment.

It consists of withholding any gain, reward, encouragement and profit. That, and only that.

_“Horse Control – The Young Horse” (Griffin Press, Netley, South Australia, 1974)

That was years before Parelli wrote Natural Horse-Man-Ship, but it displays a level of understanding of horses that dwarfs Parelli's horsenalities and what I saw Pat and Linda doing on YouTube videos they posted of themselves. He didn't get those ideas in Spain, nor from the Vaqueros, nor from Native American religious views. He got them, mostly, from the British Cavalry prior to 1918, and from his own experimenting in the decades afterward. After World War One, he lived in India for a while, then moved to Australia. 

And in the Internet age, I was exposed to his ideas and then his books on horseforum.com.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Tom Dorrance might have been one of the greatest horse trainers ever. He certainly exhibited the skills of timing and feel. However, like most of us, his extreme skill in one are was offset by a deficiency in another. He could communicate with horses and not with people. To this day, even his followers like Ray Hunt don't understand many of the things he said.

Clinton Anderson often says "I don't claim to be the best horse trainer. I'm trying to be the best people trainer." If you could still get Tom Dorrance to spend a few minutes with your horse, you would benefit. If you buy his book, good luck with that.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

bsms said:


> Black Beauty was published in 1877. It was a huge and immediate success, now with some 50 million copies sold.


Yes, and the book came out as an expose of the kind of cruelty that horses were exposed to in those times. In 1880 New York City removed on average 41 dead horses from the streets per day. Beatings and whippings were common. Good horsemanship goes back to Xenophon and cruelty and abuse have also always been with us.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

The dark ages were from the 6th -14th centuries, not the 17 and 1800’s.

BSMS like in my first post on this thread defining natural horsemanship it is a never ending personal journey into the nature of the horse. But since we are discussing it in the context of the label, which was started here in America, tracing back from those who are put into that category, rightly or wrongly, it takes its roots from the Vaqueros who came here to this country. Once you go across the big pond again, now you are talking about where the Vaqueros got their ideas which is another thing altogether. 

Yes I am familiar with that book, highly recommended by Sue C. I own it and read it, once again with most things, you can have all of the information locked away in your brain but unless you can apply it effectively, then its impact is muted.

Time is not something I particularly pay attention to when working with my horse and have been known to lose three or more hours missing meals in the process, yes, it is a luxury and I am blessed, but since you mentioned “_and I've seen too much emphasis on ground work that seems to never end up in riding_” I’ll take the challenge. My approach is that they are ready when they are ready.

I think we backed Oliver for the first time about the time you acquired Bandit. Oliver was my first horse in need of training and rather than saying “oh well he has been backed before” and starting from that point and moving forward, we did the opposite and started, assuming he knew nothing, and started by building willingness on the ground. He had four months of ground work, five days a week. Two before we ever sat on his back. In part this was done because he was a working stud only 6 months before and he is 15.2 hh and 1200 lbs of muscle with attitude and none of us felt like dying.

I have had the opportunity to ride four horses that were meticulously trained that way and own two of them. 

When I talk with people about the training methods used on Oliver ( because someone has asked, not something I go around broadcasting), the response to that is well, he’s just an easy horse.

Ummm no, and there is a trainer and colt breaker who will tell you otherwise. He just looks easy because the effort was taken to get his head on straight before we got on his back. By nature he is confident, studdish, strong, quick, aggressive (if threatened), very intelligent, opinionated and forward moving. I think my trainer's description is apt he is "cocky".

In the beginning, put in the wrong situation and pushed too quickly, he broke people’s bones, so no, not an easy horse and came to us with a dull mouth and dead to the leg.

A little over a year from first backing, he does not buck, bolt, spin, kick, bite, charge, baulk, throw his head, mess with a bit, try to mount mares under saddle, get under a bit, run through a bit, though in the past he has shown that all of those things are certainly in his bag of tricks. 

He responds to the leg with the lightest touch and with the movement of one finger on each hand will back up, turn or stop. He can be ridden through poles at a walk and trot by dropping the reins entirely. I’m not spending every week dealing with a new “issue” like jigging or bucking or bolting or uncontrolled energy leaking out in behavior. He rides equally well in both a bit and bitless. I’m not hitting or spurring him to get him to cross a creek a puddle or mud. He’s not flaking out because a neighbor put out a new lawn ornament or cut down a tree or parked their car in the wrong spot. I'm not worried about riding him next to a bunch of devil's walking sticks, through the mesquite, on pavement, on the side of a cliff or in the middle of nowhere.

Caspian, my daughter’s horse had over a year of being worked on the ground before he was backed (2-3 ½ years old). He has been ridden by a green, 10, 11, 12 yearold for the last three years and has never bolted, bucked, kicked, gotten “hot” even when up to his belly in mud and spooked precisely once, badly enough that she came off (she was bareback). She rides him 80% of the time bareback and in a rope halter with lead rope. Another horse with his head screwed on right. Trained almost entirely by a green kid. 

Sure, these two might be unusual horses, but it might be worth considering the effect of the methods used in training, including the work that was done well before we ever asked them to allow a predator (us) on their backs where they cannot see us! This goes back to Buck Brannaman’s statements that he doesn’t help people with horse problems but horses with people problems. 

I say this as an owner of yet a third horse who came to us as complete head-case. I don’t think he was born that way, I think he was man-made, not by a lack of discipline, but by having any and all choice removed from the menu. 

His only choice left to him was to comply or bring upon himself pain and fear. Fear is all he has left when he sees a human. He is a “broke” horse and it galls me that a human being (probably well intentioned, though misguided) would do that to an animal. 

Now we will spend probably the next year maybe more, trying to undo what was done before trying to teach him anything new under saddle------or I can hop on like I have been doing and constantly bang my head against a wall of "Oh no! That leaf just moved on the tree, we are all going to die!". It is a work in progress. 

I guess what I am trying to say is that for all of the bitterness towards the term “Natural Horsemanship”, the marketing, the misinterpreted ideas that lead to people ruining good horses, I for one am sure glad I can add it to my tool box, it has made me some good horses.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Reining, you said what I wanted to say.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_BSMS like in my first post on this thread defining natural horsemanship it is a never ending personal journey into the nature of the horse. But since we are discussing it in the context of the label, which was started here in America, tracing back from those who are put into that category, rightly or wrongly, it takes its roots from the Vaqueros who came here to this country._"

That is the part I'm disputing. It is bad history. Working with the nature of the horse is NOT something Vaqueros brought here. It is a universal - something that decent riders have ALWAYS done, and were doing in England and France at the same time.

I've learned some of it. Not from Hunt, or the Dorrance brothers, or even from Tom Roberts or any other human. A lot of it is what I picked up from owning Mia. From my thread the day I swapped her for Bandit:



bsms said:


> I've had Mia since 2008. I was told she was the perfect horse for a beginner when I got her. She wasn't...and she was. She was largely unbroken, as it turned out, and had a very intense personality. We did a lot of spooks together...only parting company once, in Jan 2009. I was a total newbie and she was no better - bright green with bright green.
> 
> But if we were a terrible match in some ways, we were a good one in others. She was and is the sort of horse who will not be dominated, but who will give you her best if you break things down and teach them to her in bites small enough for her to figure out. And while many horses CAN be dominated, I think they all do best when you try to teach them instead.
> 
> Her odd personality intrigued me, and turned me from the one who didn't want to own horses into the one who does the most riding. I couldn't trust her to know what to do, but I could trust her to have good intentions...


I would defy ANYONE who met Mia to think of her as a machine. It could not be done. The brief spurts of riding I had done when I was 20 were decades in the past when I met her. And those brief spurts WERE largely about treating a horse like a machine. And I had no interest in owning a horse before I met her, and I bought her on the spot, and she changed me. No one who met Mia would deny her will, her intelligence, her desire to be a team player...it couldn't be done. 

That isn't to say I figured out what to do, or even that I would really know how to work with her if she was returned to me next week. But I realized immediately that she was a person. She wasn't a lesson horse boring circles into the ground. She was a person! We did things together, and many of them went wrong at times, but there was, to borrow a phrase from Harry Whitney, a 'mind between two reins'.

My wife is learning some of the same lessons now on Cowboy, our BLM mustang pony. She used to ride our Steady Eddie Trooper, when she rode. Now she rides Cowboy, and she is much more interested in riding - because Cowboy is a person! Treat him like a machine, as he was when he was a lesson horse, and he becomes "naughty" or "rebellious" and gets given away for free. Accept he is a person, and he is a darn fine horse. Out in the desert, with another horse, Cowboy is a strong personality and darned smart! And she is starting to appreciate riding WITH someone - and that someone is NOT me.

The most fundamental part of "natural horsemanship" is simply that the horse is alive. The horse is a person! And horses have been teaching that to riders for thousands of years!

My room mate from college raised Trooper. When in college, he told me a horse was a machine, just a tool you used on a ranch. Nothing more.

