# Passive Leadership Horse Training, Good, Bad, or Ugly?



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Subbing, need to go feed the horses right now.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

A bit twisted, Jmo, in observations.
Of course horses don't consider us another horse, nor are we trying to fit into that herd
We are communicating, in training, using a language that the horse understands as a prey/herd species
Horses do like a strong clear leader, and that is where they get their security.
It is the lead mare they follow, not some other member, when that herd is threatened
By establishing yourself as alpha, that does not mean you use training, through force, and not making sure the horse understands any requests asked of him.
It does mean, if you are out there feeding the herd, every horse in that herd understands that you are not someone they can run over, getting out of the way of a horse, higher up then them.
The dominant horse also knows never to exert his position, on a lower down horse, if I am handling or riding that horse.
Far as horses not hanging out with an alpha horse-again not true. That alpha horse is secure in his position, and thus only needs to give a 'look', to another horse, seldom needing to up that assertion any more than that, once his /her position is clear
On the other hand, introduce a new horse to a herd, and it is the horses lower down that will show the most open aggression towards that new horse, not wanting to loose the position they now enjoy
Horses are relaxed in clear and consistent boundaries, and not where they are un sure as to who is leading who, or if on some days they are allowed some action, and then the next day reprimanded for the same action-that is what creates a resentful and insecure horse
My horses are all easy to catch, are secure in my presence, when I ride them out alone, versus their leader being back in that pasture


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

You've mentioned passive leaders, the ones below the alpha. Actually that is a constantly changing dynamic and it happens day by day, minute by minute that a lower horse tries to dominate another. This is why introducing a new horse is so disruptive to the established herd. Most herds have two alphas, a mare and a gelding or stallion. The mare decides when and where to graze and what is appropriate behavior while the stallion's job is to watch out for predators. His is a lonely life and it's easier to watch the alpha male and relax than to have that job.


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

I don't really agree with this.
I don't think herd dynamics is simple. Also, our pecking order isn't a straight line.
Example: Horse A may be above horse B, and horse B is above horse C, but horse C is above horse A. Also, when our lead horse is gone, the whole dynamics changes. 
Our head horse (a 1/2 blind 28 year old gelding) is as forceful as he needs to be and it doesn't deter the other horses from being with him. The baby horses will eat right from his pile, and the main part of the herd is always with him. He knows when someone is challenging him though and then he lets them have it. He just behaves as if the expects everyone to listen to him, and when they don't he is insistent.


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

Smilie said:


> On the other hand, introduce a new horse to a herd, and it is the horses lower down that will show the most open aggression towards that new horse, not wanting to loose the position they now enjoy


^^That is so true. They also seem to be the ones that fight amongst themselves the most.:gallop:


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Here's another article........

Begin article:

Who's the Herd Leader? It Depends, Researchers Say










Who’s the leader of the pack? Or in the case of horses, the herd? If you think it’s the dominant horse, think again. French researchers recently determined that the dominant horse is rarely the one who makes the first move to get the herd going. And, in fact, the “herd leader” often changes throughout the day.

“To really be a true leader, you need followers, and that’s true of horses as well as humans,” said Odile Petit, PhD, of the University of Strasbourg, in Alsace, France. Petit presented her work on herd movements at the 2015 Equine Ethology Day held April 9 in Saumur, France.

Many researchers and owners have traditionally believed dominant horses—especially stallions or older, dominant mares—to be the herd leaders. But Petit’s research results show that, actually, they often leave the leading up to others. And the ones that most frequently take the job are the most sociable horses, she said.

But, Petit said, neither the dominant horses nor the more sociable horses are most likely to be followed. It’s the ones with the most “friends,” she said.

“It seems to come down to the close relationships that the leading horse has with other horses,” Petit said. “When horses see their ‘friends’ start to move, they’ll often join in and start moving as well.” The horses typically begin to move in small groups until the entire herd is moving.

Petit’s research team studied several herds of about 15 to 20 horses in seminatural settings in very large pastures. They videoed the herds’ movements, starting from well before the movement until after the movement was completed. They found that leaders often gave subtle physical cues—such as specific postures—prior to movement, and these were sufficient to get the horses all moving at approximately the same time. They also noted that nearly every horse in the herd was the leader for at least one movement over the course of a week. However, not all leading horses were followed, in which cases the leader abandoned the movement.

Petit said the team also found, somewhat surprisingly, that a stallion in a group of mares actually appears to disrupt the harmony of the movements. “When we took the stallion out, the mares seemed much more in phase without him,” she said. “And when he was there, he was out of phase with them. If he tried to initiate movements, he usually wasn’t followed.”

Horse herds’ highly complex social structures allow the members to have very efficient and organized group movements, said Petit. “This is vital for a prey group,” she said. “The group has to be able to move from a food point to a water point, for example, without its members getting widely dispersed.”

She also said her team confirmed that social relationships are critical to herd movement. Even when a horse saw a leader begin to depart, whether he followed was typically based on the decisions made by his closest neighbors, “which were generally also its preferred partners,” she said.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

So, while herd interaction among horses can be an interesting and changing dynamics , how do you wish to relate that to training?
Perhaps people get confused when, for simplification, training is said to be based on herd dynamics, with the human being the 'alpha' (horse, object, deity-does not matter)
That relationship, unlike a horse herd dynamic, has to be absolute and un changing.
See where it gets you, if at times you' lead' your horse,and other times you let that horse push into you, being dis- respectful in general, decide if he will ride out, if he will lead where asked, ect
Horses in a herd, do often still ask their fellow herd mates, 'are you still leading me, or am I able to make your feet move now, esp as that horse grows up in a herd, becoming more mature, thus moving up in the ranks
And that is where, far as I'm concerned, we have to differ. Unlike that herd, where dynamics change, we must always let the horse know, that 'yes, we still are the leader'
Just look at the numerous posts here, where people have let little things slip, and where their horse has become down right dis respectful and even dangerous

I also don't think that training can be classified as passive and aggressive. 
There is good training and there is bad training
Sure, mares react different to a stallion,esp when not and heat, but that also has nothing to do with my relationship to any horse.
You have to use common sense when applying herd dynamics and the prey mentality of horses, while relating those aspects to training, or even our interaction with these noble beasts.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I look to be fair and consistent.

I've only adopted the "herd leader" term because it has become common and at least it gives people the idea they must be confident acting when around their horse.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Some of this sounds a bit like Mark Rashid’s concept of Passive Leadership. 

Personally I don’t think a lot of his concepts would work well for someone entirely new to horses, but for someone who already has some confidence with them and can tell the difference between an ill mannered pushy horse being rude and a horse who is misbehaving out of fear I think it can work wonderfully.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

well said. when one starts working with horses fear is a part of your dialogue, but as you progress, patience and tolerance becomes more important than fear.


the great thing about horses is that they live in the present. the more we can do so, the better we will be able to provide leadership that is attractive to them.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Some of this sounds a bit like Mark Rashid’s concept of Passive Leadership.




Shhhhhhh.........I'm trying to run under the wire here to get some opinions.

The first article was written in 1999. The French person's research was in 2015. As far as herd dynamics, what was written in the first article 16 year prior, agrees almost 100% with what the French research determined. I thought that was pretty cool.

I have been watching a herd of 20 horses +/- on a daily basis for over one year in a 600 acre river bottom pasture with lots of brush and steep hills surrounding. I have not seen everyone leading the entire herd from on grazing area to another, or to water, but I have seen way over half of them individually be at the front of the herd moving with the others following, with the alpha and dominant mare (Molly a T. Walker) back in various positions within the moving herd. And I've seen her lead also of course. Very seldom the alpha but occasionally.

On training, the first article says, "I think the answer is simple. First, we need to find a way to be dependable for our horses."

To me, being dependable would not include being wishy washy as who is gonna lead today. The horse needs to know ahead of time exactly what to expect from you, or me, or it's trainer. That, I think, is what the author was trying to get at, that dependability is the bottom line to a horse.

The last three paragraphs of the author of another article, (same author as the first article) sums up his philosophy some I think. And he is a real horse trainer and a somewhat successful one at that.

And hey, I'm just throwing stuff out to see if anything sticks.

The three paragraphs:

Passive leaders have "earned" that particular title with the other horses by showing them they can be dependable in their passive behavior from one day to the next. In other words, they lead by example, not by force.

This is the type of behavior that I try very hard to base my training on. Leading by example, not force, and by being as consistent as possible from one day to the next.

I guess when it gets right down to it, it's more of an attitude than a technique. It's being able to give the horse the benefit of the doubt that they will try and do things right for you, and not constantly reprimanding them for things done wrong.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Sorry Hondo, didn't mean to be a party pooper! 

He got slammed pretty hard at the time by putting forth this concept of "passivity" in leadership and you are correct in that it is as much of an attitude towards horses as it is a "technique".


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Sorry Hondo, didn't mean to be a party pooper!
> 
> He got slammed pretty hard at the time by putting forth this concept of "passivity" in leadership and you are correct in that it is as much of an attitude towards horses as it is a "technique".


That's ok RC&D. I'm sending a box of Kudos (ekudos) for recognizing the philosophy.

But don't say I'M correct about it being an attitude, that was quoted from Mark as was the first article.

I'm just a first semester freshman student taking make up classes trying to catch up.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo, 

If it makes you feel any better my trainer just read three of Mark's books that I gave him and he has been training horses for 50 years! 

He and I have had some very interesting and thought provoking discussions since then. Mostly, it's him trying to figure out Oliver (who leads the heard passively) and why Oliver responds so differently to me and to him. 

My trainer told me "Just when you think you got things all figured out, along comes a horse that tells you otherwise."


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The minute you have geldings in a herd, you already have changed 'natural herd dynamics'
I don't think even male humans really think that they are part of a horse herd, like a stallion-mares are not that stupid
If you wish to study horse herd dynamics, then you have to study those that actually live wild-where the weak are replaced by younger, stronger herd ,members, where young studs are driven out of the herd, forming bachelor bands, and where stallions will kill foals sired by another stud
I have observed such bands that live in our west country.
Far as giving a horse the benefit of a doubt, letting them lead at times, sure I do that, but only after i let the horse know I am counting on his judgement.
For instance, crossing a muddy big pool of water, where I have ridden that trail many times before, and even though the bottom cannot be seen by either me or the horse, I know there is a bottom,and expect my horse to trust me and go through that water, even though he is relying completely on my judgement
On the other hand, if I am on a strange trail, and my horse is reluctant to go through a place that I myself do not know is safe, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
I have also ridden out of mountain areas in the dark, where I can't see the trail, which often crosses the river , back and forth, where you have to be able to see where that trail picks up on the opposite bank, and give my horse a loose rein, trusting that my horse knows where to cross and pick up that trail.
There is a big difference in handing over leadership/decision making, and the horse seizing that leadership 
Sometimes things get over analyzed, when in reality , experience with many horses, relating to them over the years, just allows you to communicate with them, adjust training approach to the individual horse,without sitting back and thinking-now was that passive leadership, dominate leadership, etc-you just do it, and have happy horses secure in your leadership, certainly working out of trust and understanding, not force or fear

Some more good reading, and a down to earth approach, is Chris Irvine's book, 'Horses don't lie'

In the end, if I can ride a horse I trained, so the horse never thinks of bolting, refusing to ride out, or pushy , or one chomping on the bit, but instead have a horse that goes along on a loose rein, spooks in place, has a quiet and relaxed mouth, then you can call that training by what ever label you wish to apply, as it works for me, producing the kind of horse that si known as 'a good citizen'


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

I find Mark Rashid very interesting. I've read four of his books so far, and I've seen him live in several sessions. While most of what he says is very helpful, I think on a couple of points he tries a little too hard to disagree with other trainers. He doesn't think horses can actually be disrespectful. That might be true -- but it's still a helpful way to teach training because it's easy for people to understand, whether it's literally true or not.

Same thing with passive leadership. Sure, there might be cases where horses in a herd follow or prefer to be with a horse other than the alpha mare, but the concept of the alpha is still a useful way to teaching training because it's easy for people to understand.

The thing is, when I've watched Mark training, I don't see how he does anything different than Clinton Anderson, except that Mark is much more gentle and patient. But he still won't allow a horse to invade his personal space and he still demands a response to his cues. As Smilie points out, just because you become the alpha to your horses doesn't mean you abuse them or alienate them. My horses don't come when I call because they're afraid of me.

I recommend Rashid as a good source of information, but more as a refinement of the basics than a primary source for beginners.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> ]Personally I don’t think a lot of his concepts would work well for someone entirely new to horses, but for ........... [/FONT]


I think I know what you mean here and will not dispute it.....but........

Went to bed thinking about this and woke up thinking about it a time or two.

So rather than disputing I'll just call it offering another spin.

In looking at it another way, the problems people often tend to run into when they are entirely new to horses could be from NOT following Mark's method which he calls an attitude.

And that would be becoming a friend and "chosen" leader by being day to day consistent, dependable, and trustworthy, BEFORE any training begins. I wonder if the problems begin when the horse starts receiving a bunch of orders before he has ok'd the new leader.

I read the first article above before I took over Hondo's care when I was pretty close to being entirely new to saddle horses. Hondo came with a bit of baggage and still has some. I took Hondo on daily walks of an hour or more for at least three months. And we always stumbled upon a dish of pellets somewhere along the chosen trail.

I don't claim that he has fully chosen me as his all situations leader yet, but I think that start has helped going a long ways there.

And I don't claim the old methods don't work. They obviously have for hundreds of years and still do.