So a few years back, when we visited and there was a picture on his wall of him on a horse, with a frame made from horse hair...I asked. And then I spent the next few hours hearing about Trooper's sire - "_The finest horse I'll ever meet or ride!_" Trooper's sire was a difficult, challenging and demanding horse, but he turned my friend into a believer. Not from reading about horses. Not from DVDs. The stallion taught him. Bit him a number of times, kicked him often, but in the end he won the respect of someone who thought horses were tools.

Natural horsemanship - the real thing - isn't taught by books, DVDs, etc. It can be HELPED by those. I've gotten a lot of good ideas (and a lot of bad ones) by those. But the real natural horsemanship is taught by horses! 

My youngest told me once that *the reason more horses don't talk is that most people don't listen, and horses see no reason to talk to someone who refuses to listen*. I think she is right. That was why one of my top goals with Bandit was to teach him to speak. And if he sometimes offers some "Can you hear me *now*!" hops...well, it beats silence!

But I guess that is why I reject the idea that "_a never ending personal journey into the nature of the horse_" is something that passed through Spain to California, and then re-emerged with the Dorrance brothers, and now is taught by Parelli. *The real thing is taught by horses, and has been for thousands of years*. And many people refuse to listen, and do not learn, unless they are lucky enough to meet a Mia, who was a terrible horse for a beginner...and a great one!

Natural horsemanship is not a tradition. It is not a theory. It is learning about horses from horses, sometimes with the help of a human. It happens anywhere a good horse and a caring person meet. Together. It is "The Dragon Scroll" of riding, to only be opened when your horse is looking over your shoulder.
.Tai Lung: Finally... oh, yes... at last, the power of the Dragon Scroll is *mine*...

[He opens the scroll - and stares at it]

Tai Lung: It's nothing!

Po: It's okay. I didn't get it the first time either.

Tai Lung: What?

Po: There *is* no secret ingredient. It's just you [and the horse looking over your shoulder].​


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

The Spaniards did bring their idea of training horses to this continent before the settlement of the east coast by other European powers. Wasn't Coronado roaming lost on the Stake Plains in, what 1540? 

I believe that is Reining's point. That the term 'natural horsemanship' was coined on the western side of this continent. And that area was heavily influenced by the vaqueros. Therefore, when thinking of 'natural horsemanship' today I believe many of us think of the traditions of the vaquero and the making of a horse soft in the bridle, and the time it took to get a horse to that point.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

BSMS, you are making disagreement where there is none. 

Yes and Dorrance said exactly that..."everything I learned, I learned from the horse" and that is the Vaquero way, it is why when you ask a question of them, they often give you a cryptic non-answer that leaves many people saying "Wait! What?". They may give you guidance but the answer is for you to realize in your own way. A personal journey. 

While horses do have distinct personalities and have as much right to be respected as a human does, I choose not see horses as a person. 

IMO they are intelligent individuals, capable of feelings and exercising choices that are in their best interests as they can perceive them, they are still a horse and have every right to live without the burdens of "humanity" being placed upon them. They give what they can give me as a horse and I cannot expect to recieve more than that.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Well, Pat Parelli coined the term. But much of what he taught was simply standard ranch techniques masked in words like "respect" and "trust". Smacking a horse under the chin with a lead rope and metal snap has nothing to do with backing a horse naturally. A lot of round pen work is a variation on teaching dominance...which is needed at times, but not ad nauseum. Disengaging a horse's hind end is hardly some new teaching ANYWHERE. Join-up has nothing to do with natural horsemanship, at least as taught by horses. Horses are not puppies. Mia would have been glad to tell people that!

On the first page of Parelli's book coining the term, one finds, "*The attitude of Natural Horse-Man-Ship is to do things for the horse and with the horse rather than to the horse....It's a horse and human going willingly together.*" THAT is something taught by good horsemen anywhere, any time. 

You won't win a steeplechase riding a horse who doesn't want to jump and win. You cannot beat a horse into winning a race. Bandit WAS ridden past things without ever buying in to the notion that they were not scary, so much of my focus has been on teaching him that I KNOW what is scary and not, so he can relax and trust my judgment. You can, as the Austrian Cavalry rider wrote 150 years ago, get a horse to do LOTS of things if you appeal to its nature:

"_...There is another thing to be considered with regard to the horse's character - it loves to exercise its powers, and it possesses a great spirit of emulation; it likes variety of scene and amusement ; and under a rider that understands how to indulge it in all this without overtaxing its powers, will work willingly to the last gasp, which is what entitles it to the name of a noble and generous animal..._"

"_Yes and Dorrance said exactly that..."everything I learned, I learned from the horse" and that is the Vaquero way..._"

I see no reason to link NH to the bridle horse tradition. That is a tradition, and it may work with a horse, but it certainly does not DEFINE working with a horse!

I've never read a book about Vaquero training, nor seen a video on it, so why would I or anyone else think "Vaquero = NH"? I've spent 8 years learning from horses without ever meeting a vaquero.

"_IMO they are intelligent individuals, capable of feelings and exercising choices that are in their best interests as they can perceive them, they are still a horse and have every right to live without the burdens of "humanity" being placed upon them._"

I don't recall saying they are HUMAN. I said they are PERSONS. I think that is undeniable. Heck, I know some CHICKENS that have a ton of personality. Individual beings, making choices. I reject the idea one must be a human to be a person. Once one realizes the horse underneath them is a thinking individual, capable of learning and wanting to do things - a person - then one cannot continue treating them like ATVs.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I spent the last 5 years being mentored by a Californio Vaquero, and no there are no "instruction manuals", no DVD's it can only be learned fully by being around them, kind of like the horses they train. 

Just because you think you haven't ever met one, doesn't mean that you haven't run across their influences!


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

The original post was asking what does natural horsemanship means to you. I believe for some of us it means the vaquero way. For me it does mean the vaquero tradition. It may not mean that at all to someone east of the Mississippi. I don't think there is an argument here, because the opinions will vary so greatly.

The American ranch tradition in the west is heavily influenced by the Spainards; from boots to hats, ****** and chaps, bosals and  mecate, to saddles, roping, and handling. It is just the Americanos added their own flair to things.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Hmm, this is interesting. I have not heard before this that Vaquero tradition and Natural Horsemanship had anything to do with one another. I don't believe that is a widely spread correlation? At least I've not come across it before in my reading. Does one of the NH practitioners relate the two? Perhaps Brannaman? I know it is a personal interest of his, so maybe he has decided to say the two are related somehow.

I've been exposed to NH and Vaquero training separately. In my mind, Vaquero training just like other western training can be toned down from some of the rougher traditions into a more natural method, but neither one was particularly gentle to begin with. I find Vaquero training more similar to dressage, in that it is a long, slow method toward collection. Bosals can be very rough, and used very roughly. I've heard Vaquero training glamorized but seen that many can and do use force along with these methods, and can ride their horses behind the vertical with the best of them.








To me, saying that it is amazingly wonderful to have a horse light enough to be ridden in a spade bit with all its subtleness of cues is no more wonderful than having a horse light enough to be ridden in a double bridle with all of its subtleness of cues. The road to that lightness can be hard or soft, but not very "natural." Similarly to dressage, the rider is wearing spurs and driving the horse into the pressure, which is taking the horse behind the vertical.


----------



## BlindHorseEnthusiast4582 (Apr 11, 2016)

kaimanawas said:


> To me Natural Horsemanship is a way of connecting and understanding your horse better.... I think that natural horsemanship comes around when your partnership with your horse on ground and ridden is 50-50 and you start trusting your horse to choose the right path because of footing and generally allowing your horse to have input into when he's had enough and when he's hungry. All these things are usually decided by man but the truth is that man may know a little bit but until you start listening to your horse and reading his signs you just can't see the hole picture. When you choose to do Natural Horsemanship with your horse you choose to let your horse have a say and you will listen to his point of view.


To me this ^^^ is what it's about. I'm not dissing anybody on what trainer they like or what methods they use. IMO though, you can put all of the fancy techniques, high prices, and "special" equipment out there that you want, and may still never find the connection you're looking for.

I am far from saying that NH is bad, because I do see perks to it. I ride my gelding both bareback and bit-less, not because he can't be saddled or won't take a bit and I'm looking for a way to avoid the problem, but because we both like riding that way. While he's content with a saddle, he is much happier with the more relaxed nature of riding bareback. Personally I am not a fan of saddles either, but that's for my personal riding, and not because I think they're bad.

Now, given that, I go back to my point about relationships. I feel like, as others have said, that a bond is not built with a horse through the round pen or "training" per say. Of course training is necessary, I would never say it wasn't. However, I don't see how someone can build the kind of relationship with a horse, just through training (most of the time) , that is earned by just spending time with them and "being a horse" so to speak. The majority of time I've spent around the horses I've ridden was on the ground; particularly in the pasture. I will go out just to be with my gelding, letting him come to me to get attention (and therefore be haltered or whatever else). I just be a part of his world out there, correcting disrespect issues if they happen to occur (deciding to test his boundaries and push me with his head for example), and they are quickly resolved. (That only happened once. Haven't had an issue since)

I have found both through my experience and that of others who do the same thing; it works. Of course some horses do not work this way, but I've had a very positive experience with it. I spend the time with the horse when we aren't working, and he's much more willing to do anything I ask once I'm on his back. 