But if the only relationship I could have with Hondo, or my dog Meka, was one of dominance, I would not want a dog or a horse.

I do have to reserve the final say in a lot of things as they just cannot live in a human world without my final judgement. If they could talk, we might discuss it more.

I just read the study in France in The Horse.com which I subscribe to and it reminded me of what I'd seen in my herd and Mark's article that got me started on my "method" with Hondo so posted to see what people thought.

I haven't really done any training per se that I know of with Hondo, but things like shying away while mounting or taking off after mounted without my direction have just disappeared somehow without much input by me.

And his fearfulness seems to be going way way down. And his social position in the herd has moved way up. He was even hanging with the three top dogs in the shade the other day while the rest of the herd was out grazing.

They would not have allowed that a year ago. I'd like to claim some credit but have no idea if credit is due.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Thanks Joe. I do appreciate the perspective.

I do think the rules are a lot different working in a round pen with a mostly unfamiliar horse in front of an audience that provides some of your living expenses than when you are working with a horse that you spend time with on a daily basis and are attempting to build a bond with.

I do not allow the other horses in the herd to approach too close without further invitation, with some exceptions with the youngsters, except for Hondo. I do not have anymore of a personal space for him than I do for my dog Meka.

It'd be interesting to know if Mark has a personal space for his personal horse.

They are my friends. The other horses are just close associates or acquaintances.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Not long after we first got horses, we had three horses in the corral: Mia, Lilly and Annie. Mia was very dominant. Annie was two years old.

At one point, Mia was picking on Annie. It may have started out as discipline, but Mia took it to the point of being a total jerk. At that point, Lilly - the smallest of the 3 and NOT a dominant horse - stepped in. She walked between Annie and Mia, turned and looked at Mia, and just stood there. Holding her ground. Too small to win a fight, and not insisting on a fight, but you could tell she would give one if forced.

She and Mia looked at each other for a couple of minutes, and then Mia turned away.

That did not mean Lilly "won" or became dominant over Mia. She didn't take over because Mia turned away. She remained the bottom of the 3 in terms of taking food. And most of the time, Mia was NOT a bully. She was recognized as the leader, not because she kicked or bit, but because she would stand watch while the others laid down. If there was a threat, she would step between the other horses and the threat - so anything that attacked would have to take her on first. She could be a bundle of fears, but her desire to protect the others would outweigh her fears. She didn't demand their respect - at least, not often. She did earn it. But Lilly could back Mia down because Lilly would only try to do so for a good reason.

I've been working with Bandit since May. His owner told me not to let him be afraid of anything, to just push him and make him go up to things. Well, I've taken a different approach.

At first, he became more nervous. More reactive. I let him 'tell me' about his fears. And they became worse...for a while. But if he was too afraid of something to move forward with a squeeze, I didn't kick him, whip him or go buy spurs. I'd back him a little, make sure he was looking at me, dismount - and take whatever time needed to show him the scary thing was not scary. And yes, staying between him and the scary thing until he 'bought in' to the idea it wasn't scary.

For the last couple of weeks, I haven't had to dismount. If he is tense about something, I've been able to let him take a look, wait 30-60 seconds, and then squeeze with my calves...and he walks forward. Maybe detouring slightly, but going forward. It is too early to claim success, but I think he is beginning to realize that if I say something isn't scary, it isn't scary. Not because he's more afraid of me than he is of anything out there. Not because I'll punish him. Not because I'm dominant. But because I'm building a track record of knowing what is not scary...and horses don't enjoy being afraid.

There was a saying at Samur: "The horse should think God is on his back and the Devil is at his belly". The idea was that the horse should believe his rider is a deity, and that any refusal will be met with vicious spurring. Thus the horse would go forward. 

That isn't how I want to ride. I want my horse to assume that if I am calm, he can be calm. To do that, I need to convince him that I know what I'm talking about, that I am fair, and that I'll take care of him. Ultimately, I want him to respond to ANY human that way - that humans are very smart, fair, and that horses can trust them completely. It may take another 6 months to convince him. Or a year. But he is 7, so I could be riding him 20 years from now. I've got some time.

I don't want to be the Commander. I want to be the Leader. 25 years in the military gave me lots of experience with both types. I know what I prefer. I think my horses will agree.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo, I don’t see anything in your last post, I disagree with though I would add the thought that although you were new to saddle horses, you were not new to horses generally and came to saddle horses already understanding their language, perhaps more than you realize. 

I’ll give you a personal example of why I say that I think a lot of his attitudes and the resultant methods are hard pressed to be used by absolute beginners.

Two days ago, I took the new rescue (Remington) across the creek to do some hand grazing along the banks. After some two hours, it was time for him to go back to his paddock. We got up to the creek where he took a long deep drink and when he was finished, I began to lead him across. He planted his feet and braced with his head high. After putting some steady forward pressure on the lead, he still didn’t move a muscle and when I turned around, I could see him occasionally eyeballing the area where he had been grazing. He simply wanted to go eat more. I popped him on the rear with the lead and we went across. I was ready to do more if he chose to take it there. His body language said "I don't wanna, make me!"

When I took Oliver to the creek for the first time he did almost exactly the same thing. Planted his feet and braced, though his head was positioned differently. Instead of popping him on the rear, and starting a battle that would create opposition where there did not need to be any, I walked out into the middle of the creek and kept mild forward tension on the lead. I stood there for a few minutes, changing nothing. Eventually he softened and put one foot in the water then the other. He smelled the water, stuck his nose into it and then walked out to meet me in the middle where he took a nice long drink and did some playful splashing. His initial body language said "I am afraid".

If it was a thread in the training forum it might read “Help! Horse won’t cross water.” 

Two different responses based on the horse and the observer's assessment of the situation and their own comfort level. Same problem.

I knew Oliver’s response was one of fear, of uncertainty and myself I felt comfortable standing in the middle of that creek and passively (Passive: accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance) waiting for him to do as I asked. If he got crazy and panicked, I was prepared to deal with that as well. 

With Remington, it was a whole different deal. He had already taken an aggressive stance and so I responded in kind. (Aggressive behavior is behavior that causes physical or emotional harm to others, or threatens to). 

Generally I have found that many trainers working with beginners ask the student to use the same response in both instances. Some trainer’s seriously don’t see the difference in the body language, some simply don’t care and some realize differentiating the two would be too confusing to a rider just learning to deal with an issue and unable to read the body language of the horse.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I don't think the simple term of ;dominant, in regards to horse training implies that you force a horse, make him work out of fear, and don't use the concepts of building trust 
Respect comes first , and if you get respect, you get trust, esp with a 'proven track record' over time
However, if a horse understands a cue, I expect him to respond to it,and 'trust' in my leadership, that I am 'looking out for the lions', so he does not have to.

Of course, this relationship, in developing that trust, like any other relationship, is strengthened over time, with repeated demonstrations that the trust is warranted 
I don't agree with getting off to show a horse an object, for the simple reason that some horses will then learn to use an un familiar object as a means of having that rider get off. Also, there are many cases where you can't take a horse up to an object.
First time we ride out west, is the first time our horses see elk. Can't take a horse up to an elk, so the horse has to trust your judgement that elk are non threatening to horses, versus trying to spook and leave, if coming across them suddenly
There are also times getting off can be dangerous, as in crossing a boggy area. Horses will naturally want to jump where you are standing, once they feel themselves sinking
I'm also not for the most part, re training horses with 'baggage', those that have either become spoiled or have a reason to have lost trust in people
Being dominant, is not synonymous with the old techniques of bucking a horse out, or using other forceful methods in training a horse, but rather of being a clear leader and alpha at all times to that horse, in his mind
That translates to the horse never thinking that he can walk over you, kick you, bite you or crowd you, anymore than he would an alpha horse
There are more horses today, that suffer as a result of humans not being a clear leader, then abused horses, as in the past, where everyone used horses as tools for either 'horse power' or transportation, with many of those people having no empathy towards horses, nor a desire even to have a horse, and with that horse needing to become 'useful, asp.
Many horses now wind up in rescues, un wanted, etc, because mis guided people have allowed these horses to become spoiled, thus the opposite of a 'good citizen', and one more likely to find a good home.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I agree Reining, that one has to approach an action by the horse, based on whether it is true fear based or just on dis respect, and I think most good trainers do teach that, but the point is often missed by beginners
For instance, most trainers, myself included, will differentiate between how you respond to a true fear spook, where any horse will react, with something suddenly popping out, and one where a horse has become a habitual spooker, using it to intimidate the rider
In the first spook, you also just ride out that spook, act like nothing happened, but DO react to what a horse tries to do after that spook, such as trying to bolt or spin
For the habitual spooker, you get after that horse for spooking
Far as leading a horse through water or a bog, even if fearful, that becomes dangerous, so while it works for little creeks and mud holes, it is not a good practice for rivers nor bogs, and in that case, yes, you have to have body control in order to ride that horse through his fear
In other words, there is no absolute, where you can say, never make a horse go where he is truly afraid to go, and only get after him if he is just balking, or to always ride through stuff, esp if you don't have the 'buttons' on that horse to do so, because a horse learns every time you ride him. Ask him to go where you can't lead or ride him, and he learns that he can decide where he will or will not ride or lead


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smile, agreed, no absolutes.

I think I am going southern on you. A creek here is what a lot of people in the mountains call a river, or at least that is how y'all have it marked on maps! Not unusual to be 20 feet across 5' deep and flowing. :biggrin: Our creek often looks a lot like the Big Thompson River in Colorado at normal levels.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Getting off a horse can work. Or not. Depends on the horse and situation. For example, there is a reason I stress that the horse look at me and be aware I'm dismounting - because the one time I was hurt bad on a horse, I simply tried to dismount a scared horse. BAD IDEA!

But for trash cans, yards that have just been sprayed with something that smells bad, and some other scary things, it works great. What I was starting to learn with Mia shortly before I swapped her for Bandit was that I needed her "buy in". I needed to engage her mind and get her to accept that my judgment was correct, and not just that we survived in spite of it. 

It really does come down to reading the individual horse and adapting what you are good at to link up with what the horse understands. Like Reiningcatsanddogs' example. Two days ago, I took Bandit out by himself. He didn't want to go out by himself. He started walking at a 45 degree angle and being stupid. It wasn't fear. It was "I'm not in the mood!"

That is OK. I'm not in the mood to clean the corral 3 times a day, but I do it - and so can he. As it turned out, after about 200 yards of being stupid, he stumbled and nearly went to his knees. After he struggled back up...no more walking at 45 deg. No more stupid. Nearly getting hurt did a wonderful job of focusing his mind.

"_Two different responses based on the horse and the observer's assessment of the situation and their own comfort level. Same problem._"

This. Reading the horse correctly. Responding in a way that matches your personality and goals. Trooper loves a directive, dominant type rider. All he ever wants to know is what his rider wants. Then he'll carry it out. Mia hated being directed, but she loved being part of the team. If you could convince her it was her idea, she'd do anything. You just needed to convince her it was her idea...

Bandit is in between. He'll blow up if you push him too hard, but you can push him much harder than Mia without creating any resentment. He is also very aware when you help him out. The more I ride him, the more I think he can become one of those horses who enjoys being ridden. A teammate, but not as challenging a teammate as Mia was. And not a subordinate. A horse who enjoys going out with his human. That, at least, is my goal. But it does require reading the horse, and I couldn't have done it 7 years ago.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reining, Hondo used to balk badly on lead, not much any more but still on occasion.

Rather than pulling directly on him, I pull him off to the side at some angle, and when he steps to catch his balance, I return to pulling him forward. He generally says, ok ya got me, and walks on along.

Mostly though, he walks along side with his nose a ways off my right shoulder.

I'm actually a little stubborn and bull headed at times so if Hondo is that way sometimes also, I just accept it. I just will not punish him. And the ranch is a little surprised at how I get along with Hondo on roundups and cutting out cattle in the corral being as how no one wanted anything to do with him anymore.

One person on the ranch mentioned the other day that Hondo doesn't even look like the same horse. And he's known Hondo since Hondo was purchased around 6 years ago.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

^^yep, more than one way to skin a cat or at least so the rather gross saying goes. 

Remington and I are still at that getting to know each other stage, I have only had him for a week and he is starting to put out feelers as to what he can get away with despite being in very bad condition. He is a race bred TB and a whole 'nother personality from my QH's. Oliver did this the first week I had him too, but now he and I see eye to eye on most things. Should be interesting!

If I pulled to the side with Oliver he would simply flex and disengage rather than fall over, the second I would straighten out, brace again....from what I can tell (at a BCS of 1 he is not ridable at this point), Remington reacts similarly.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Smile, agreed, no absolutes.
> 
> I think I am going southern on you. A creek here is what a lot of people in the mountains call a river, or at least that is how y'all have it marked on maps! Not unusual to be 20 feet across 5' deep and flowing. :biggrin: Our creek often looks a lot like the Big Thompson River in Colorado at normal levels.


Well, I ride through those-Ice cold mountain rivers, and often running fast enough that even riding, you loose perspective, if not focusing on the opposite bank, so that you fail to be able to tell if your horse is still moving forward, or if you are just drifting! Many that i cross, you could not cross on foot, without being swept away, and both people and horses have drowned, crossing these rivers,esp during spring run off.
I don't have pics of those crossings, as I am too busy riding! I can't swim, so if I become separated from my horse, major disaster!
Kinda an example, but not when the horse has to actually fight that current, and you have to focus on that opposite bank, not daring to look down, or become dis orientated.
You are right though, far as the distinction I make between a creek and a river!.

Fall, calm and quiet, in this pic
Spring time.fast and deep
This is the Big Red Deer River



Not even at it's highest, but this is one of the Panther crossings, and I would not try crossing it without a horse!




We met some Dutch tourists that were hiking in Banff National Park. They were going to try crossing a very fast and deep flowing river by tying themselves together. We might have saved some of their lives by telling them about a swinging foot bridge , af ew miles down river!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Reining, Hondo used to balk badly on lead, not much any more but still on occasion.
> 
> Rather than pulling directly on him, I pull him off to the side at some angle, and when he steps to catch his balance, I return to pulling him forward. He generally says, ok ya got me, and walks on along.
> 
> ...


Well, that is what you do when halter breaking colts, dis engaging them sideways at first.
Great that Hondo and you have found a balance that works for the both of you.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

^^Your second photo looked like our creek about a month ago when we had all that rain. No way the trucks were crossing so we had to cross on foot to feed the horses, we did like I did when I was a kid and was doing Outward Bound. Rope, harness, cross very slowly. I kidded with my husband we needed to install a zip line from the house to the pasture and another from the top of the mountain to the house!


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

What I liked about the original article posted regardless if I or anyone else agrees with all of it, is the fact that there is much more to herd dynamics than one leader and a bunch of subordinates. The understanding of how horses relate to each other is certainly useful for us, but I feel it is important to not become stuck on one aspect of it. Mark Rashid is probably the one trainer that I agree the most with and I would say that his similarity to some of the others is the result but not technique. Joel made a very good point about his methods being geared more for someone with a bit more experience than a new beginner. Yes, what I can relate to now may certainly have been over my head fifty years ago. What I really don't like and see too often are the newbies who have this concept that leadership is achieved by dominance and will ague that it what horses understand because that is what the leader of the herd would do. I say that is a little bit of knowledge that can be dangerous without the rest of it.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Textan49 said:


> What I liked about the original article posted regardless if I or anyone else agrees with all of it, is the fact that there is much more to herd dynamics than one leader and a bunch of subordinates. The understanding of how horses relate to each other is certainly useful for us, but I feel it is important to not become stuck on one aspect of it. Mark Rashid is probably the one trainer that I agree the most with and I would say that his similarity to some of the others is the result but not technique. Joel made a very good point about his methods being geared more for someone with a bit more experience than a new beginner. Yes, what I can relate to now may certainly have been over my head fifty years ago. What I really don't like and see too often are the newbies who have this concept that leadership is achieved by dominance and will ague that it what horses understand because that is what the leader of the herd would do. I say that is a little bit of knowledge that can be dangerous without the rest of it.


Good points, but it also remains a fact that while we use the herd /prey mentality in training horses, we at the same time do not try to emulate actual herd dynamics.
It does not matter that herd dynamics change over time, that horses themselves are not completely lineal in that herd order, with a horse dominant to one horse, is submissive towards a horse dominated by the horse he dominates-just doe not matter.
It matters that we remain alpha to every horse in that herd, with our position never challenged or altered, while that herd might continually be sorting itself out, esp with the introduction of new members
We take what works, in training, in regards to herd dynamics, much like taking a bunch of clinics, and taking from each what works for you , and discarding the rest.
Perhaps 'dominate', is not a good choice of a word, as it can conjure up images of whips and chains, with some of that best left on those kinky web sites!
It purely means that you remain the leader, because it does not work if you let a horse lead you one day, and then expect him to show respect the next day. I mean if you wish to use Star Trek lingo instead, then call yourself number one!
Your horse can be your partner, but not an equal partner, and like a co piolet, waits to be given decision making abilities
I don't see newbies hung up in being dominant, as much as being in effectual leaders, , allowing horses to often become spoiled, because the horse is 'just the sweetest', just loves people', ect, take your pick, and thus establish no clear boundaries, leaving a horse insecure, or deciding that human is un worthy to lead, and takes over that role
I don't plan on living with my herd of horses, competing for food with them, thus constantly need to look into what niche I fit, as I age, as new horses are added, as my hormones guide me, ect
A good confident rider can ride a horse through stuff that horse balks at, with a rider not showing any great leadership or confidence, and that does not require beating that horse , because while you can fool people, horses recognize a horseman that they can rely on, and willingly ride for that person, as horses do crave strong, fair, clear ans consistent leadership, and that is a factor of their prey mentality and herd mentality that you can tap into


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I don’t think anyone, including the author of the articles would dispute that the rider needs to “wear the pants” in the partnership. 

I think what is less agreed upon is how you should choose to rise to that position.

Is leadership commanded or earned? Do you earn it by commanding it or another means?

Alpha theory says leadership is commanded, (putting yourself into a position of superiority and strength) thus it is earned.

Passive Leadership proposes it is earned by consistently demonstrating yourself as the best rather than the only choice.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Generally I have found that many trainers working with beginners ask the student to use the same response in both instances. Some trainer’s seriously don’t see the difference in the body language, some simply don’t care and some realize differentiating the two would be too confusing to a rider just learning to deal with an issue and unable to read the body language of the horse.


 Point well made Reining. However I do feel it is important for a beginner to understand that there are many possible reasons for a horse's actions and it's not a matter of "this" corrects "that" and it doesn't matter what horse you're riding or what the circumstances are. Beginners certainly don't start off with the ability to read body language but things do happen in the lessons that need to be explained. I have deliberately let things happen, Lesson horse stops at gate. Why ? because you didn't notice him focusing on the gate, slowing down, or starting to turn and face it. You let him do it and never asked him not to. So, the next time around watch for the signs and be prepared. That is one lesson in learning to read a horse that could happen in the very first lesson. What I don't like is the person past the very beginner stage who still can't read a horse but feel very capable of training one because they saw the video and it doesn't matter that the person in the video is far more experienced and the circumstances are entirely different. My favorite gripe are the people that freak out and have to correct a horse because it is disrespectful and threatening them when there was no threatening stance made by the horse at all and only a bit of ear pinning. LEARN THE DIFFERANCE. I work with 24 horses and several will pin their ears yet none have ever come close to threatening me.


----------



## greenhaven (Jun 7, 2014)

Hondo said:


> But if the only relationship I could have with Hondo, or my dog Meka, was one of dominance, I would not want a dog or a horse.
> 
> I do have to reserve the final say in a lot of things as they just cannot live in a human world without my final judgement. If they could talk, we might discuss it more.





bsms said:


> I don't want to be the Commander. I want to be the Leader. 25 years in the military gave me lots of experience with both types. I know what I prefer. I think my horses will agree.


I have not finished reading this whole thread, which is such awesome dialog, but wanted to respond before my thoughts got all jumbled up and lost again.

I think the above quoted statements are really the crux of the issues. There is so much terminology parsing that we tend to forget that most of us are on the same page, horsemanship-wise; we want good, cooperative, safe working relationships with our horses (and our dogs!)

But a lot of folks take exception to the term "dominance" or the concept of enforcing respect. Ultimately a good horseman does not feel compelled to "dominate" or subdue another creature, they only want to be seen as the Decision Maker in the relationship. 

Do I feel the need to micro-manage every movement my mastiff-cross makes about how he sits or where he sleeps or when he should go potty? No, but if I do not lay claim to the fact that I am the Decision Maker and "own" certain parts of my house he would be eating dessert out of the garbage can every night.


----------



## lostastirrup (Jan 6, 2015)

> Beginners certainly don't start off with the ability to read body language but things do happen in the lessons that need to be explained. I have deliberately let things happen, Lesson horse stops at gate. Why ? Because you didn't notice him focusing on the gate, slowing down, or starting to turn and face it. You let him do it and never asked him not to. So, the next time around watch for the signs and be prepared. That is one lesson in learning to read a horse that could happen in the very first lesson. What I don't like is the person past the very beginner stage who still can't read a horse but feel very capable of training one because they saw the video and it doesn't matter that the person in the video is far more experienced and the circumstances are entirely different.


What I have seen and especially don't like is when I see someone get after their horse, and keep getting after and getting after the horse long past the moment of disobediance. One lady at my barn has a perch/fries mare that if you giver her an inch she will take a mile so her consequences are severe and instantaneous for some fairly small infractions. But the horse gets the correlation right away and is not put through minutes of yanking on the lead and slapping with the whip. It's one pop or one smack or one finger raised and behaviour resolved and lesson learned. there is no nervousness in the horse as she is given the opportunity to do the right thing soon after the correction. 

On the beginners not noticing what the horse was doing it made me think of a trail ride I took on this same perch/fries last wednesday. I was riding double with my inexperienced cousin and I was uncomfortable being slid over the shoulders by her not so secure seat so I pulled over told her she could drive and I'd just sit in the back because I knew I could keep my seat. I hadn't realized til then how many corrections I was making/didn't have to make because of balance and authority until I was playing backseat driver shouting "um...she's walking into a ditch now...point her back on the road....but not into traffic!!!....Okay now just edge her back onto the path....but not back into the ditch....don't let her eat....oh why are we stopping?...just add leg....you know what howbout I add leg and you just hold the reins okay?" Eventually we switched back for some fast riding down the trails. 

On the whole passive leader thing: I wouldn't want to be the one responsible for the horse's every step...If I wanted the experience of micromanaging four-legged creatures I'd still be working with the twos and threes at my church...but I am not because that is tedious and annoying. On this same trail ride with my cousin after we had switched back we went out on a scenic swamp near the inlet. Location is truly gorgeous. However the path is difficult and if you make a wrong step it is potentially dangerous as the surrounding grass appears firm but is rooted in very soft and very wet silty sand. We went exploring and for as technical as the riding became (think complicated competitive trail maneuvers) I did very little I knew this horse had a better idea of what was secure and what was not than I did (after all she was the one with her feat on the ground) so my role was to distract my cousin and keep our balance ideal so that she could maneuver. I was not leading or forcing her anywhere. If she stopped and turned I let her. If she refused to cross anything I'd wait till she had found another way. I think she appreciated the freedom I gave her to make decisions and she certainly looked out for my cousin and me. My dad once said or quoted "leaders aren't the best, they don't always know how or where or when but they are good at getting the people who do to work together and get an objective done" In dressage I have been told to 'ride every step of the way' but my best moments have been when I set her up well then leave her to do her job. I think a lot of horses get upset when they are 'babysat' all the time and not given the opportunity to work 'by themselves'


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

greenhaven said:


> No, but if I do not lay claim to the fact that I am the Decision Maker and "own" certain parts of my house he would be eating dessert out of the garbage can every night.


Duh, wuts wrong wid dat??? Dogs gotta eat. JK LOL Hee


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

lostastirrup said:


> "um...she's walking into a ditch now...point her back on the road....but not into traffic!!!....Okay now just edge her back onto the path....but not back into the ditch....don't let her eat....oh why are we stopping?...just add leg....you know what howbout I add leg and you just hold the reins okay?" Eventually we switched back for some fast riding down the trails.


 
That's just classic! You literally became a back seat driver! :rofl:


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> If I pulled to the side with Oliver he would simply flex and disengage rather than fall over, the second I would straighten out, brace again...


Clever horse. I like that. Makes it more fun. Hondo did similar. So I just continued turning him back in the direction we came, which he liked of course, but then on around to the way we were originally going. I've done as many as three circles back to back and occasionally two in a row.

I now look at that as good-naturedly orneriness. And I think he looks at my shenanigans as more good naturedly orneriness. At least I hope he does. He finally would give up and come along.

Not much of that anymore. When it does happen I look at it as a test as to whether I'm gonna hit him or not.

I admit to having popped his rump in the past with the end of the lead rope. And ya know what? Every time he straightened up like a little trooper and led beautifully all the way to where ever we were going. Not a bit of trouble.

But ya know what else? Every time I had a sense that something had been lost. That the distance between us had been widened. Yes, horses are forgiving, thankfully.

But I have made up my mind, test me all you want in what ever way you want, but you are going to find out that I will be consistent in not getting mad and not hitting you ever period.

If you're being a little ornery, I'll just out ornery you. And try to make it fun for both of us.

The distance between Hondo and I is the most important thing above all in our friendship/relationship/whateveritscalled, to me. Above all, I do not want to lose the smallest whit.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo, 

I do agree with you. I never pop Oliver or spur him (those who have done so have lived to regret it, usually after they are released from the ER) heck, I can count on one hand the number of times I have even had to tap my foot against his side as a cue, same goes for Ghost and Cowboy. It just has never been an issue. Poor Cowboy, has a past, I have spent the last year and a half teaching him that every ancillary movement I make around him is not going to result in a hit to the face! My head agrees with you that when you resort to hitting, you failed them somewhere and something has been lost in the act. 

This new dude is 17.2 hh and he knows it. For perspective his withers are above the top of my head. He was not given a whole lot of direction in his past and I think that because of his size he is used to getting his way. 

So here is my problem and it is something I have spent a lot of time thinking on. We already have two riders and 4 horses. Remington makes #5. I took him on because a friend of a friend asked me to. If he can recover (he has IBD and an ulcer) then I will try to find him a good home, no easy task in QH country especially if he will need meds the rest of his life. If I can't find him a proper home through word of mouth, then I guess he is stuck with me. He just turned 5. 

To increase his odds it may be in his best interests to be handled by me in a way that would be most traditional in our area so that he will understand what most people are asking of him. I want him to always be useful to someone and NEVER be in this condition again! 

I know how to do it the popular way, I simply choose not to do it with my personal horses with which I have no real agenda and a lot of time to spend with them. This guy...I am at a crossroads. Advice, perspective appreciated.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Advice, perspective appreciated.