I'm far from an expert on anything horse related, as I'm relatively new to riding. I've just realized that trust is the foundation of a good relationship, which is created by spending time with the horse. It's not about controlling the horse or scaring them (regardless if you're using "natural" methods). Again, I do not believe NH is bad in itself, but the definition that is marketed is nothing like my own.

General summary is this:
I do not want my horse to listen because he's scared or has no choice. If we trust each other and are willing to listen, both him and I. If we want to be around each other for the joy of each other's company, as well as knowing that if we ride, it'll be enjoyable for us both. That to me is what I want from my relationship with a horse, and is in my opinion what NH should involve.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Gottatrot, 

If you trace most of the “greats” of NH, it goes back to Dorrance who was born and raised on a cattle ranch in Oregon surrounded by the Buckaroos. Buckaroos, is an off shoot word of ba-quero. And is used primarily in the great basin area of the northwest.

Within the “Vaquero” tradition there are three different ones; Texas, Californio and Spanish. Each have developed their own traditions.

The Californio Vaqueros retained much more of the original Iberian techniques, though were also influenced by the Native Americans who were also working the same ranches as the Vaqueros.

Texas Vaqueros were more influenced by the training methods of the east coast.

The Spanish Vaqueros were influenced by the Mesoamericans and they were primarily found in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

As happens with cultures and traditions, things have a way of melding together when existing in close proximity, you use what works and many of the “Cowboys” also adopted some of the techniques and mixed them in with their own way of getting things done.

Parelli trained occasionally with Ray Hunt, who in turn was mentored by Dorrance.

In 1993 Parelli put out his book Natural horse-man-ship

In *1978* Ray Hunt published his book Think Harmony with Horses – an in depth study of the horse/man relationship

Brannaman, mentored extensively under both Dorrance and Hunt.

There is a book out called The Revolution in Horsemanship which traces and goes over the paths taken to get us to where we are today and it is widely accepted that NH takes its roots in many (though not all of) the Vaquero traditions. 

Like anything else in riding a bosal can be used harshly, though the way I was taught to train with it, you LIFT the mecate reins or lower, rarely pull. The whole apparatus is based on balance right down to tying a proper fiadore knot and tassle (I forget the name) which is for balance, not decoration, so the horse feels that subtle change in balance on the bridge of his nose as the rein is lifted and is cued. The idea is to have the horse ride off of the seat and legs and the cue comes mainly from there, the reins are eventually only for refinement of movement, direction comes from the seat and legs. The reins are loose and not like what you would see with "contact" on an English dressage horse. An American bridle horse has self-carriage as a rider, you do nothing to put him there, he finds it on his own. 

If your horse’s nose is being rubbed raw by the bosal one of three things are going on. You may have a crappy quality bosal. Your horse was not taught properly to yield softly to pressure before you put the bosal on, the horse was rushed. Thirdly, I have seen riders using a bosal on a green horse that have no feel and are impatient. They tend to use far too much pressure on the reins rather than waiting for the horse to find the open door, they increase pressure until they force the horse through the open door. That is no different than training in the “normal” way, rather than training towards willingness and softness.

A bosal is a tool and like any tool, it is not the tool itself that is the problem or the solution. It is how you use it that makes the difference.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

sarahfromsc said:


> The original post was asking what does natural horsemanship means to you. I believe for some of us it means the vaquero way....


I can understand how someone whose goal is a bridle horse might consider what they are doing as Natural Horsemanship, but I do not understand how anyone would conclude NH is based on the Vaquero style of riding.

Pat Parelli. Clinton Anderson. Those are the two biggest names in NH, and neither tries to teach everyone to work toward spade bits and highly collected horses. Both sell lots of videos and books.

Chris Irwin? Craig Cameron? John Lyons? Monty Roberts? Karen Rohlf? Mark Rashid? Vaqueros All?

Until this thread, I had never seen anyone link Vaquero with NH. When I think of Spanish riding, I tend to think "charro" - and that doesn't bring up happy images of gentle understanding to my mind.

"it is widely accepted that NH takes its roots in many (though not all of) the Vaquero traditions"

Tom Roberts taught an approach that would now be called NH, and he never met a Vaquero or set foot in the American West. People in Europe 100+ years ago practiced it, and they had nothing to do with vaqueros. The Dorrance brothers were SOME people who took a specific approach, but that hardly limits the approach to their methods or people they influenced. 

And frankly, much of what is called Natural Horsemanship is neither. The way many of them - including Parelli and Anderson and Lyons - use a round pen has NOTHING to do with understanding or working with the nature of a horse. Only brute dominance. Their ideas on teaching backing a horse up turn my stomach. People have trained horses all over the world, and done so gently, without ever stepping in a round pen. I prefer the teachings of the ex-British Cavalryman turned Australian Tom Roberts to Clinton Anderson or Parelli.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The Revolution in Horsemanship: And What It Means to Mankind is not history. It was written to push an agenda and promote an approach, but I suspect I've read more old books on riding than Robert Miller has.

You cannot promote a revolution that is changing mankind if you admit people have been doing it well for as long as people and horses have mixed.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Horses may not have changed much, but people and how they live sure have.


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

There's a lot of knowledge evident in this thread: a lot of reading, thinking people.

The ordinary "NH", though, I feel has been developed for a different kind of person.

When was the last time you watched a beginner riding lesson? You usually hear a lot of: "You're the boss!" People grow up thinking, _knowing without thinking,_ they're The Boss. "Make him" -- jump, turn, stop, whatever -- and if their interest grows, they can soon find themselves in trouble, since simply being the boss doesn't always work. As usual, advertising steps in, and you have another student looking to Parelli or some other well-publicized trainer for answers.

And that's what I think NH is: a way of explaining the horse's nature to someone who just didn't consider it before. (Whether a teacher calls himself a Natural doesn't matter in this discussion, the question being what does it mean to me.)


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> It is "The Dragon Scroll" of riding, to only be opened when your horse is looking over your shoulder.
> .Tai Lung: Finally... oh, yes... at last, the power of the Dragon Scroll is *mine*...
> 
> [He opens the scroll - and stares at it]
> ...


"Secret's in the sauce" -Sipsey

Whoops, wrong movie.

Tawanda!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

QUOTE from 
https://horsesandhistory.wordpress....sperers-part-1-origins-societies-and-secrets/
And Part 2
https://horsesandhistory.wordpress.com/category/horse-whisperers/
_As with many societies, horse whisperers wanted to protect their craft and in the less enlightened days of centuries past, they were considered witches. However superstitions die hard and as late as the 1940’s in Worcester, Charles Walton, the last known whisperer with powers over toads, cattle, birds and horses, *was killed with his own pitchfork by those who viewed him as a witch*._


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> There is a book out called The Revolution in Horsemanship which traces and goes over the paths taken to get us to where we are today and it is widely accepted that NH takes its roots in many (though not all of) the Vaquero traditions.


OK, you are accepting the idea from this book. I see. Reading the book synopsis on Amazon from the author, it says they also are linking rodeo to natural horsemanship. That definitely is not a widely held or accepted connection either. 

The impression I've gathered from broad reading of natural horsemanship is a little different. Those like Dorrance and Hunt supposedly rejected the old ways they had been taught (in the "old West tradition") and wanted to find a new way that was more gentle and horse-centric. I've never heard that they liked the old traditions so much they decided to promote them worldwide as the most gentle way to train horses. It was all supposed to be a "new" way of training. Something they had a special insight into and a special connection that was different than the traditional way. 

Yes, bosals can be used gently or harshly. It's not the tool that matters so much. But those who say a bosal is the best and most gentle way to start a horse have a biased perspective. A sidepull or snaffle can also be used at least, if not more gently and can develop a horse that is just as soft and light.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

updownrider said:


> "Secret's in the sauce" -Sipsey
> 
> Whoops, wrong movie.
> 
> Tawanda!


Hells bells! I have to clean up the spewed corona!


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

bsms said:


> I can understand how someone whose goal is a bridle horse might consider what they are doing as Natural Horsemanship, but I do not understand how anyone would conclude NH is based on the Vaquero style of riding.
> 
> Pat Parelli. Clinton Anderson. Those are the two biggest names in NH, and neither tries to teach everyone to work toward spade bits and highly collected horses. Both sell lots of videos and books.
> 
> ...


Just a matter of opinion. Why do you care what other opinions are? And opinions are like _________everyone has one.

I would never, ever, ever, ever consider old Pat, Clinton, or John as NHers, and never mentioned them in my posts. They are non entities in my journal of finding a better way. Just not my style. Besides I don't think they are the biggest names out there. Just have a PR machine. And that is still an opinion!

I am not sure there is a human on this planet that can ever truly understand the nature of the horse. The most we mere humans can do is respect the nature of the horse. But we will never understand it. We ain't horse after all.

Still just an opinion!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

_"I would never, ever, ever, ever consider old Pat, Clinton, or John as NHers, and never mentioned them in my posts."

"That the term 'natural horsemanship' was coined on the western side of this continent. And that area was heavily influenced by the vaqueros. Therefore, when thinking of 'natural horsemanship' today I believe many of us think of the traditions of the vaquero and the making of a horse soft in the bridle, and the time it took to get a horse to that point."_

There is another thread about when terminology is important. If Pat and Clint and John have nothing to do with NH, using your definition, and you define it as creating a bridle horse, then confusion is likely.

If you say that it SHOULD reflect the vaquero tradition, or that the vaquero tradition seems more like genuine NH than what Pat teaches - well, you might be right and can certainly make the case. But you are going to have to expect a lot of puzzled looks if you suggest spade bits are part of NH and Pat Parelli is not.

For myself, this is more of what I think NH should be about, although it often is not:

_In 1986 I was just starting to gain something of a reputation as a horse trainer who mostly worked with problem horses, although I was still primarily doing ranch work of one kind or another. A big, stout horse like Buck, if he worked out, would more than likely fit right into my program, so I was willing to take a chance on him.

Now you may want to read the final sentence of that paragraph again, because it will give you a pretty good idea of my mindset when Buck and I began working together. I just assumed, like most horse people would, that I was the one who would be doing the teaching, and he'd be the one doing the learning. And for a while, that was true. But only for a short while. Very soon after we started working together, I began to understand that this time things were going to be different...because Buck was different.

I have to admit, as you will see, it took me a while to get out of my own way. But when I did, I saw it was me who was going to be doing the learning, not him. As the years passed and my attitude about my role slowly changed, I came to understand that I was in the presence of a truly great teacher, one who seemed to possess the wisdom of the ages. He was a teacher who became a great friend and partner._

-- Life Lessons from a Ranch Horse, Mark Rashid, Introduction


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

when you put a bunch of quotes up but don't credit them, I am not sure who you are quoting, or if it's a bunch of different persons, or different parts of the same person's prior post.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

tinyliny said:


> when you put a bunch of quotes up but don't credit them, I am not sure who you are quoting, or if it's a bunch of different persons, or different parts of the same person's prior post.


I agree. 

Please use the proper quote function.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

bsms said:


> _"I would never, ever, ever, ever consider old Pat, Clinton, or John as NHers, and never mentioned them in my posts."
> 
> "That the term 'natural horsemanship' was coined on the western side of this continent. And that area was heavily influenced by the vaqueros. Therefore, when thinking of 'natural horsemanship' today I believe many of us think of the traditions of the vaquero and the making of a horse soft in the bridle, and the time it took to get a horse to that point."_
> 
> ...


Why would I confuse people if I didn't include the three stooges in a chat about NH? There are a few others that I think of first when I think of ther modern term of NH. So I am not sure why you keep harping on those three. I do not think I am alone in thinking that the three stooges are not the end all to be all when discussing NH. 

What is wrong with a spade bit if the time was taken to train the horse correctly by a competent trainer? Could I do it? Hell no. Could you? Double hell no. But the piece of equipment is not the real enemy; it is the hands using it.

I only have 48 years. And many of those years I was around people whose ideas of training horses was not a way I was comfortable with. That lead me down the road of experimenting with my horses. Some good some bad, but I was learning. Then I discovered, not one of the three stooges (why I do not consider them the gurus of NH), but Ray Hunt. Which lead me to the Dorrence brothers. All this was years ago before the term 'natural horsemanship' was coined. So, I didn't know what to call it, there was no term for it, except good horsemanship.


----------



## walkinthewalk (Jul 23, 2008)

1. Agree with Sarah regarding the Three Stooges. What started out as a good concept to help new horse owners who didn't have any help, soon transitioned into nothing more than a chest pounding money making scam.

1.1. Refer to Avna's #4 post on this thread.

2. This subject has been beat to absolute death on this forum. I discovered that when I searched this thread to see if I had ever commented on here, and I haven't.

2.1 BUT I commented on a few others. Since I'm on the IPAD and always lose my post if I leave it to get other links, here is a link to a 2014 thread that I commented on.

I re-read what I wrote on this thread and still think it makes sense. And, as can be read, there was a lot of spit happening on this old thread, lollol

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-training/traditional-vs-natural-horsemanship-better-409034/page3/

I never went to college and people "survive" my cooking. The one thing I am gifted with is training horses. --- not for showing or eventing but actually training them to make them safe for someone to enjoy a nice trail ride. 

I get too many compliments on my trail horses from vets, farriers and every day folks to think it's an accident all my horses were and are well behaved and don't balk at sliding down a riverbank - they just go - or used to since I can't ride anymore.

No Spurs, no stupid carrot sticks, no beating the horse until the attitude improves, no inane roundpen sessions to teach the horse discipline and "respect". 

Respect can't be taught, it has to be earned but many people in this new era of "natural" seem to think it is taught. 

I have been blessed with being a BTA rider and with an abundance of gut instinct to know when a horse is going to do something before it does it. It is only on rare occasion that I have wiped myself off the ground, commenting that I didn't see that one coming.

i grow weary of people trying to dissect and separate good horsemanship. Not all "Good Ole Boys" are bad trainers and not all new holders of carrot sticks are good trainers. 

You either have the innate abilityor you don't but the likes of The Three Stooges have allowed everyone to think they are capable of training a horse just by waving a stick. 

Knowing how to keep a horse well mannered is a form of training that everyone should know how to do but not everyone has what it takes to fancy themselves a horse trainer. We can all mash the gas pedal to make the car go fast --- that does not qualify us to be a NASCAR driver.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_I only have 48 years. And many of those years I was around people whose ideas of training horses was not a way I was comfortable with._"

Not everyone takes 50 years to learn something. One learns faster if one reads and experiments with different approaches. I became uncomfortable with the John Lyons approach in a couple of years - so I started exploring and trying new things. I've learned faster because I wasn't willing to spend 'many years' doing things that made me uncomfortable. 

But then, I also believed in learning from horses early on. Mia gave me no choice...


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Oh, and my many years were back in the 60's and 70's. There wasn't much written that this young (at the time) girl could find at the local library. I just happened to see Ray Hunt at a very informal clinic and liked what I saw.

There are many on here who have less years experience than I do, but that have more horse experience than I do. Due to the shear number of horses they have worked. Therefore, they are way over me in experience. I listen to these younger folk because of their many different dealing with many different horses.

I have only worked mine, or a few friends horses here and there. I am truly a backyard recreational horseman/rider/trainer. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Natural Horsemanship to me usually means people using the phrase without understanding the horse and its reaction!

Some years ago I was under the impression that most ranch horses were broken by snubbing them to a post, waving sacks at them, saddling them, getting on either with a leg tied up or not, and riding them out of the 'performed'

In all my years with horses I have never seen or known anyone who has done this to get a horse rideable, so, if this was a way of breaking horses, anyone who came along and worked with allowing the horse to understand what was wanted of it, called themselves a Natural Trainer..

In the UK horses were started with learning to longe, long reining them, then backing them, usually over anything front 4 - 6 weeks, some less others more.

I am old enough to have known trainers who worked with horses with their parents who were horse people. They all had wonderful tales to tell including some of barbaric practises because pre WW2 horses were more or less disposable. 

As for Hprse Whisperers, I knew one. He was totally able to do anything with a.horse with no problems at all. No gimmicks, halters, ropes or gadgets he could just get any horse to come to him, then want to do anything to please him.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

What do I think about NH ? Well.. . . .The term certainly wasn't around in the early 1960s when I was learning to ride, but the concepts were. It didn't take long with keeping my eyes and ears open to realize that some methods were better (in my estimation) than others so I followed the locals that I respected. I now realize how limited some of the other "professionals" were in their knowledge. I started working with problem horses with the idea that there is a reason for bad behavior and if you can eliminate the reason you eliminate the problem. Some of the techniques have been refined so I will say that some of the people practicing NH are on track and doing a good job. If I had to do the groundwork today that I thought necessary to rehab one particular horse, there would be more information available. My gripe is not with the big name trainers. They want you to buy their product but their product is a lot more complicated than a laundry detergent that will get your clothes cleaner. My gripe is with some of the followers who have no horse sense and take things out of context then insist that they are right because Trainer X said so.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

For those who might be interested (There are commercials. You can skip them if you wish)


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

I've kind of avoided this thread, as I do most other threads debating the term Natural Horsemanship. I read the first couple of pages, and now the last couple of pages.

I read somewhere, and believe, that Parelli coined the phrase Natural Horsemanship. I believe he has a copyright on Natural Horse*Man*Ship (with bullets replacing the asterisks here. It is the name of his long ago book written before the 7-Games, before calling anything games, before his own line of tools, before his packaged program. 

I believe that the widespread use of the term NH to vaguely describe a manner of working with horses, is liken to the way that the term Kleenex is used to describe tissue. Kleenex is a brand name, there were boxes of tissues for blowing your nose before Kleenex came along and dominated the market. Then Kleenex became a household word and replaced the word tissue in common conversation. "Got a kleenex?"