 That goes for anyone, not just Hondo.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I have 3 dogs in the house right now - a German Shepherd, and Australian Shepherd mix and a Border Collie. All males. I have no clue who is "alpha". I don't think they know either.

Decision making seems to depends on who wants something the most. Who drinks first? The thirstiest. Who eats? Depends - they each have their own bowl and they do not take food from someone else's bowl. The whole "Dogs have a hierarchy" thing is lost on them. They will wrestle for fun, but if one gets mad, the other two both back off in a hurry. Doesn't matter who - they just seem to have no desire to pick fights with each other.

My horses seem to take some of the same factors into account. Mia expected to eat first. But if everyone was hungry, the first flake of hay in the corral was shared until there were enough flakes for everyone. Trooper is dominant to Bandit, although they rarely are mixed. But they were mixed today when I fed them. As the first flake hit the ground, Bandit rushed over and began eating. Trooper looked, then calmly walked away and waited for me to bring him a flake.

Later on, when Trooper wanted Bandit to move, he flicked an ear and Bandit moved. But contrary to what a lot of folks have told me, Trooper did not need to claim the first food to show dominance - any more than my dogs do.

Right now, I have the corral split in two. One for Bandit, one for the other two. When I put Bandit in with the others yesterday, 13 hand Cowboy chased him around until I broke it up. Cowboy was totally dominant. Today, I had Trooper and Bandit on one side and Cowboy in 'Bandit's corral' for a few hours. When I went to the dividing fence, Bandit met me there and waited impatiently to get back into 'his corral'. And when he did, Cowboy fled - as in hauled his 13 hand butt double time back to the corral he normally lives in. Although he had bossed Bandit around the other day, he and Bandit both seemed to think he was in Bandit's territory today - and had best leave ASAP!

Watching both my dogs and my horses, I frequently see behavior based on who wants X the most, or on some concept of fairness. Little Lilly could back Mia down if it was important to her - and Mia could take it without losing her leadership role. I've watched Mia back down from another horse in the corral a bunch of times, without ever losing her leadership role. Mia didn't feel a need to always "win". Trooper let Bandit eat today without losing his leadership role.

I've had a horse balk at going forward. Taken a look, and there were a LOT of rocks in the stretch ahead. Looked around, and then steered the horse to a longer route without rocks. And there was no sign the horse thought he/she was winning something or dominating me. The horse made a suggestion. It was a good one, so I backed off and followed what the horse wanted. Yet a half mile later, same situation but knowing there were no good alternate routes, I gave a squeeze and the horse crossed the rocky section without any further bother.

Same with dismounting. To be honest, I've never had a horse act like he/she wanted me to dismount. If I stop my horse and get off, my horse doesn't seem to think he has won anything. When Bandit was acting distracted today, I thought about it, stopped him and dismounted. When I was on the ground, he lifted his rear left foot up. I went over, looked, pulled a stone out. Walked Bandit a hundred yards, stopped him, he squared up his feet without my asking and I mounted up. I usually dismount and walk every 30-60 minutes because my hips or knees (or both) will hurt if I do not. It just is not a big deal to us.

Maybe lesson horses think in terms of pulling one over on their rider. Lilly, Trooper, Mia and Bandit are the 4 horses I've ridden enough to know. None of them have been lesson horses. None of them seem interested in getting away with things or tricking me or "winning". They don't act like we're in a competition. If they did, I'd quit riding.

If someone's horse is constantly testing them...maybe there is something wrong, and maybe it isn't the horse? :icon_rolleyes:

"_Advice, perspective appreciated_"

It sounds like what you are doing makes a lot of sense for the long term interest of the horse.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

greenhaven said:


> I have not finished reading this whole thread, which is such awesome dialog, but wanted to respond before my thoughts got all jumbled up and lost again.
> 
> I think the above quoted statements are really the crux of the issues. There is so much terminology parsing that we tend to forget that most of us are on the same page, horsemanship-wise; we want good, cooperative, safe working relationships with our horses (and our dogs!)
> 
> ...


Good expansion of what being dominant is in the
relationship with your horse entails, and even the phrase 'to dominate' has a different connotation for me than to be dominant.
Sure, you have to earn that trust, and if you ask your horse to cross a bridge, for example, and that bridge collapses, then the horse will loose trust in your leadership , thus try never to' lie' to your horse
Once that trust is shaken, it takes a long time to get it back, and thus I try never to ask my horse to go somewhere that might not be safe, thus 'lying' to my horse
It has taken me a good year to get Charlie's trust back, that I would keep her safe in a crowded arena, and she was 'safe' in heavy traffic, relying on my judgement.
That betrayal was not my fault, as a rider loping ahead of me, lost control of his horse, who ran backwards, slamming into Charlie's hip, with that rider accidentally hooking Charlie with spurs in the flank, strong enough to draw blood
Thus, she would tense up if horses came up behind her at the lope esp,, and if a rider in a warmup, suddenly backed their horse, as some do, if a pleasure horse speeds up,unasked, even if that horse was part way across the arena, Charlie would freak and try to run sideways, feeling she had to look out for herself
I don't micro manage my horses, but I also try to be consistent. For instance, if I ground tie my horse in the arena, as I often do, setting up trail or taking it down, I don't back him one time, to the place I left him, and tell him 'whoa',if he moves, while another time, taking trail down, ignoring the fact that the horse moved unasked, walking up to me at the gate, in anticipation of leaving, just because it is easy to ignore the horse leaving where I parked him, as I was going to go and get him anyways and lead him to the gate. Horses don't understand this inconsistency of rules
It is also how horses become ' show smart', cheating the rider in the show pen , because that rider does not correct him there, as he would training at home. Soon some horses capitize on this fact, knowing different rules apply outside of the show pen then at a show, and some will really act up and blow eventually, if not actually schooled ina show situation

Lets forget about dictionary definitions of' to be dominant, not even to dominate , and think of how that word dominant relates a herd species

It does not mean to force, subject a horse to absolute domination, but to be the un disputed leader


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

how did we get to micro managing?
Even though I remain the clear alpha to my horses, I am probably less likely then many to even come close to micro managing a horse, esp on a trail ride
Far as how dogs and horses interact in their herd or pack setting, with changing dynamics,-again, it has zero application as to what we are discussing here, far as what 'we' use in training horses
We (those of us that do like to use the herd/prey mentality as part of our training regime ), only take the respect all herd members grant that alpha horse, even though in a herd, that alpha animal can be dis placed, changed, or the fact that the herd dose not follow a guide, making it clear as to who is alpha to what member of that herd-simply has no application,as you can't train a horse by one day being the leader and letting the horse lead the next day
All that matters, far as your relationship in that herd mentality, that unlike in that herd, your position is clear and never changed.
You are not trying to be a horse or a dog, or the member of an equine herd or a dog pack!
Far as getting off- come on now, we have to apply that in context. (Cheri, where are you??? )
Getting off to give your knees a break, is mile apart from getting off because a horse won't ride past a certain point. Try getting off every time a horse spooks at a certain place, and soon that horse will find more things to spook at

Far as a horse that knows how to give to pressure, not leading,and balking, that is how we have horses that won't load into trailers, ect. are created


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Haven't read replies, just putting in my 20c... I'm guessing this might be from Mark Rashid? He was the first I ever heard(20 years ago or so) to voice such a theory. As I had had it drummed into me that being 'the alpha'/dominant of the herd/pack was vital, it sounded quite wrong to me.

Over the years, I've had plenty of opportunity to spend time just watching horse herds(in a past life, pre-kids...). I started doing this actually, thanks to Mark's theory, which I expected to disprove - I thought 'dominance' was synonymous with 'leadership'. But I actually came to the conclusion that Mark (& many other ethologists, horse trainers, etc who have said the same) is definitely onto something! I agree with his 'Passive Leadership' theory _generally_.

I do think it depends, and can be a 'transient' thing, depending on situations. Horse herds can be very different from one another & like the closely confined wolves, thrown together into a 'pack', that was originally studied to come up with the theory of 'pack heirarchy' & 'alpha/dominance behaviour'(which was then said to be 'fact' for wild/natural wolves, dogs, and trickled down into horse theory too), it depends on their environment/living arrangements. Because of this, and the fact that I've only studied a few 'natural' herds, most being domestic & in varying situations, often not stable herds, I couldn't say what's 'innate' or what's... manufactured.

But as a rule, of those I've observed, I've found that respected, more 'passive' leaders that the herd trusts & follows, tend to be stable within the herd - they remain respected 'leaders', even while they may share that leadership. Even while they may allow another horse to 'dominate' them. Horses who are 'dominant' however, tend to be always striving to gain & keep their rank & there are usually others striving to take it from them, looking for weakness. It is 'survival of the strongest', which is never static. And while the rest of the herd(often including the leaders) may 'kow tow' to them & move when they're told, they often don't befriend or trust these 'bullies', prefer to stay away from them, unless it's another 'young stud' aspiring to be 'boss cocky'.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Several points:

Mark Rashid has never stated that horses should not have ground manners and he uses a lot of the same techniques as other trainers to get them. His argument is that --- in many years of doing clinics -- he has found the 'respect-disrespect' paradigm unhelpful and would rather people understand it purely in terms of training. Have you trained your horse to follow you on the lead and yield to pressure, or have you trained him to run over you? Or have you failed to train him in any consistent way at all, so he just does whatever he wants because, well, what else is he supposed to do? Mark insists that human beings can better train their horses when they excise the loaded emotive words. "He is disrespecting me" is likely to make the handler feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the horse. "I'll teach him respect" is often not a good mindset for the handler to set out with. That said, it's all in context: a trainer like Cherie can talked about "respect" and she is a good trainer, but Mark's writing is intended for Average Joe Amateur Horse Owner, who might feel, they are on the defensive, the back foot, because of their disrespectful horse. 

A lot of the so-called 'alpha' or 'dominance' behaviours people observe in domestic herds come from the circumstances of domesticity: random groups of individuals in pens where resources such as piles of hay, space, and water, appear finite. Equine ethologists have found that feral herds have less antagonistic relationships; they tend to be family groups and when they are on a range of 10000s of acres, space and food aren't at such a premium.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

thesilverspear said:


> Several points:
> 
> Mark Rashid has never stated that horses should not have ground manners and he uses a lot of the same techniques as other trainers to get them. His argument is that --- in many years of doing clinics -- he has found the 'respect-disrespect' paradigm unhelpful and would rather people understand it purely in terms of training. Have you trained your horse to follow you on the lead and yield to pressure, or have you trained him to run over you? Or have you failed to train him in any consistent way at all, so he just does whatever he wants because, well, what else is he supposed to do? Mark insists that human beings can better train their horses when they excise the loaded emotive words. "He is disrespecting me" is likely to make the handler feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the horse. "I'll teach him respect" is often not a good mindset for the handler to set out with. That said, it's all in context: a trainer like Cherie can talked about "respect" and she is a good trainer, but Mark's writing is intended for Average Joe Amateur Horse Owner, who might feel, they are on the defensive, the back foot, because of their disrespectful horse.
> 
> A lot of the so-called 'alpha' or 'dominance' behaviours people observe in domestic herds come from the circumstances of domesticity: random groups of individuals in pens where resources such as piles of hay, space, and water, appear finite. Equine ethologists have found that feral herds have less antagonistic relationships; they tend to be family groups and when they are on a range of 10000s of acres, space and food aren't at such a premium.


 I see relationships every time two or more domestic horses are together but not all of them fall into a dominant and subordinate category. I care for two geldings that definitely do. One is actually a bully and the other has just figured out how to live with it. Another two geldings are quite different. The smaller one will devil the larger one by pinning his ears and nipping until the other has had enough and puts a definite stop to it. So, I see them taking turns in who is dominant. The rest of the time they are extremely tolerant of and attached to each other.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> Several points:
> 
> Mark Rashid has never stated that horses should not have ground manners and he uses a lot of the same techniques as other trainers to get them. His argument is that --- in many years of doing clinics -- he has found the 'respect-disrespect' paradigm unhelpful and would rather people understand it purely in terms of training. Have you trained your horse to follow you on the lead and yield to pressure, or have you trained him to run over you? Or have you failed to train him in any consistent way at all, so he just does whatever he wants because, well, what else is he supposed to do? Mark insists that human beings can better train their horses when they excise the loaded emotive words. "He is disrespecting me" is likely to make the handler feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the horse. "I'll teach him respect" is often not a good mindset for the handler to set out with. That said, it's all in context: a trainer like Cherie can talked about "respect" and she is a good trainer, but Mark's writing is intended for Average Joe Amateur Horse Owner, who might feel, they are on the defensive, the back foot, because of their disrespectful horse.
> 
> A lot of the so-called 'alpha' or 'dominance' behaviours people observe in domestic herds come from the circumstances of domesticity: random groups of individuals in pens where resources such as piles of hay, space, and water, appear finite. Equine ethologists have found that feral herds have less antagonistic relationships; they tend to be family groups and when they are on a range of 10000s of acres, space and food aren't at such a premium.