Two sides may be offended at their perception of the meaning of a word used to describe them. While at the same time both may call certain others the Three Stooges. Only words, one can look at them differently, are they derogatory or trend setters? The Three Stooges were revolutionary in the television and comedy theaters, trend setters. And in that light, nothing to be laughed at.

Sticks and stones .... attaching a name to something is both offensive, and not offensive. Depending on whether one chooses to be offended, or not. Opens their mind, or not. Sees a value, or not. Anyway, they are just words. 

A rose in a cornfield is a weed. A rose by any other name is still a rose.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

bsms said:


> The Revolution in Horsemanship: And What It Means to Mankind is not history. It was written to push an agenda and promote an approach, but I suspect I've read more old books on riding than Robert Miller has.


BSMS, I suspect you've read more old books on riding than anyone, let alone Robert Miller.

However, I think it would be only fair to recognize the possibility that Miller's motivation for the book came partly from his lifetime experience as an equine veterinarian. No matter how long good horsemanship has been practiced, it certainly was not the norm in Miller's observation. I believe he saw Parelli's work as a chance to bring a better understanding to the masses.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

walkinthewalk said:


> You either have the innate ability or you don't but the likes of The Three Stooges have allowed everyone to think they are capable of training a horse just by waving a stick.


I'll go along with you that we vary widely in our how much gift we have for training. On the other hand, whether we have zero gift or are lavishly blessed, all of us are training our horses every time we are with them, so we might as well do the best we can.

And as I have posted several times, my relationship with my big guy was transformed by one session of "waving a stick." Say what you want about Clinton Anderson, but he was the influence most responsible for me turning the corner with my horse.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

If people take the time to explore all the different ideas and methods out there rather than stick with the few they know/grew up with they'll almost certainly come up with things that work better for some horses and either save a lot of time or even save the horse. What works for one won't essentially work for another so its good to have a lot of resources to fall back on
The principles of NH might not be new to me even if the 'handle' is but they are new to many people especially those just starting out or those raised solely around the idea that the only way to sort out a problem horse was with whips, spurs, harsh restraints and running them into the ground until they were exhausted.
The interpretations and applications of NH seem to be the problem and not the concept.
Taking the time to try to understand why a horse is doing something and then addressing that as the problem can often save time and give much better long lasting results than resorting to force and aggressive tactics


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I just bet that every poster on this thread can recognize and admire good horsemanship, and can recognize and at minimum wince at bad horsemanship, no matter what the 'philosophy' is behind it. There are riders who improve the softness and responsiveness of every horse they get on, and then there are . . . other riders. In every discipline.

Using my own small experience, I would say that training only occurs in that continual present moment when one feels and responds to what the horse is feeling and responding to. 

There is no other kind of good training, and it doesn't matter what style it is or what master you aspire to emulate or what name you give it. You can have all the philosophy in the world in your head, but in the present moment, the horse doesn't care at all and never will. It just cares what you are saying with your body, right then. 

But humans love to talk about stuff.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Avna said:


> But humans love to talk about stuff.


And don't forget that many of us are born with a deep inner need to tell other people what to do.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Funny old discussion on natural horsemanship, I used to live close to a gypsy family who had 'come in' and were living in a real house. I spent a lot of time, much to mothers chagrin, with them, because they were nice people, great fun, and had lots of animals, including horses. 

I don't remember them doing any groundwork, I must of missed those days, all I remember is Kim jumping on them bare back and bridleless and running them around...can't get more natural than that, no gimmicks, no artificial aids, just a really good seat and the ability the whole family had to read a horse. Not horse whisperers, but they could read body language to a T, they knew what a horse was going to do before it did it.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

*Moderator's note*

*Few posts in that thread have been removed since them didn't follow the friendly, constructive atmosphere that we encourage here on Horseforum.com. Please keep the posts civil and constructive, and follow our rules and conscientious etiquette policy while posting.

Failure to follow these guidelines may lead to sanctions like infractions, or temporary or permanent bans.

-The HorseForum.com Moderating Team*


----------



## axell (May 16, 2016)

*natural horse man ship*

A horse is a friend that doesn't speak the same language but understands feelings, moods and state of mind.
As friends, horses will play and work and have a good time while grouping amongst us.
This is the most usefull learning I ever experienced with the animals I love.
And I never forget that they know I 'could' be a predator and they are certainly 'preys'.


----------



## thisiswater (Mar 17, 2016)

If you were to recommend one book/DVD, etc., on NH what would it be?


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Beginner: Cherry Hill - how to think like a horse

Intermediate - Ray Hunt - Think Harmony With Horses: An In-Depth Study of Horse/Man Relationship

Advanced - Tom Dorrance - True Unity: Willing Communication Between Horse and Human


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Bill Dorrence, "Horsemanship through Feel". Is also a good one to ruminate over.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

sarahfromsc said:


> Bill Dorrence, "Horsemanship through Feel". Is also a good one to ruminate over.


Ruminate over, as in, "I wonder what he meant by that?"


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

Nothing we do with a horse is natural to them. Nothing. "Natural" as in "nature" is brutal - survival of the fittest. Nature doesn't care. We do. 

Joel, you do know what he means. You know what right feels like. You also know if something doesn't feel right, it isn't. You might not know why or what is wrong, but you know…because you feel it.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Joel Reiter said:


> Ruminate over, as in, "I wonder what he meant by that?"


Yes. While sipping a cold adult beverage.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Joel Reiter said:


> Ruminate over, as in, "I wonder what he meant by that?"


Same goes for his brother Tom's book... Neither is a "how to" book, it is a "why" book. 

You can come back to it over and over and find you understand him better as you gain understanding of the horse (which is never ending) and as Sarah mentioned, a cold adult beverage consumed on a back porch, on a nice summer day, with gentle breezes, overlooking the pasture helps as well! :wink:


----------



## RegalCharm (Jul 24, 2008)

Natural Horsemanship, Adds about a $100. to a 10 cd Natural Horsemanship learning set. , each an hour long. learning series on how to teach your horse and you to become one.

and after the first lesson the next nine spend about 20 minutes each giving you a refresher on the prior cd lesson with includes edited portions of said previous lesson.

Then you have the option of buying a stick with a short rope attached and painted a pretty orange which includes a free glove that you can tape on the end to teach your horse it is ok for a gloved hand to touch his legs with out said horse launching him/her self or you to the moon. along with a special training halter that will not cause any pain to said horse when you dig your spurs in yelling WHOA, WHOA Horsie, WHOA I Say.


----------



## jgnmoose (May 27, 2015)

On the basic esoteric level it is pure gold. The authentic people are trying to convey a way of understanding how a horse thinks, what is important to them and how to communicate with the horse and get out of his/her way so she can do what you asked. 

My grandfather was born in 1906, he grew up with horses. They raised and trained replacement mounts in a time before cars. He was always kind and gentle with animals, talked to them and had an understanding of how to get along with them. The idea that before this movement that horses were whipped and beat to submission is pure bull. 

It is my opinion that one of the worst groups of people through the years have been the "show" people. Read a bit, and you'll come across stories of stuffing ginger up a horse's butt to get them to raise their dock for a picture. Cruel devices to force a horse into a frame that they aren't ready for or conformationally capable of doing naturally, and other nonsense to win a ribbon.

"Natural Horsemanship" as a business sells because people want to be friends with their animals. I want to be friends with my horse too, honestly. Some of what is missing is that horses are physically very tough, but emotionally very sensitive. We intuitively know this about them. Some are "born broke" and others are independent and too **** smart for their own good with a frustrated human trying to teach them anything. 

Before this gets too long, I'll just state that I agree with the core concepts. Understanding the horse as an animal, how it learns, how to be a better partner and getting out of their way. I also think a great deal comes in learning to ride correctly to facilitate being a good human partner. My main concern with "natural horsemanship" is that most of what you see is chasing horses around with flags, but where is the emphasis on balance, position, feel and timing while riding? When it just "clicks", it is perfect and you can tell the horse enjoys it too and it develops the bond. Where are the overpriced 10 DVD sets on that? lol


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Joel Reiter said:


> Ruminate over, as in, "I wonder what he meant by that?"



kind of like the Bible; it's got room for a person to ponder in there.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

tinyliny said:


> kind of like the Bible; it's got room for a person to ponder in there.


2 Peter 3:15-16 "our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him... His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort."


----------



## Reneighb (Jun 9, 2016)

Simply put..