Some very good points, and many which I also touched on, esp the fact that herd behavior is first modified by domestication (wild herds don't have geldings), there are no fences, so colts get expelled from a herd, by the stallion, once they reach breeding age,and form bachelor groups-also not possible when domesticated
Most importantly< i certainly am aware that herd dynamics change, with that 'alpha horse being displaced, that individual members have their own rank, in relationship to other horses in that herd,often not based on a logical order, far as every horse recognizing as to who is dominant to who, in that herd, but those are not the aspects that are applied to training.
We only use the fact that the alpha horse , who ever he might be, is respected by all members of that herd, and for us humans, that has to be an constant
Yes, I use the word respect, as I think one of the major pittfalls, regarding people new to horses, is trying to learn about the right way of interacting with horses through books and videos, with enough people out there feeding them all kinds of abstract theories, versus just learning good horse sense from people that actually train and use horses for a living-not teaching people to train horses, but actually training good solid using horses
I rather ride a horse that someone like Cheri or myself trains, any day, to people here agonizing over terminology, dissecting actual herd interactions among horses they own, which has really no application to how I expect a horse to relate to me, and somehow confusing respect , or equating it into abusive, domineering type of training that never uses reading the actual horse, modifying your approach in training , gaining trust and a bond with your horse.
Really, if you look at the numerous posts here, often by people new to horses, I don't see those people trying to be domineering, forceful, ect, but exactly the opposite-allowing horses to become disrespectful and down right dangerous by not being a clear enough leader, so that the horse takes over-rearing, balking, bucking, kicking and walking over them


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

thesilverspear said:


> Mark insists that human beings can better train their horses when they excise the loaded emotive words. "He is disrespecting me" is likely to make the handler feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the horse. "I'll teach him respect" is often not a good mindset for the handler to set out with. That said, it's all in context: a trainer like Cherie can talked about "respect" and she is a good trainer, but Mark's writing is intended for Average Joe Amateur Horse Owner, who might feel, they are on the defensive, the back foot, because of their disrespectful horse.


 My feelings exactly. Respect/disrespect is one thing when we are dealing with people. People certainly can be disrespectful or in the case of a child, the child showing no disrespect but still needing correction. How much of what a horse does is deliberate disrespect or simply lack of training?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

'A lot of the so-called 'alpha' or 'dominance' behaviours people observe in domestic herds come from the circumstances of domesticity: random groups of individuals in pens where resources such as piles of hay, space, and water, appear finite. Equine ethologists have found that feral herds have less antagonistic relationships; they tend to be family groups and when they are on a range of 10000s of acres, space and food aren't at such a premium.


I did wish to touch on the above.
Wild horses certainly have a dominance order, and antagonistic component, but different dynamics. 
First, I agree they do not need to fight over food piles, nor are they fenced in, so that they 'have' to all relate to each other in a confined space
While domestic male horses (geldings) will often act aggressive to other geldings, esp when mares are added to that group, int he wild, those other males aren';t even tolerated, but driven from the herd, and if you ever saw a battle between two alpha mature stallions, it can be very aggressive-just they are not forced to live in the same confined space, so one does not see that aggressive interaction that often
They form 'family groups;-true, and they drive out those that they won't accept, thus groups of bachelor studs
Stallions will also kill foals sired by another stud, if that mare is accepted into the herd
Sorry, but there is no way that herd stallion is not very dominant to any other male horse. Of course, they are not aggressive towards the mares in their harems, as they have normal responses towards them, governed by hormones, and like most males in any species, take part in protecting their offspring
It is like comparing apple to oranges!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

'My feelings exactly. Respect/disrespect is one thing when we are dealing with people. People certainly can be disrespectful or in the case of a child, the child showing no disrespect but still needing correction. How much of what a horse does is deliberate disrespect or simply lack of training? ' 

My thoughts to above: 

How about lack of consistency and in correct handling, that can 'breed' disrespect, from a horse that did have that training, but became disrepectful after being sold to someone that allowed the horse to become so?????

See this all the time, as horses can become un trained, as well as trained, go from being respectful to dis respectful, and in other words, candidates to having the word 'spoiled' applied to them. This happens through lack of clear leadership, lack of making your alpha position clear, so that the horse moves up in rank, in your herd of two
We then have posts like , "he was the sweetest boy', but now won't leave his buddies, rears, bites, etc.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

There are obedient horses who have accepted you as a leader and there are obedient horses that are obedient for other reasons. Obedience is not necessarily evidence of leadership or partnership, though if you have obtained leadership, obedience is part of the package. 

Cowboy for instance is very obedient, never bucks, balks, kicks, pushes, he is a doormat…. Most people would ride him casually and think him an outstanding horse. He has been trained (suspect that was done rather harshly) to be compliant and will do as asked on the ground or in the saddle. A wiggle of my fingers and he backs out of my space like I pointed a gun his direction. He is a very good riding horse, but is _never_ your partner. As obedient as he is, I am NOT his leader, no human is. Humans are overlords, not leaders.

Ghost is also very obedient and would go to the ends of the earth for me. We are partners, he has put himself in peril to keep me (and my daughter) safe, I have done the same for him. I AM his leader.

Oliver will do as I ask but will also often let his opinion be known, but when I say no, he trusts it. He likewise has put himself in danger to keep us safe. Yes, he bucks some people (those who get on and start riding at 100psi when he is perfectly responsive at 2). He refuses to be manhandled. Ride him with consideration and respect and you will have a willing partner. I AM his leader.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> Several points:
> 
> Mark Rashid has never stated that horses should not have ground manners and he uses a lot of the same techniques as other trainers to get them. His argument is that --- in many years of doing clinics -- he has found the 'respect-disrespect' paradigm unhelpful and would rather people understand it purely in terms of training. Have you trained your horse to follow you on the lead and yield to pressure, or have you trained him to run over you?...Mark insists that human beings can better train their horses when they excise the loaded emotive words. "He is disrespecting me" is likely to make the handler feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the horse. "I'll teach him respect" is often not a good mindset for the handler...


I've never read Mark Rashid (other than his poor article on bits), but maybe I'll try a book.

I find the whole "respect" and "alpha" stuff to be not only unhelpful, but positively harmful. The section I underlined nails it, for me: it teaches an adversarial relation that does NOT match what I see in horses.

I couldn't count the number of times I've read on this forum and elsewhere, or heard from others, that "You should never back down from a horse" or "You cannot let the horse win". An old term for someone who breaks horses was a "horse fighter" - and the term "break" is very expressive of what many people try to do.

I'm not interested in being alpha. Or beta. Or omega, or any other Greek letter. My horses certainly need to know that I'm not afraid of them. They need to know that if they get me ****ed, it will be ugly - that I can stand up for myself just fine. In that sense, I need to be dominant. I cannot afford to have a horse think it can punish me, or push me around. That would set me up for injury or death.

But with that foundation - if you try to kick my butt, I'll kick yours much harder and longer - we can then move on to why they should WANT to follow me and do what I say.

I don't ride horses as part of my work. I don't use them for competition. I'm a pleasure rider, and there is something wrong if my horses cannot take pleasure in being ridden. If my horse thinks my getting off him is a reward, then I've got a problem. If my horse is afraid to talk to me - to let me know he is concerned about something - I've got a problem.

Regardless of how some folks on this forum view the term "alpha" - as viewed with a lifetime around horses - I promise you many newer, suburban riders (and quite a few ranch hands) view it as: 

"My way or the highway, horse! Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil - because I'm the meanest son of a gun in the Valley! And don't you forget it!"

The scars on Trooper's side, still there after nearly 7 years, came from a ranch worker who had no interest in what his horse wanted or thought - only dominating a horse who by nature just wants to obey his rider! The worst advice I got with Mia, some of which came on this forum, was to make her respect me, to never let her win! The real way to get good results with Mia was to set it up so that doing what I wanted seemed like "winning" to her....:wink:

I've never read Rashid, but I sure agree with this:"*the 'respect-disrespect' paradigm [is] unhelpful and would rather people understand it purely in terms of training. Have you trained your horse to follow you on the lead and yield to pressure, or have you trained him to run over you?...Mark insists that human beings can better train their horses when they excise the loaded emotive words*."
​Adding: "As obedient as he is, I am NOT his leader, no human is. Humans are overlords, not leaders."

My mustang "Cowboy" has had at least 6 owners since the BLM. He's been a lesson horse. He stopped trying to 'get away' with things around us, but will still try it with a stranger. But even with us...he can be very obedient, but I would never call him respectful. He's been trained to believe humans are irrational, uncaring beings. I might be better than most, but I'm still a human - and humans are NOT to be trusted. Not really. But humans like it if you PRETEND to respect them. It is an act. He may fear a human, or obey a human, but he has no genuine respect for one.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

BTW - this thread just cost me $21 at Amazon. My wife will be annoyed with y'all...but I can take it! :cheers:


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

bsms said:


> He may fear a human, or obey a human, but he has no genuine respect for one.


Crushed it....outta the park!

So which book did you get?

BTW if you have a kindle I think I can "loan" you his books.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

thesilverspear said:


> \ "He is disrespecting me" is likely to make the handler feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the horse. "I'll teach him respect" is often not a good mindset for the handler to set out with.


I, newbie that I am, think that this is SOOOOOOOOOO important it should be made into bumper stickers, plaques for the wall, signs on the tack shed, signs on our foreheads.

Something like:

HORSE TRAINING IS _*NOT TO BE*_ AN ADVERSARIAL INTERACTION

Something to remind, at least all beginners, myself included.

I remember one of the "Old Man's" lessons to Mark was, "If ya wanna fight with a horse, he will always oblige ya".

So easy for us attack minded predators to forget.

And I agree, horses are incapable of many human emotions and feelings which to me does include lying and disrespect.

I did a lot of searching and reading about disrespect a year ago when first introduced to horses (again). I'm still not sure what the heck disrespect even means in human terms. I kinda think it may mean something a little different to each person.

Edit: Wow, this is moving fast. Two posts since I typed this.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

The concept is interesting. Maybe it is a reaction to people who are too reactive and punish their horses. IDK.
I Do know about leadership. I am the pack leader, my dog "Rose" is alpha, and my dog, "Pygma" is...maybe, delta. I know the pecking order of my cats, my horses and even my chickens. There is no substitute for good leadership. People choose to follow leaders. Horses are dogs and cats are intelligent and they, too, choose to follow leaders.
I prefer to be the "Benevolent Dictator." I get my way, and I show kindness to the ones who follow. I have had to learn to be benevolent because I used to be a little bit of a terror. You get further by being kind and praising and it works on horses just as well as people.
Like Smilie has said, you establish trust and then maintain your leadership with the horse. After that, by encouraging, you can persuade your horse that YOUR sport is HIS sport, too. THAT is when it gets fun! :runninghorse2:


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I feel so fortunate that just prior to meeting Hondo I purchased* Horses Never Lie by Rashid*. It has been my foundation ever since plus 3 more books by him. And more to come. I am also a subscriber to his blog https://consideringthehorse.wordpress.com/


I sorta figger to be a true alpha to your horse you should be able to flick one ear.


----------



## greenhaven (Jun 7, 2014)

Not to be all "wordy" and stuff, but again we can get into a lot of trouble with verbiage. Let's look at the dictionary definitions of "respect" according to Merriam Webster dot com, and it is _most_ important to note that 'respect" can be both a noun and a verb:

*Noun:* 

1. a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.
2. a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way
3. a particular way of thinking about or looking at something

*Verb:*

1. to feel admiration for (someone or something) : to regard (someone or something) as being worthy of admiration because of good qualities
2. to act in a way which shows that you are aware of (someone's rights, wishes, etc.)
3. to treat or deal with (something that is good or valuable) in a proper way


This was probably obvious and maybe someone has already alluded to this and I don't know it because I still think I have missed some posts here, but it was a real defining moment for me, no pun intended. 

To assume we as humans, even "leaders" over our horses , can be the recipients of respect-the-noun from our horses, particularly in the context of #1, is just straight up anthropomorphic. But we can and should be shown respect-the-verb, particularly as it applies to #2.

ETA: interesting to think about the dynamic between the definitions of the noun and the verb, though.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

A Matter of Respect

https://consideringthehorse.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/a-matter-of-respect/


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

greenhaven said:


> *Verb:*
> 2. to act in a way which shows that you are aware of (someone's rights, wishes, etc.)
> .


 I think yes. 

On the other hand, I do think some horses come to recognize humans as having value or a contribution to the herd and have "respect" (noun) for them in that regard, while other horses can take them or leave 'em.


----------



## greenhaven (Jun 7, 2014)

^^ Exactly! That was awesome! Bookmarked. 

So, while we can respect the heck out of our horses, they cannot really give us "respect" in return. But they can "respect" our space just as they 'respect' a boundary.

Gosh, I feel so ALIVE! Does that make me a nerd? :hide:


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

What should we call this?
a moose as a draft animal (critter care forum at permies)


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I embraced my nerd-dom long ago! Welcome to the club! :biggrin:


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

BSMS
I don't ride horses as part of my work. I don't use them for competition. I'm a pleasure rider, and there is something wrong if my horses cannot take pleasure in being ridden. If my horse thinks my getting off him is a reward, then I've got a problem. If my horse is afraid to talk to me - to let me know he is concerned about something - I've got a problem.

Regardless of how some folks on this forum view the term "alpha" - as viewed with a lifetime around horses - I promise you many newer, suburban riders (and quite a few ranch hands) view it as: 

"My way or the highway, horse! Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil - because I'm the meanest son of a gun in the Valley! And don't you forget it!"