"The horse is never wrong, never at fault, never the problem"

for me, I don't follow any figure in horse training personally.

listening to your horse, more ways than just hearing but seeing feeling and understanding what they are communicating to you.
confusion? convey your message better in a way the horse understands.
Knowing that sweet spot of adding pressure and releasing, some people can have that knack naturally and that's a key element to a trainer who knows his stuff.

distinguishing what behaviour is attitude and what is pain or fear is the most important thing you can learn as a horse owner/trainer/rider
I never put up with any horse I handle to have an attitude especially when that could mean I or anyone near me could be hurt.
frivolous displays of attitude in a way that is nasty in nature are for the horses paddock when not being handled or asked to work/tie up/stand up/tacked up/floated/trucked/ridden...

my own personal opinion


----------



## Valerie Chumak (Sep 7, 2016)

For me NH means ground work and a dialog with the horse on a language, that the horse understands. The horse being should be as natural as possible- no bit/bridle/halter is preferrable, only the body language is used. I don't use anything on my horses when I do Natural Horsemanship, except when we are in an open field/on the road with a still beginner-horse (just the matter of safety, until the horse trusts me completely and becomes fully reliable). Natural Horsemanship is not tricks nor bitless riding, it is the way of communicating with the horse. Naturally. With Natural Horsemanship you learn the "horse-body-language" yourself and teach the horse "the human-body-language". Of course, Natural Horsemanship includes de-spooking programs, where you naturally, without pressure, explain the horse the everyday "scary" things (if needed). There is a huge bond between the person and the horse, they move like one, they speak without words, they understand each other without non-natural pressure such as halters bridles etc. The person talks with the horse through energy, the same how horses communicate in a wild herd, and the horse actually understands.
That is only my opinion, which I think is right. 
P.S. And yes, I do NOT find Parelli Horsemanship natural at all, he uses too much unnatural pressure and his horses fear him, which should not be like that. 
I am uploading a great picture of what I call NATURAL HORSEMANSHIP! (I don't know if it has uploaded or not something keeps going wrong)


----------



## danny67 (Nov 27, 2012)

>>"_What does Natural Horsemanship mean to you?_"

From now on it will mean "tree huggers", Clinton Anderson, and never buying his products, at least to me.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't think Clinton Anderson hugs trees. doesn't strike me as that type. though, come to think of it, what IS that type?

i've met so many people who use some form of NH or another. and frankly, they really don't all fit into any one mold.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Trees are really quite scratchy and hard, with pokey twigs sticking out. Horses are a good bit softer and warmer, if you must hug something.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

The term 'Natiural Horsemanship' is basically a term used since the 80s in America to differentiate between working a horse in a kindly manner rather than force. 

I wold never class myself as a 'natural' trainer but I do not use harsh methods, just the way the Brits have started horses for centuries.


----------



## jgnmoose (May 27, 2015)

Forgive me if I already said this in this thread, it is Friday and I've had a few of le' Cowboy Coolaid. 

It is a way of training horses that started with guys like Tom Dorrance teaching people who were already good horseman and good riders how to get a better horse. Put in context, he was mostly talking to Cowboy outfits who start a lot of horses, and Cowboys who might ride a different horse every day out of his string. Monday's horse could be green as grass, and Thursday's horse might be a finished bridle horse. 

In the old days when horses were transportation and the original ATV, people had basically no tolerance for misbehaving horses. They had to be "broke to ride". 

That lead to some sometimes barbaric methods to get a horse to submit and do exactly what it was told. As individuals, this obviously wasn't needed on every horse. Breeding, temperament and the individual can make a big difference in how trainable and willing they are.

I personally believe the horses in those days were a lot more trained than your typical horse today. They were used for a job, even if that job was transporting humans from A to B. 

Showing is one of the more notorious areas of abusive training, but not the only one. I have nothing against showing, just stating the fact that in the past people have resorted to some strange and cruel things to get a horse to carry a frame or look a certain way.

Natural Horsemanship is nothing more than trying to understand the horse as an animal, how they learn, what is important to them, and how to use that to make them into a great partner. Of course, as simple as that sounds it is something a person could spend a lifetime trying to achieve. 

Beyond that? Well, it is marketing. The majority of horse owners today are purely recreational. They want to be friends with the horse, and to a degree they are a pet. An analogy I am growing fond of is Olympians, human athletes. We are all technically made the same way, what makes a person an Olympian is the time effort and passion and training a person has to become good at an event. Can you "make" a horse be a good Cow Horse, or a good Jumper? I guess. The great ones enjoy it, and have someone teaching them that enjoys teaching it, and that combination makes a hell of a horse in that specialty. 

I don't blame people for turning it into TV Shows, DVDs and training kits you can buy for hundreds of dollars. This is an expensive hobby, and an even more expensive profession. Where I think Natural Horsemanship goes astray is that beyond fixing the common gripes of assorted behavioral and safety issues, there isn't a lot of "horsemanship" being taught. I can think of a couple that do emphasize this area, and to their credit it is as important as the various drills and chasing misbehaving horses around with flags...


----------



## Paintedponies1992 (Nov 17, 2013)

Natural Horsemanship to me means being able to get a horse to do something for me without unneeded aids (Whips, spurs, etc.). Willing compliance. That being said, I'm no die hard natural horseperson; I will get after one of my horses if they get it in their head that they think they can (Rosie). There's some of the Natural Horseman 'fad' that I don't particularly care for, but some of it I do use when training my guys.


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Idk what it means...


----------



## kaimanawas (Apr 16, 2015)

I guess the money wasting side of this is the horse whispering which I think is just a bunch of garbage. I mean anyone who doesn't whip and hit their horse and listens instead can be considered a natural horsemanship person. You don't need to have some fancy exspensive gear or get a "professional" out to do things the right way. To me there really is no right way just a wrong way and that's all there is to it. every horse is different you can't expect one way to work the same with all.


----------



## stevenson (Sep 12, 2011)

I would say not being abusive. Not -- tying a horse up hard and tight, spurring the hide off the sides, soring the mouth or chin , cross tying and whipping its legs to teach it to dance, tying with the head up high for hours and day, not soring the legs or stacking the shoes.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

As far as I know the two people most responsible for the phrase, as it is understood today, are Clinton A. and Pat P. And from that view, to me and one of my horses, it means, "Lets get away, quick!"


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

What does 'natural mean, applied to hrose training?
Nothing to me, beyond subliminal advertising-ie, if you add the word 'natural, or organic', the product is immediately thought to be 'better'
I don't know if you would even apply NH to CA,as he is just one of many trainers, that tires to market themselves and their programs, versus just training good horses
Now, Parelli, with all his Horsenaility , gets into that nebulous field of un founded science, but hey, lots of people pay to have their horses classified by that 
quasi science, and stuff like that creates a great cash flow-feeding on the gullibility of people-just ask any animal communicator? Now, that is really opening a can of worms!


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

stevenson said:


> I would say not being abusive. Not -- tying a horse up hard and tight, spurring the hide off the sides, soring the mouth or chin , cross tying and whipping its legs to teach it to dance, tying with the head up high for hours and day, not soring the legs or stacking the shoes.


I think that's just "horsemanship". There are thousands of trainers who don't do any of that stuff who don't call themselves "natural horsemanship" trainers. They're just "trainers". Who aren't abusive.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenson View Post
I would say not being abusive. Not -- tying a horse up hard and tight, spurring the hide off the sides, soring the mouth or chin , cross tying and whipping its legs to teach it to dance, tying with the head up high for hours and day, not soring the legs or stacking the shoes.

Now, that is the confusion that really bothers me- the idea that if you don't stick NH behind your name, you automatically become abusive, must use abusive training techniques, and that anyone who adds NH tot heir training credentials, automatically trains only using very kind means. That is absolute rubbish
There are good trainers and there are bad trainers, and they are without 'boarders' or labels, existing in either camp (traditional and NH )
Great horsemen existed before the term NH was coined, and still exist without applying that label to themselves


----------



## Strainge (Feb 3, 2017)

*A thought*

For me NH (or whatever you want to call it) is just about getting my sweet girl back. 


Having had my mare since she was 4, she had always had a good deal of personality and could certainly be a bit of a diva. I always quite liked her cheeky personality and she always worked well for me. As she got older, grew taller and stronger I started to expect more from her when I rode, and in turn she started to push the boundaries and rebel like a stroppy teenager.


Each ride became a 'battle' that I 'won' eventually but after which she would simply redouble her efforts the next time becoming ever more reactive a highly strung. I know that I could have kept it up, got tough and won out, but it wasn't fun, leaving us both exhausted and her always less willing to work the next time due to the negative association.


So I did some research and decided to work with her from the ground to give us a fresh start. we have been working for 30 minutes every morning and for an hour in Saturdays in the morning and afternoon, I've used a few basic exercises from various sources sometimes making her work, other times we might do something very simple such as bending and flexing where she barely has to move. I change the exercises each day to keep it interesting for her and her mind working. I have a very reactive horse so I often tone down the intensity to suit her too. What I really think has been achieved is a change in her overall attitude. She is more calm and loving, responsive to commands, and I can see her looking at me quizzically as she learns to assess my body language, appearing more willing each day to please me. I am learning too, not to give her mixed signals, teaching her what she can expect from me, and reward her efforts generously.


I'm sure its not for everyone, but that is for you to judge for yourself, you know your own horse, after all.


but I have my beautiful girl back, and that's all that matters to me.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I think this is the key, from your post, and really has nothing to do with any label, NH or otherwise

"learning too, not to give her mixed signals, teaching her what she can expect from me, and reward her efforts generously.