BSMS, we can never discuss this topic correctly, if you keep equating respect to abuse, or if a horse respects you, then he can't enjoy being pleasure ridden.
I do both-show and ride for pleasure. I assume, since my horses are easy to catch,load well, go down the trail on a loose rein, happy and relaxed, they are enjoying the experience.
Again, getting off has to be put in context. If you get off to rest your horse, walk a ways, negotiate a particularly tricky part of a trail, to stop and let your horse graze for awhile on along ride, that is great and you are not rewarding the horse for any negative action.
If, on the other hand, you get off each time that horse gets tense, spotting something he does not wish to ride past, then you are rewarding the wrong thing, and doing 'negative training'
I trail ride for pleasure, to enjoy the back country on a horse, and that means having a horse that trusts and respects me enough, not to try and spook and then spin and bolt, or one you can never relax on, pitch him slack and enjoy the scenery
I think in 30 years, I have ridden enough different horses on all kinds of trails, to know what makes both a horse who enjoys his job, and one you in turn can trust, knowing that even if he spooks, he will not try to bolt, spin, ect, and instantly come back to you, when you pick up on those reins
I don't beat a horse into respect, but rather ingrain desirable responses through progressive , fair and correct training
Having a horse respect you, just means that he will yield to you, and not commit any actions directed at you, that he would not commit towards a dominant horse
Please don't try to tell me that horses don't try to run off horses lower down then them,. kick them or bite them, when 'push comes to shove'
If I 'know',. where the safest crossing of a river is, and my horse just wants to go as quickly as possible,f rom point a to point b, even if that means coming to a bank he can;t safely scramble up, without risking flipping backwards, you bet it is my way, no negotiation or compromise


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

People I think, tend sometimes to not click links, me included. So I'm gonna paste Mark's essay on Respect where he claims the horses brain is missing the part where respect resides. I think it's a pretty darn good read....

Begin Paste:

There is a great deal of discussion these days about the importance of gaining a horse’s respect during training. The idea has gained a tremendous amount of traction over the years due to the fact that many trainers – regardless of discipline – use the term as a way to describe either desired behavior (respectful) or undesired behavior (disrespectful) in the horse. Students of these trainers often unquestioningly use both the word, and the “attitude” depicted by the trainer in regard to the word when working with their own horses.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with using the concept of respect in relation to horses. The first, and I suppose most important, is the fact that the concept itself is one that was conceived by humans, and concocted in the part of our brain known as the neocortex. The neocortex is the section of the human brain designed to handle the most complex of mental activity associated specifically with being human. It’s the section of the brain that allows for reasoning, extrapolation and conceptual thinking, among other functions. It is also the part of the brain that horses don’t have.

What I mean by that is if you compare a map of the human brain with the various parts labeled, and a map of a horse’s brain with it’s various parts labeled, you will simply not find a neocortex in the horse’s brain. So when I say they don’t have one, it literally means that that part of the brain, with all of its functions, does not exist in the horse. As a result, a human concept as complex as respect is not something that a horse even has the capacity of understanding.

The second problem with using the concept of respect with horses is the fact that the behavior horses exhibit around humans is always behavior that has been taught to them, at one time or another, by a human. Sometimes that behavior was taught to the horse intentionally, other times it was taught unintentionally. Either way, the result is the same…a horse that believes the behavior he or she is offering is correct.

Here’s an example. If we intentionally teach a horse a certain behavior – for instance, staying out of the human’s personal space by establishing clear and consistent boundaries, and then adhering to them – and the horse consistently stays out of our space; we look at the horse as being respectful. Yet if we unintentionally teach a horse how to invade our space by not being mindful and allowing the horse to bump into us, put their mouth on us, push on us, etc., we automatically see the horse as being disrespectful.

But in both cases the horse is repeating behavior that had been taught to them by a human. He will not distinguish between whether we meant to teach him one behavior and didn’t mean to teach him the other. Again, he literally doesn’t have the (brain) capacity to understand the difference. To him, it is all the same…we taught, he learned, end of story. You see, horses don’t just learn from us when we are giving direction. The also learn from us in the absence of direction.

So, if we really take an honest look at the concept of respect – as we understand it – and we see a horse that consistently repeats behavior that we have taught them as being respectful, then by definition, any learned behavior that we teach, and that the horse repeats, is the horse being respectful! And that is regardless of if we meant to teach the behavior or we didn’t mean to teach it. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

This idea of the horse not understanding the difference between intentional teaching/learning and unintentional teaching/learning can be very difficult for humans to understand because we have the capacity to understand the difference. It is one of the functions available to us in the higher thinking part of our brain – again, the part of the brain the horse doesn’t possess.

This difference in our respective brains is also the reason why we often can’t understand why a horse will spook at some innocuous item on a trail, such as a rock or a bush. Our brain has the capacity to almost immediately determine whether something we see is a danger to us or not. The horse’s brain, on the other hand, does not.

The horse is a prey animal, and as such has evolved with a flight instinct that tells them to flee from anything that doesn’t look, smell or sound familiar. To the horse, an unfamiliar-looking rock or bush on the side of the trail has exactly the same importance as a real predator. They don’t need to know what the scary thing is; they only need to know whether or not they should run from it. And if it doesn’t look right to them, they will run from it, or at the very least, get ready to run (spook). So, when we see a rock on the side of the trail, they simply see something that, for whatever reason, doesn’t look right. They will not take the time to stop and figure out what the unfamiliar thing is because in their world, that kind of delay could be the difference between life and death.

Again, that way of looking at the world is very foreign to us because of the differences between the ways our respective brains work. As a result, when a horse spooks unexpectedly, and we don’t understand why, we sometimes will have a tendency to take it personally – as if the horse did it as a way to get us off his back, or because he doesn’t trust or like us or because we believe he’s being disrespectful. When in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to training, this idea that a horse’s inherent and/or learned behavior is a somehow a “personal” attack on a person’s character (disrespect) is one of the biggest causes for creating the very disconnect that most horse people are trying to avoid in the first place! By being taught, or even just assuming that horses have the capacity for being disrespectful, the vast majority of normally reasonable people suddenly become extremely unreasonable anytime they see or experience unwanted horse behavior. After all, it is very difficult for the average person to remain reasonable when they believe their character is being attacked.

It should probably be pointed out here, that in order for a human to respect something or someone, we must not only understand the meaning of the word, but we must also have to have the capacity to develop an understanding for the background, history or meaning of the thing or person deserving our respect. Then we not only need to be able to identify with that history or background, but also have to have an appreciation for it. And finally (in order to truly respect that person or thing) we must actually feel a certain level of reverence, if you will, toward that individual or thing.

Not surprisingly, all of the above functions, the very ones that allow for us to understand the concept of respect in the first place, take place in the human neocortex. Not the least of these is reverence. Without the ability to experience reverence, or empathy, the concept of respect would be just as foreign to us as it is to the horse.

Now, some folks may read this and want to argue that horses do understand the concept of respect. And that their respect is evident when dealing with say, the “alpha” horse in the herd, or that they will respect an electric fence. But in both cases, the horse is actually responding more in fear than with respect…just as many of us would respond in fear to an aggressive horse, or in how we wouldn’t want to receive an electric shock.

Of course in the case of the latter, humans actually understand the principle of electricity. We know that it can either cook a man’s food, or that it can cook the man. We’ve been taught from an early age that touching a bare wire that is plugged into an electrical outlet is a bad thing…something that would be painful and should be avoided. The horse, on the other hand, has no concept of electricity and only knows that they get hurt when the wire is touched. Because of that, the wire should be avoided…just as the alpha, which also causes pain, should be avoided.

Along these same lines, I think it is important for us to understand that to a horse, behavior has no value. To him, his actions are neither good nor bad. Not having the capacity to understand the concepts of “good” or “bad,” much less the difference between the two, he is simply responding the best way he knows how, given the circumstances, and how those circumstances make him feel. In other words, if he is uncomfortable, his behavior will reflect that discomfort with confusion, defensiveness or worry, if he is comfortable, he will be relaxed and willing.

When we stop and really give this subject some thought, we might see that the biggest issue with all of this is that the term “respect” actually has more to do with how we feel about the horse’s behavior than it does how the horse feels about his behavior. And therein lies the rub.

Here is another way of looking at it. During a conversation with one of my martial arts instructors some time back, he made the point that when someone attacks us, we need to remember that the attack itself seldom, if ever, has anything to do with us personally. Instead, the attack is almost always the culmination of what is currently going on in the attacker’s life. If, as martial artists, we take the attack personally, we will have trouble thinking our way through what needs to be done at the time, and as a result we will struggle with bringing the situation to a productive outcome.

If, on the other hand, we take the situation as face value and deal only with the behavior as it appears in front of us, we can then remove the emotional element from ourselves. This, in turn, allows us to become the calm in the storm (instead of part of the storm) and ultimately gain control of the situation, before it controls us.

There is an old saying in the horse world: “In order for man to control the horse, he must first control himself.” And it is this self-control part of horsemanship that can be the most difficult for even the most experienced of horse people. It is for that reason that I think it is important that we do what we can to remove those aspects that could have a tendency to feed into the loss of that self-control.

So the next time someone tells us that our horse is being disrespectful, or that we think our horse is being disrespectful, or that we want to punish our horse for being disrespectful, lets take a second and do a quick internal inventory. In that moment, when we hear, feel or see something that we have been taught is disrespect, lets check and see what emotion comes up inside us. Is it one of anger, fear or defensiveness? If so, we will almost surely end up being part of the problem, as opposed to part of the solution.

On the other hand, if we just eliminate the word respect, simply take the behavior in front of us at face value and deal with it in a calm, thoughtful and appropriate manner, we can almost certainly become the leader that the horse is looking for to help them out of, or through, their worrisome situation.

And after all, who among us (horses included) wouldn’t prefer calm guidance in a stressful situation to behavior that is erratic, fearful and defensive?


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Oh Hondo, you are a trouble maker! :charge:

Horses do not have a neocortex but they do have a limbic system....


----------



## greenhaven (Jun 7, 2014)

Corporal said:


> What should we call this?
> a moose as a draft animal (critter care forum at permies)


Smart thinking outside the box, is what I call it! That moose is free to come and go as he pleases, and he keeps coming back.

ETA: or maybe "urban legend?"


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> ...So which book did you get?...


No Kindle. Very old fashioned of me.

Whole Heart, Whole Horse: Building Trust Between Horse and Rider & Nature in Horsemanship: Discovering Harmony Through Principles of Aikido

Respect, the noun, #2:

"a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way"

Horses do that. They show it all the time. They also seem to like being given respect, noun, #2.

If they are not important to me, then I won't take care of them and they cannot trust me. 

When I dismounted yesterday and Bandit held up a hoof and I pulled a rock out, I think Bandit clearly took it to mean he is valued by me and I therefor take care of his needs. Later, when I asked him to cross a rocky area, he accepted my decision as coming from someone who knew about rocks in feet and that it hurts. He hesitated, I said "I know", squeezed lightly - and he stepped forward. He expressed a concern, I acknowledged it, told him to go anyways, and he accepted my decision...and 60 feet later, the rocks stopped.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

bsms said:


> No Kindle. Very old fashioned of me..


 No problem, if you download the Amazon Kindle app to your computer and then want to PM me with your e-mail, I can still send you a book. You have 14 days to read it then it gets sent back to me. I can tell you the titles I have not just for Rashid but Dorrance, Brannaman, Hill, amongst others.


----------



## greenhaven (Jun 7, 2014)

bsms said:


> No Kindle. Very old fashioned of me.
> 
> Whole Heart, Whole Horse: Building Trust Between Horse and Rider & Nature in Horsemanship: Discovering Harmony Through Principles of Aikido
> 
> ...


Oh, there is definitely some latitude given against absolutes!

On the other hand, and with all due respect, you have totally imposed a thought process on Bandit that may or may not exist. It could very well be just as you say, but it could also be just as likely that once you dismounted he finally had the opportunity to lift his foot and relieve painful pressure on the stone. That you happened to be there with your nimble fingers could be purely happenstance. 

Likewise, the rocks, although less-so. He hesitated, you gently insisted, he acquiesced. Whether he was concerned or not is debatable. Your obvious good training and trust relationship with him is not.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Smilie said:


> 'My feelings exactly. Respect/disrespect is one thing when we are dealing with people. People certainly can be disrespectful or in the case of a child, the child showing no disrespect but still needing correction. How much of what a horse does is deliberate disrespect or simply lack of training? '
> 
> My thoughts to above:
> 
> ...


 I think we are really on the same page here. I have had to deal with a lot of problem horses myself. Some were never taught something in the first place but the majority were well behaved and then allowed to pick up bad habits. I don't have a problem with an experienced person like yourself using the word respect because it is used in the right context. I do have a problem with an inexperienced person getting an idea in their head and not knowing how to use it correctly. I rarely think "respect" when a horse misbehaves. I simply see it as a problem that needs to be corrected and as you pointed out it may very well have developed from improper handling by inexperienced people. When I first got my mare and she reared at the sight of a worming tube in my hand I certainly didn't think she was being disrespectful. We worked on it and the problem was resolved (she is fine with worming now) and I will say that I think she respects me for the way I handled it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_BSMS, we can never discuss this topic correctly, if you keep equating respect to abuse.._."

Smilie, we can never discuss this topic correctly if you keep rejecting the idea that many people equate respect and dominance to "My way or the highway".

I don't care if you've been riding since the Creator was in high school. In fact, that is a drawback for this discussion - because too many experienced riders make false assumptions about newer riders. When you or others tell people they always need to be "the alpha" or "the boss", you are NOT telling them to understand their horse and treat it with respect. That is not what those words convey to most people.

At work, an "alpha boss" is used to describe a domineering buttwipe, not a good leader.

"_If, on the other hand, you get off each time that horse gets tense, spotting something he does not wish to ride past, then you are rewarding the wrong thing, and doing 'negative training'_"

I disagree. Why? Because neither Mia nor Trooper no Bandit respond in the way you describe. What you predict will happen does not and has not happened with any of my horses. None of them act like they are being rewarded. None of them become spookier. None of them become more reactive. They all have become calmer and more receptive. Frankly, every horse I've ridden has struck me as smarter and more reasonable than many experienced riders say horses are capable of being. I also find horses to be more honest than most people claim.