I also have a reactive horse, but one who has learned to be less reactive, as her trust in me grew
Trust comes from first of all, knowing that you are a fair yet strong leader, one who watches out for danger, so your horse does not have to It is also with that horse understanding that you will always be fair, and always consistent.
Horses don't understand why a rule applies at one time, but not at another-that creates a grey area
Ground work is a great place to go back to, when you run into problems, but you also have to realize that ground work won't all transfer to under saddle, and many horses will lead anywhere, flex , work soft in a halter, but still refuse to ride places they rather would not, still can be resistant under saddle, still can be over reactive while ridden
How old is the horse now ,and are you riding her?


----------



## 252553 (Apr 25, 2017)

Natural horsemanship to me is not causing the horse to be in pain or perform like trick ponies but let the horse be a horse.

I am fully aware that not EVERY person that rides with a spur or bit the nastiest person. They genuinely love their horse but they don't know any better.

I just hope for one day bits and spurs are done away with so that the horses in this world can live pain free and happy but then again that is getting into a whole different story with all the abuse that goes on the horse world. 

I just know that I won't be causing such pain onto my horse/horses when I do eventually own them and knowing that they are in a loving home.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Oh good lord child, bits and spurs aren't cruel, nor do they hurt horses. You've bought into the craziness hype. 

The tool is only as humane or inhumane as the _human_ using it. Someone without the proper training and experience can hurt their horse, but they can also be hurt by any other piece of equipment, bitted or not. It's the hands that use them that cause the cruelty, not the tools themselves.

You don't even own a horse, yet somehow know better than people who have had horses in their lives for decades longer than you've been alive? No, just no.

Bits and spurs will never be 'done away with' because they're TOOLS, not torture devices. Maybe when you actually spend time around horses and horse people, you'll see that it's not airy-fairy, 'my horses will love me because I'm nice to them' garbage. Horses are big, powerful flight animals that have a strong herd hierarchy, and they respond well to good, fair leadership. 

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING we do with horses is 'natural'. If you want to ride, you're being as unnatural as possible, because horses didn't evolve to be ridden. In fact, horses are prey animals, so the most natural thing we could do with them is eat them.


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

bsms said:


> _
> 
> 
> "Right brain horses when they have saddling or girthing issues its because they don't trust and they tend to worry. Right brain Introverts they tend to be very claustrophobic, so they are naturally girthy horses. You just have to go really slow with them. Left brain horses is more like "I don't want you doing anything to me...Once the relationship improves, that is gone_"
> ...


Wow. I couldn't even watch until the 4 minute mark...1.5 minutes in and my patience was gone...How do people watch this stuff???


----------



## 252553 (Apr 25, 2017)

Speed Racer said:


> Oh good lord child, bits and spurs aren't cruel, nor do they hurt horses. You've bought into the craziness hype.
> 
> The tool is only as humane or inhumane as the _human_ using it. Someone without the proper training and experience can hurt their horse, but they can also be hurt by any other piece of equipment, bitted or not. It's the hands that use them that cause the cruelty, not the tools themselves.
> 
> ...


I don't mean to offend so do not try to offend me.

In *MY OPINION * spurs and bits cause pain to a horse(to which I may add is quite obvious). That is my opinion so please respect that.
In no way am I under the 'Oh if I'm nice to my horse it will love me' fad. I've been riding my whole life and was brought up riding english so please do not assume I know nothing about riding horses just because I do not own one. I have plenty of horse riding friends so again, do not assume that I don't have any. 

While yes I do respect and agree with you that it is the rider that can cause the most damage regardless of riding equipment they use, I do not personally agree with using bits and spurs. I see no need for them especially when I have no interest in eventing or such things. And I have no interest in causing pain to my horse when I get one.

Again please respect my opinions and I will respect yours.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Seoul said:


> In *MY OPINION * spurs and bits cause pain to a horse(to which I may add is quite obvious).


Why does the CUE that a bit gives to a horse cause pain .... but the CUE that a hackamore or halter gives to a horse does not cause pain? 

Why does the CUE that a spur gives to a horse cause pain.... but the leg cue you give them does not cause pain?

This is why I disagree with your opinion. Logically, it does not make sense.

Bits do not cause pain (when they are used correctly). They are simply another type of tool we can use to communicate with a horse. Whether you choose to use bitless bridle, or a hackamore, or a bit -- they are are tools with which to provide cues and communication to the horse.

Spurs also do not cause pain (when they are used correctly). They provide a cue for the horse, in the same way that a leg aide provides a cue. The horse learns to respond to the cue the spurs provide, in additional to your leg and seat cues. It allows for more advanced and refined manevars.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

I haven't read most of this thread so forgive me... To me... natural horsemanship is common sense in a package for the most part. There is some stuff that could be considered hocus pocus but I will admit that I have opened my eyes over the year and allowed ideas in because what I have found is that no single method works for any one horse. Sometimes you have to go outside the box and sometimes everything you need is right there in black and white. I'm a "If it aint broke don't try to fix it" kind of gal but I'm also a "color outside the lines" kind of gal so I do what works.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

Seoul. I want to commend you for your open mind. There is nothing wrong with searching for new ways of doing old things. It is a cliché in the horse world that one never stops learning. The fact is that most of the tools use to communicate with horses, the tools that are not painful "in the right hands," come from a time when the horse training mentality was "you do what I say or it will be painful for you." And the fact is that even today, I'd say most horse riders have an adversarial and confrontational relation with their mounts. Just thought you ought to know that at least there is one person who supports you trying to find a better way with our beloved horses.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

charrorider said:


> ...come from a time when the horse training mentality was "you do what I say or it will be painful for you." And the fact is that even today, I'd say most horse riders have an adversarial and confrontational relation with their mounts...


I think some people are content to dominate a horse, and others prefer to work WITH the horse - and I believe that has always been true. I also agree that too many today still take a *"Get a bigger whip"* mentality. But I also consider this quote from an Army officer in the mid-1800s to be an example of 'natural horsemanship':
_
The French say, when speaking of a horse that shows restiveness, "il se defend" - he defends himself...There is much truth in this expression, and it is one that riders should constantly bear in mind, for insubordination is most commonly the result of something having been demanded from the horse that it either did not know how to do or was unable to perform...

...There is another thing to be considered with regard to the horse's character - it loves to exercise its powers, and it possesses a great spirit of emulation; it likes variety of scene and amusement; and under a rider that understands how to indulge it in all this without overtaxing its powers, will work willingly to the last gasp, which is what entitles it to the name of a noble and generous animal...

..Horses don't like to be ennuye, and will rather stick at home than go out to be bored ; they like amusement, variety, and society : give them their share of these, but never in a pedantic way, and avoid getting into a groove of any kind, either as to time or place, especially with young animals. It is evident that all these things must be taken into account and receive due attention, whether it be our object to prevent or to get rid of some bad habit a horse may have acquired ; and a little reflection will generally suffice to point out the means of remedying something that, if left to itself, would grow into a confirmed habit, or if attacked with the energy of folly and violence, would suddenly culminate in the grand catastrophe of restiveness...

......The first impulse of the great majority of riders whose horses bolt is, to put a sharper bit into their mouths, or at least to shorten the curb, and perhaps rig the horse out with some sort of martingal or running-reins that gives them a good hold of the head, to secure which more effectually they plant their feet firmly in the stirrups, probably at the same time throwing their own weight as far back as possible towards the horse's loins. Energy is an admirable thing, but the energy of stupidity seldom avails much ; and the above plan of proceeding is nearly sure to make matters worse, and convert a terrified animal into a vicious one. For whether the anguish the poor horse endeavours to escape from has its seat in the hind quarters or in the head and neck, severe bitting is sure to aggravate it, and a rude hard hand will do the same. The best, in fact the only, remedy for a bolter is, a very carefully fitted and well adjusted bit, a perfectly painless curb, a light hand, and last, but not least, a very firm steady seat, somewhat forward with horses that have weak hind quarters._..

On Seats and Saddles, by Francis Dwyer, Major of Hussars in the Imperial Austrian Service (1868)

Notice he quotes a French expression, in use then: "_he defends himself"_. Its existence in the 1800s indicated many people then tried to understand the horse, and sought ways of training that would not provoke a defense. George Morris called it "the back door". When you meet a horse who has bolted the front door, you don't break down the front door. You seek the back, and then try to convince the horse to UNLOCK the front door - because he is no longer threatened!

It isn't about bits or spurs. It is about attitude. Good horsemanship is about getting the horse to unlock the doors and riding a willing animal, not one that is merely submissive.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

charrorider said:


> And the fact is that even today, I'd say most horse riders have an adversarial and confrontational relation with their mounts.


I would strongly disagree with you. I think it is becoming more rare to find people who want and choose to "fight" with their horse to force them to do what they want them to do. 

I think _most_ horse riders try to find a harmonious relationship to work with their horse and create a willing partner in their horse.



charrorider said:


> The fact is that most of the tools use to communicate with horses, the tools that are not painful "in the right hands," come from a time when the horse training mentality was "you do what I say or it will be painful for you."


I agree that the "old days" of cowboys bustin' broncs was very much a forceful way of doing things but remember that pretty much anything used on a horse *could* be made painful if it is not used properly. 

Even a nylon halter could be painful if the hands on the lead rope decides to jerk on the horse. 
The leadrope attached to that halter could be made painful if the hands decided to whip the horse with said leadrope. 
The saddle on the horse could be made painful if the rider did not care to make sure it fits the horse's back appropriately.
Etc.
Etc.

Anything used on a horse has the capability of being painful to the horse if it is not used properly.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

beau159. We can split hairs and argue until the end of time about the points you mentioned. For example, whether a majority or not, or just many, have an adversarial relationship with their mounts. That wasn't my main point. My main point was that some were being critical, discouraging and even disrespectful of another member who had different, more humane (for lack of a better word) ideas on how to form a bond with a horse. IMO, there's nothing wrong with that, and I, for one, welcome it. It doesn't matter whether if she's 100% correct or not when she says spurs are cruel.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

charrorider said:


> I'd say most horse riders have an adversarial and confrontational relation with their mounts.


Wow, I can hardly disagree enough with that. I don't know ANYONE like that. I know people who let their horses push them around. I know people who are afraid of their horse. I know people who cater to their horse's whims (like the lady who told me a couple days ago that she took her horse out to brush her "but she just didn't want to be groomed today so I put her back in the pasture". 

I do find that there are people who wish to believe that almost everyone except themselves is doing it all wrong, and are being mean and cruel and unfeeling to their horses. I find that is a very common idea, in fact.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

charrorider said:


> It doesn't matter whether if she's 100% correct or not when she says spurs are cruel.


Actually, it matters a great deal if someone is decrying the use of common riding tools such as bits, spurs and crops as 'cruel'. These tools have been proven time and again not to be cruel unless used incorrectly, either out of anger or just complete ignorance. You may have an opinion about something but that doesn't make it right, and in horses it's all about getting things right, and finding that balance between horse and rider.

Having an incorrect opinion about something a person knows very little about simply doesn't make it as valuable as an opinion that's been formed by research and experience. You can disagree with me, but that still won't make an uninformed person's opinion as valuable as an informed person's. 

I also find your user name rather amusing, considering historically charro riders have not been known for their 'kind and sympathetic' approach to horse training.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

charrorider said:


> It doesn't matter whether if she's 100% correct or not when she says spurs are cruel.


If I see someone saying something that I believe to be false, _yes_, it does matter.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The idea that spurs or bits are cruel , comes from people who don't even understand how to use them correctly in the first place
Horses today, in general, are owned by people that like horses, and those same people make a lifetime objective of learning, improving their training and riding of horses.
In the past, horses were tools, owned by everyone, in an age when horse power was needed for many tasks now relegated to machines. If you wish to read about abuse, harsh training, then read some the info on the gold rush times, wars fought with hroses, horses used as city transportation, in the mines, ect
Today, very often, abuse is often along the line of 'killing them with kindness', where horses are over fed, under worked and often allowed to become spoiled, thus destined to join the growing number of un wanted horses
Balance, is the key, where horses are trained in a kind fair manner, where they have clear and fair boundaries that are consistant
When someone states spurs are cruel , then I automatically assume they do not have a clue how to use spurs correctly
If you jab a horse with a spur, as a cue, then yes, that is abusive
On the other hand, if you first teach ahorse leg aids before you ever wear spurs, have an independent seat, so you never touch a horse accidentally with a spur, use them only as a secondary cue to non compliance to light leg aids, and in an incremental manner, until the desired response is given, you create alight horse, that hardly ever needs to be touched with that spur, as the horse soon learns that if he responds to a light leg aid, you in turn will never go tot he spur.


----------



## twixy79 (Jul 8, 2017)

I am a horse newbie, so I am not sure that my opinion and thoughts on this really count... But here it goes. My background is in dogs. I have been working with rescue dogs for the last 10 years. I wanted a method of training similar to what I have used with my dogs. I want a partnership with my horse. Duke is 18 years old, we have had him a whopping 2 days, but before us, we was with a rescue, and before that, a kill pen because he has arthritis. It is obvious by his difficulty in trusting people, and his scars that he was not a loved, and cherished family pet. He was used for a job, which I think is wonderful. All animals have to have a job, task or purpose or they will go batty. 

Anyway, we are slowly introducing Duke to treats, affection, real grooming. We are trying to build a relationship of trust and mutual respect with him. I am primarily focusing on clicker training, and so far, he is doing pretty good. He has a few issues (like he is too antsy to stand for the farrier for long periods of time) so I am working with him on hoof and hold. I want to teach him good habits and I want him to see our time together as a partnership. I want him to know love, and perhaps some day give a little love too. I am really excited about starting to work with him and seeing where this takes us.


----------



## daisie1 (Aug 9, 2017)

@twixy79
How is the clicker training going? I was wondering if anyone on here clicker trained horses. 





twixy79 said:


> I am a horse newbie, so I am not sure that my opinion and thoughts on this really count... But here it goes. My background is in dogs. I have been working with rescue dogs for the last 10 years. I wanted a method of training similar to what I have used with my dogs. I want a partnership with my horse. Duke is 18 years old, we have had him a whopping 2 days, but before us, we was with a rescue, and before that, a kill pen because he has arthritis. It is obvious by his difficulty in trusting people, and his scars that he was not a loved, and cherished family pet. He was used for a job, which I think is wonderful. All animals have to have a job, task or purpose or they will go batty.
> 
> Anyway, we are slowly introducing Duke to treats, affection, real grooming. We are trying to build a relationship of trust and mutual respect with him. I am primarily focusing on clicker training, and so far, he is doing pretty good. He has a few issues (like he is too antsy to stand for the farrier for long periods of time) so I am working with him on hoof and hold. I want to teach him good habits and I want him to see our time together as a partnership. I want him to know love, and perhaps some day give a little love too. I am really excited about starting to work with him and seeing where this takes us.


----------



## jpenguin (Jun 18, 2015)

It's really just a buzzword that doesn't have just one meaning; it's usually things I stay away from. The thing that annoys me the most is that "natural horsemanship" people are often very ridgid. I have been riding with people who have the worst trained horse, and demand that to get the horse to stop- pull on one reign and completely bend their neck; at faster gaits that can be very dangerous.
I also get very annoyed at the "all bits are evil" people. My past instructers have commented on how soft I am on the horses mouth, but my last instructed still took away the bit for a few lessons- and kept saying "isn't this better"

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Means nothing, beyond being a label, same as 'organic., both perceived to be better, when many times they are not.
Good training is just good training, and there are bad examples in both the NH camp and traditional
It is a marketing tool, plain and simple


----------



## Palomine (Oct 30, 2010)

Moneymaking scam is what it is to me.

Best way to describe it was what I read in a book. Author said that women in the 80/90s finally had enough money and time to invest in a horse, but the lack of qualified horsepeople to help them, left a void for someone like Lyons to step into. And since many had been raised in the 'we cannot discipline' era with children, they did not want to discipline their horses either.

So the training methods that had worked for centuries were replaced with touchy feely things. When the horses responded to hesitant owners with dominant behaviors, just as they would to a lower horse on pecking order, then the 'right brain, left brain, introvert, extrovert' came in. When that too failed in basic horsemanship skillsets, you got the 'bond/love/trust' push.

Coupled with the 'spend some time with your horse so he doesn't think you just want to work him' as well.

Some of the games these people teach owners to play are foolish and in some cases downright dangerous to boot. The 'let horse chase you and you chase him' is an accident waiting to happen. As many of us saw in the video where the woman was kicked in the head by her horse. One of the others, and honestly cannot imagine anyone paying for any of these 
clinics to begin with, is people taking their horses into an arena, 20 or more in there...no tack at all, and the owners are to hunker down so horse comes to them. 

Another new game is 'let's show how herd dynamics works'..where 10 or more saddled horses are turned loose in an arena, where the more dominant horses are basically terrorizing the lower horses, and is also a good way to get a horse hurt. You cannot learn herd dynamics in a group of horses that have been thrown together just that moment, what you see is milling and panic. And good way to have a horse with broken leg, or run into a fence, or even killed.

I grew up around good trainers, good horsepeople and so glad of that. So NH is not anything but moneymaking scam to me.


----------



## Kaifyre (Jun 16, 2016)

I think the bare bones of natural horsemanship is a good thing ... using the least amount of pressure to accomplish your goals, letting the horse learn to move on a loose rein, obtaining obedience and respect from the ground to help solve problems under saddle, etc are all very useful skills to have. Too often though, people get hung up on the things that don't matter. I find that a lot of people who dive into the natural horsemanship schtick don't have a thorough understanding of the WHY and get too hung up on the WHAT or HOW. Then they start down the "all bits are abusive" or "hitting a horse is never acceptable" path and their horse goes bat s*** cray cray and ends up hurting them, and they lose their confidence and the horse turns into a pasture pet. I've seen it happen time and time again. I feel that the term natural horsemanship has turned into a status symbol, something people can feel good about "belonging" to, much of the time without the slightest idea of why it works. I'm not sure I'm doing a very good job explaining lol

-- Kai


----------