I have never owned a horse who enjoyed being scared or nervous. They all have wanted to be calm. Helping them learn their fears were groundless rather than something I make them push past has made them calmer horses. More trusting, and more willing. Even more confident and eager.

What interests me on this thread is that others seem to have found the same sort of thing. I spent 25+ years in the military. Every unit had a commander. Not all commanders were followed. The real leaders in a unit were often Captains or senior NCOs. They didn't have the rank, but they had the respect and trust.

What I had started to learn with Mia and am seeing again in Bandit is that a horse can be pushed past something that makes them nervous and remain a nervous horse. But if I show a horse he had no reason to be nervous, and the horse buys in to it, then the horse is no longer nervous. Done often enough, the horse will realize it is easier to accept my judgment (which presumably has always been correct) than to worry in the first place.

We disagree, Smilie. I suspect we always will. Please feel entirely welcome to do what has worked for you and your horses. I'm not even going to try to tell someone with decades of experience to stop doing what works for them. But you might as well realize that I tried your approach, and it did NOT work for me. Why? I don't know. Maybe I did it wrong. But it did not get the results I want. Doing what I'm doing now was working with Mia and is giving me good progress with Bandit.

And I've watched other riders screw things up worse than I ever have. Trooper's scars didn't come from me. I wasn't Mia's first owner, and she arrived so nervous that she could lather herself up just standing by herself in a corral. The first time I asked Bandit for a trot, he braced his back like an I-beam and exploded into a fast trot. Yesterday, he did a side by side trot down the street with Trooper - a relaxed, sitting trot.

I've spent the last 1-1.5 years trying to formulate how I wanted to ride. How I wanted my horses to respond, and how to get them there. From what I'm reading on this thread, I'm not the first person to go through this. I don't want to be the rider that a lot of people tell me I should be. Nor do I think I need to be.

What I was seeing in response from Mia this spring made me happy. What I'm seeing in Bandit this summer is making me happy. I guess I'll continue doing what makes me happy...:loveshower:


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

So, there is nothing new in any of those concepts, and no different than, 'you train a horse, each and every time you handle or ride him, either for the good or the bad, ', or 'horses are creatures of habit'
Also, there have been enough articles posted, written, explaining the horse's prey mentality, where for him to spook and get a safe distance away, then re evaluate, is a natural reaction, as actually a 'smart reaction, far as a prey animal is concerned.
No traditional good training program ignors those facts 
There is the fact, that if we wish to use the horse for pleasurable riding, including trail riding, through training, we get him to trust us and respond to us, so that he dampens those automatic reactions-otherwise, have 'good' ride'!

Horses indeed are taught herd order and whatever word you wish to substitute for respect, by fellow herd members. A foal is tolerated, jumping up on his dam, even kicking at her, and other herd members are also tolerant. However, as that horse becomes a yearling, he is taught to respect both the space and the herd order. That is also why orphan foals are often problematic, as they have not been taught what is acceptable.
Foals will kick at people, until they are taught that is not acceptable
If you don't like the word 'respect', esp looking up dictionary definition, then find another word.
All mark is doing< JMO, is another version of applying NH to any training, with the subliminal message it is either new or better. Not ONE of his concepts is new.
We also don't 'back' horses, as does that mean you give them a new back?
\many people use the old term, to break a young horse, when it has not implication tot he former way horses were trained on the range, having, I guess, their will broken
How about forgetting about terminology, abstract thinking, and discuss actual training scenarios, where passive training differs from good traditional training, even if the latter uses words like 'dominant and respect?

Its hot here today, and after the rain, bugs are dominating the air, invading my space and even bitting me. 


http://www.equusite.com/articles/ground/groundRespect.shtml


----------



## BreezylBeezyl (Mar 25, 2014)

I think most horse people should strive to be the balance of both passive and assertive: to be *neutral*. Respond as needed; no more, and no less.

You should always allow your horse to make their own decisions (this is being a _passive_ leader). However, if the decision is not in the horse's best interest, then the trainer must actively correct the issue (this is called being _assertive_).

When you combine the entire situation above, you end up with a horse that _understands_ and is not a grudging animal. Together, you coexist. It's not just one individual telling and demanding the other what to do. You ask the horse, and if the answer isn't what you were looking for then you explain it to them through correction.

This is being neutral. This is being fair. Ask your horse, and if you do not receive make the expectations clear. If the expectations are clear, there is no force. There is just understanding.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Oh Hondo, you are a trouble maker! :charge:


Well, I try............:riding:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/1070960...6176654181484265458&oid=107096058843339940086


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I am going to propose the following based on my own observations and input from others and will try to keep emotions and mental capabilities out of it because that is another ball of wax. 

What I see with horse herds is that each member has a recognized specialty. One may have particularly good hearing, another have nurturing tendencies, another very smart, another very curious and brave and yet another very strong or quick or good at discerning danger.

No one is above the other. In other words, the one who is strong is not about to reprimand the horse with good hearing for pricking his ears, upon which the curious/brave one may saunter over in that direction and check it out, again neither being told to or restricted from doing so. It is _cooperative _survival based on recognized strengths (horses don’t lie) rather than simple dominance.

The “leader” may be the one that possesses the highest number of good quality useful characteristics even if none of those qualities are singularly the best available in the herd. Like any good manager, he will differ and collect information from those beneath him who possess better abilities in a particular situation before determining a course of action. 

People can become the leader of any horse if they demonstrate a consistent ability to provide something of value to that particular horse. 

Feel free to debate, tweak, ruminate...I enjoy the perspectives.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I have saved this observation about who or which member initiates a retreat from perceived threat.

This is from a non-feral herd that has mostly been together for several years in a non-confinement areal that could (if they wanted) extend to at least 28,000 acres, unless they found a gate open somewhere then more.

The flee response seems to come mostly from 1-2 year old youngsters that com-a-running outta the brush where the others seem to default to: Well, we better run also just in case there is really a danger.

This of course soon resolves into 20+/- horse grazing peacefully again.

Dunno what would happen with a real threat. Never have seen one.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo said:


> The flee response seems to come mostly from 1-2 year old youngsters that com-a-running outta the brush where the others seem to default to: Well, we better run also just in case there is really a danger.


What do you conclude from that observation?


Cowboy will spook at a noise in the woods take off forty feet and the rest of them just keep eating, they don't even raise their heads anymore. He obviously has a problem with spook-cred in his herd.

Now if Caspian The Ambassador (also the youngest member) goes to check something out and starts running....we are off to the races.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I have saved this observation about who or which member initiates a retreat from perceived threat.
> 
> This is from a non-feral herd that has mostly been together for several years in a non-confinement areal that could (if they wanted) extend to at least 28,000 acres, unless they found a gate open somewhere then more.
> 
> ...


Hondo,
Again, while interesting, how do you use that fact in the human horse interaction, far as training or handling?



BSMS, you are certainly free to use what works for you., and yes, I do believe that if you tried to use what i suggested, you did not use it correctly. You used a curb to control Mia's reaction, and I'm quite sure I never suggested that!
It is also unfortunate that your observation of training seems to be limited to old time ranch horse breaking techniques, and that appears to be your image of any training based on respect, which is part of the entire picture of building trust, making sure a horse understands a request, by incremental training and the correct use of pressure and release from pressure
I guess, any trainer like CA and others that use the word 'respect' are also false prophets, while Mark R, is the true prophet, crying out in the wilderness, the true gossiple of the horse!
Yes, horses don't make moral judgements, and thus really can't distinguish negative training from positive training, thus it is your job to foster, ingrain and promote good behavior
Tell me, what is so different from using body control, versus a curb, to keep a horse from spinning and bolting. What makes that curb, passive training, while using body control is using dominance ???
Personally, I think body control is preferable.
No, horses don't remain fearful when you ride them past stuff. On the contrary, they learn to trust your judgement and become calm versus fearful, trusting in your judgement and leadership
I do believe that Reining has a point, concerning new horse people not knowing how to read a horse correctly, nor how respect even applies, used correctly and fairly, and thus totally don't get what being a fair alpha leader really is-and it has nothing to do with being in the army!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_I guess, any trainer like CA and others that use the word 'respect' are also false prophets, while Mark R, is the true prophet, crying out in the wilderness, the true gossiple of the horse!"
_
Well, since I've never read any of Rashid's stuff before this thread (other than a piece on bits), I probably don't consider him to be a true prophet or myself a follower. Maybe that will change when the books I've ordered arrive.

"_It is also unfortunate that your observation of training seems to be limited to old time ranch horse breaking techniques.._."

Hmmm...John Lyons, Larry Trocha, and a variety of NH-type trainers tend to be what I've seen in terms of techniques. I like a lot of what Larry Trocha teaches, but his goals differ from mine. That is OK. I couldn't train a top cutter to save my soul, nor would I try to tell Larry Trocha how to train a horse. Or John Lyons. Or you. Folks need to do what works for them.

The US Air Force uses "12 O'clock High" as a training film about leadership. After watching, discussion centers on how various leaders use different techniques, and then on to a discussion about how the officers in the study group would go about it. Part of the point is that a leader needs to be true to who he is - that you cannot imitate another unless you share that other person's personality and goals.

I think that is true of training horses. A person needs to be true to who they are and their values and beliefs. Horses are good at spotting phonies. I'm not Larry Trocha. I never will be. He's probably glad for the difference. And having listened to a lot of his stuff, I think he'd be happy that I'm getting results I like. He seems like a good guy.

"_Tell me, what is so different from using body control, versus a curb, to keep a horse from spinning and bolting. What makes that curb, passive training, while using body control is using dominance ???_"

A horse who has become very good at evading a snaffle can respond well to a change in bits. Mia was very good at evading a snaffle. She found a curb bit hard to evade, and THEN learned there was no reason to evade it.

"_You used a curb to control Mia's reaction, and I'm quite sure I never suggested that!_"

You never posted anything to me until after Mia left and Bandit came. So no...you never suggested it. Nor did you know Mia, or her history, or what we went thru - good or bad.

Just as well, because teaching her to use a curb was a major turning point in her life - and you would have told me not to do it. Learning to hold her ground when afraid, learning to ride on a slack rein - those helped Mia. The folks who told me not to do it were wrong - as judged by the results.

The next step, which took me much longer to learn, came from reading Tom Roberts and thinking about his approach. It took me a long time to realize that I could get her past something without her ever agreeing it wasn't scary. The idea of keeping a slack rein on a scared horse took some doing...but it gave me good results.

"_No, horses don't remain fearful when you ride them past stuff._"

Maybe yours don't. Mia did. I can get Bandit to go past stuff without getting him to agree that it isn't scary. But if I take the time to teach him it was never scary to begin with, it goes much easier on us both the next time. A good farrier once spent an hour working with Trooper. I asked him why. He said it would go much faster the next time, and take moments the third time. He was right. A good guy and good with horses. I'm glad I met him.

Do what you think is best. I'll do likewise. You obviously are happy with the results you get. I'm not telling you how to do it. Just saying I'm doing things differently, and am happy with what I'm seeing as a result.

You can be happy for me, or not. Your choice. I'm glad you are enjoying your horses and riding them. I am too. Maybe there is room in the equine world for both of us. Neither horses nor people are all alike. Nor do we need to be.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Boy, heaps of responses since I put in my 20c yesterday!


thesilverspear said:


> 'respect-disrespect' paradigm unhelpful and would rather people understand it purely in terms of training. .... "He is disrespecting me" is likely to make the handler feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with the horse.


THAT is exactly my feeling about it, put a lot clearer than I've ever been able to! It may mean no _effective_ difference in how you train, it's _only_ 'mindset', but I do believe mindset/attitude is a vital part of the equation.



> Equine ethologists have found that feral herds have less antagonistic relationships; they tend to be family groups and when they are on a range of 10000s of acres, space and food aren't at such a premium.


As are wolves/dogs.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Bah! What a huge & fascinating thread... hope I find time to read it all!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes, BSMS, I truly am glad that you have found what works for you and your horses, and believe Al Dunning (least, that is who I recalled, gave that particular talk )when he said, there is more than one way to train a horse, this is just the way I do it" I think Larry Trocha makes a similar disclaimer, in his video on teaching the stop
When I referred to trainers you have been exposed to, that gave you a bad taste from the word 'alpha or dominant, I was referring to those ranch hands ,where you have your horse,and who could not get through to Mia, and not that you have not watched, read many others,as resources

Far as the entire herd thing, and the various Greek letters, you do not truly have a herd situation, working with your horse. 
There is only you,and the horse, and last I checked, that adds up to two
Thus, you are either dominant/alpha to your horse, or he enjoys that position
You either lead or he does.
That 'dominant or alpha does not denote how strongly you 'dominant your horse, or even that you dominate him in the first place, as per dictionary definition, but merely relates the order of hierarchy in your herd of two
There are only two positions open, unlike in a herd of horses
Far as Rashid, I do have one of his books, as I always pick up any horse books that are on sale,a t various equine events that I attend
Once he got into his own Black belt journey and mussings, I lost interest


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Well, I try............:riding:
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/1070960...6176654181484265458&oid=107096058843339940086


I kept watching and waiting for a remote controlled boogie man to pop out or whiz by. 

Did I miss something?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

anndankev said:


> I kept watching and waiting for a remote controlled boogie man to pop out or whiz by.
> 
> Did I miss something?


Hee hee Like many of my projects, it's still on the shelf. Paying a little more attention to Hondo, taking off up a steep incline on a boring stretch of road, and generally giving him more input along the way whether needed or not, plus maybe the magnesium, seem to have reduced the severity of his spooks. He has turned/shyed maybe 30 degrees a time or two but otherwise everything has been spook in place and really not many of those. Nothing that I can't easily handle.

I have not, however, taken the project off the list and still wear my helmet.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie said:


> How about forgetting about terminology, abstract thinking, and discuss actual training scenarios, where passive training differs from good traditional training, even if the latter uses words like 'dominant and respect?


YES! Smilie, I think you nailed the real question here. I just finished my fourth book by Rashid. He's an interesting writer. He has some terrific insights, He can make you cry.

But somewhere in every book he has some little barb aimed at Clinton Anderson or Parelli (although he never names them) and it always irritates me. Because it always comes down to some detail of semantics where Rashid takes a concept from another trainer, perverts it mean something the trainer never meant it to mean, and then shows why that's wrong.

It's like Rashid has a deep inner need to be just a little more clever than anyone else. But to get back to Smilie's point, what does he actually DO differently? NOTHING! I've only had the opportunity to watch him for a couple of hours, but my observation was that aside from being very patient and proceeding very slowly, he does exactly what everyone else does.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I look at it like this. Apart from mother and foal, there seems to be three main relationships among a herd, any herd.

The alpha, the herd leader, and the horse that another horse likes to hang around. Trade swishing flies off of each other. Or just standing and grazing in fairly close proximity.

So the question I think, for each, is which relationship we want with our horse. Personally, I want Hondo to enjoy just being around me. And I believe I'm making progress in that direction. And his "obedience" and general behavior is improving at the same time.

One thing works for one, something else works for another. For me, if the only way I could successfully have a horse was to be his alpha, I would not even want a horse.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Just redicovered this thread, never did get round to reading all...



Joel Reiter said:


> But somewhere in every book he has some little barb aimed at Clinton Anderson or Parelli (although he never names them) and it always irritates me. Because it always comes down to some detail of semantics where Rashid takes a concept from another trainer, perverts it mean something the trainer never meant it to mean, and then shows why that's wrong.


I think Rashid wrote his books(at least the 2 I read - Good horse never bad colour & horses never lie) well before CA hit the scene(I read them many years before hearing of CA at least). But while I think yours & Smiley's points about _effective_ difference is important, I do think that 'mindset' and attitude and perception is important too. (Think I was a philosopher in a past life:icon_rolleyes I suspect that perhaps that's why he goes into the 'what's wrong with this picture' of other training methods & also suspect one reason he doesn't name names is because he appreciates it's the *perception*, the perversion, as you put it, that is wrong, not _necessarily_ the original message/method.

& back to effective difference... interesting your idea that MR doesn't actually DO anything different from other 'less passive' trainers. I've only seen him once, about 20 years ago, so my perception(let alone memory) is not worth much. I personally feel it is indeed more about attitude than training differences too. I would class 'shaping' as a form of 'passive training' though. Can think of lots of other non-confrontational, non-compulsive methods(like C/T) but not sure about calling them 'passive'. Be interested to hear what other's ideas of passive training would be.

I should read his books again - be interesting how differently I perceive & understand them with 20 years under my belt since last time...


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Loosie, upon further review, my blanket statement that Rashid takes a shot at Parelli or Clinton Anderson in every book is not accurate. _Considering the Horse_ was published in 1993 and _A Good Horse is Never a Bad Color_ is copyright 1996. In 96 Clinton Anderson was a 20-year old clinician, working in Australia after his brief internship with Al Dunning.

However, _Horses never lie: the heart of passive leadership_ came out in 2000. By that time CA had been conducting clinics in the US for almost three years. He started his TV show in 2001 and won Road to the Horse in 2003 and 2005.

And _Whole Heart, Whole Horse_, the book I just finished, was published in 2009. I might be jumping to conclusions, but when I saw Rashid in 2014 he was insistent that respect is not a term that means anything when applied to horses. Since Clinton has "lunging for respect" and "respect and control on the ground" and his hula hoop for respecting his personal space, I took it as a slam on CA. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

For me the first example and one of the few of those who taught and lived passive leadership was Tom Dorrance. Very effective horseman but many reports from those who knew him said that his mere presence appeared enough to gain a horse's cooperation. He spoke of himself as always an advocate of the horse not the people who train them. 

Y'all might enjoy this two part article very much related to this subject, about the late Tom Dorrance. Please do read, it is very insightful. I wish I had gotten a chance to meet him. Enjoy! 

Tom Dorrance: A Most Extraordinary Horseman (Part 1) - Mike Thomas Horsemen


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I see that this thread is alive and well again, but have not bothered to read any additional posts on it, but I do have a question.
Why does everything now need a label?
I can even go into the grocery store, and now see potatoes sold as baking potatoes, boiling potatoes, roasting potatoes-what the heck!
NH, is another example of trying to apply labels, with subliminal messages-ie, it is better , kinder, and more 'natural', when in fact , in reality, there is just good horse training and bad horse training, and those qualities transcend trying to apply labels.
"Passive horse training', falls into the same mold, JMO!
So, what is the opposite-active horse training????
Passive implies non assertive
Since there was a free for all, here, using the dictionary definition for dominant, lets' apply the dictionary definition of passive
Passive: offering no opposition, submissive, yielding
Taking no active part
influenced or acted upon without exerting influence or action in return; inactive, but acted upon
Sounds like pretty ineffectual training to me!
There is good training, using firm, fair clear boundaires, and progressive teaching, so a horse understands requests, has security and trust in your leadership, and then there is bad training, which can be either abusive or ineffective, where the horse becomes spoiled


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Mark doesn't label his work 'passive horse training.' The OP in this thread may have called it that, but 'passive leadership' is but one concept he writes about. It comes from his observation of herds: the horse who doesn't take any crap, but acts calm and confident but not aggressive, is the horse who the other horses follow. When there is a horse in a herd who aggressively chases and harasses his herdmares, the others may stay out of his way and move when he comes charging up, but they're not as inclined to follow him.

I don't know that Mark is slagging off Anderson or anyone else specifically. I think he was expressing frustration with the people who chase their horse in endless circles in the name of 'respect,' or otherwise fail to use clear aids in ground or ridden work, and whinge, "He doesn't respect me" when the issue is that the horse has no idea what the handler wants. This is a lot of amateur horse owners. In every barn. 

Join-up has its place, but it's overused. 

Mark advocates calmly showing the horse what you want, with clear aids that help the horse understand, and clear rewards (release of pressure) for the correct behaviour. Basically, good horsemanship. A lot of what he says echoes the classical dressage approach (I did Mark's clinic this past May, then had a couple lessons with a classical trainer shortly thereafter; they fit together beautifully). It seems obvious and you can whinge, "Well, it's just good horsemanship. So what?" 

But the people who come to his clinics, for the most part, are not exactly Carl Hester. A lot of them are having trouble getting their horses to do very basic stuff. I saw a great improvement in the riders who, at the start of the clinic, could barely control their horses. That's not to say he is only for people struggling with basics: he and his wife can teach advanced stuff too: in my case, I improved the shoulder-in, half-pass, and collected canter during the clinic.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Yeah Joel, it is Considering the horse, not Horses Never lie that I've got(remember wanting the latter). But yeah, I have no idea about... indirect hits ;-) on the others, just speculating as to why he may say that but do the same...


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Smilie said:


> Why does everything now need a label?


What?? mg:You mean you don't want to classify everything, make it nice & neat?? What kind of a question's that?? 



> NH, is another example of trying to apply labels, with subliminal messages-ie, it is better , kinder, and more 'natural', when in fact , in reality, there is just good horse training and bad horse training,


Yes, as I said, I do think that mindset/attitude comes into it, and I think that's where 'names' come in... but then there's 'marketing', intentional or otherwise... & there are always many ways things can be perceived or effected, regardless of words used. Even 'good horsemanship' has a completely different perception in... certain TWH circles for eg. You gotta admit tho, we wouldn't have all these interesting philosophical discussions without all these lables tho!



> Passive: offering no opposition, submissive, yielding
> Taking no active part


Yes, and 'taking no active part' means that shaping couldn't even really be included either. Literally. But I don't recall the idea of 'passive training' coming from Mark or anyone, but 'passive _leadership_'. I don't think it's meant to be taken literally - it's the attitude thing again, focussing on what he calls passive as opposed to 'dominant'... now I must re-read those books again so I know what I'm on about. And shut up because I'm starting to ramble...:icon_rolleyes:


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Joel Reiter said:


> I might be jumping to conclusions, but when I saw Rashid in 2014 he was insistent that respect is not a term that means anything when applied to horses. Since Clinton has "lunging for respect" and "respect and control on the ground" and his hula hoop for respecting his personal space, I took it as a slam on CA. Maybe I'm wrong.


There has been a lot of brain mapping in the last several years. I'm not into brain study per se, but I am re-reading Temple Grandin's Animals In Translation for the umpteenth time.

She says the portion of the human brain that forms respect and disrespect is simply not found in horses and other animals and of course quotes the research and researchers that have determined this. She goes on to say that respect is a somewhat complex concept that is beyond the conceptual abilities of a horse.

There is a reason for a horses behavior, but it's not respect/disrespect.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Passive implies non assertive


In his book, Horses Never Lie, Mark Rashid goes into detail how at his first presentation of the concept of Passive (horse) Leadership at a clinic many of his audience rejected the term.

From reading his discussion about it, I would venture to speculate that he would have come up with a different term if he had it to do over.

In order to understand what he means the dictionary unfortunately needs to be discarded.

Consider it one of your "forget about words and think about what is meant" moments.

He talks about the herd member that other members choose as a leader because of the horses attitude, dependability, and lack of force to maintain a leadership role as done by the lead mare. The horse other horses follow out of choice.

And as much as I respect and admire Rashid, I do not and will not use a round pen. I'll be disappointed if I do not receive incoming flak from that one.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I don't think anyone, including Mark Rashid, cares if you use a round pen or not.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...She says the portion of the human brain that forms respect and disrespect is simply not found in horses and other animals...


Respect has many meanings. If it is used to mean "esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person", then I doubt horses respect people or other horses.

But the next meaning in the dictionary is "deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment". 

Horses do that every moment they are around another horse. They do it around a human, if the human acts the right way.

Lots of folks talk about horses constantly testing each other. What I see in my 3 horses is that once roles are established, they mostly are content to live in those roles. Maybe 20 horses would have a constantly shifting relationship, but 3 make it simple.

And if all the humans they meet act the right way, then the horse will develop respect - "deference to a right, privilege, privileged position" - for the category called "humans". He will just assume they have rights to move his food, make him get out of the way, to stand quietly, to get on his back, to tell him to go left instead of right, to give shots, handle his feet, etc - because he "respects" humans.

One can argue it isn't true respect since it is ultimately based on the willingness of the other being to DEMAND it or enforce it. Semantics.

I dislike using the word respect because humans then interpret it wrong. New riders tend to assume "disrespect" is caused by the horse not liking them or because the rider isn't demanding enough, when in many cases the problem is the horse doesn't understand what is expected of him. Rather than say, "This horse doesn't respect you", I think we should say, "You've trained your horse, intentionally or not, to do things you don't want him to do".

That gets us away from worrying about our self-worth or thinking about kicking the horse's butt around until he "respects me", and focuses it where it should be: How do I train the horse and set boundaries he understands and obeys? In many cases: What have I done to dig the hole, and how do I now fill it in?

Round pens: All of my horses have been in one for a week or so of training. None have needed to go back into one. They are not useful for teaching "respect" or to make the horse "love you". They do have value as a simple way to teach a few concepts. Then move on...IMHO as a backyard rider.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> In his book, Horses Never Lie, Mark Rashid goes into detail how at his first presentation of the concept of Passive (horse) Leadership at a clinic many of his audience rejected the term.
> 
> From reading his discussion about it, I would venture to speculate that he would have come up with a different term if he had it to do over.
> 
> ...


I kinda tried to apply that same reasoning to 'dominant'! I'm with you completely on round pen work being incorretcly applied and over used!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

thesilverspear said:


> I don't think anyone, including Mark Rashid, cares if you use a round pen or not.


I think it likely that you are mostly correct in this. Not 100% but mostly.

The important thing about considering the round pen, to me, is the type relationship a person chooses to have with his horse.

If its alpha or lead mare, I think from what I've read and seen the round pen is a highly effective tool.

If on the other hand, a person wishes a bonded friendship with his horse to the extent possible between equine and human, most of what I have seen of round pen use seems to be counter productive to that goal or end.

After being first introduced to a round pen, after about 15 minutes I simply blurted out, "I cannot do this", and pulled the halter off the horse.

But that's just me. As I said, if the only successful way I could have a horse was to be his alpha, I would not want a horse.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

thesilverspear said:


> Mark doesn't label his work 'passive horse training.' The OP in this thread may have called it that, but 'passive leadership' is but one concept he writes about.


Please do not quote me or attribute me as saying things I did not say. I realize you used the terms "may have" but very little difference between that a direct quote to the average reader.

You could have just as well said, "Mark doesn't label his work 'passive horse training' but 'passive leadership' is one concept he writes about."

I'm only slightly offended and will recover in short order.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Ask and ye shall receive. Here is your push back….

It sounds like you had an experience that left a bad taste in your mouth. 

Just as you approach a horse from different frames of mind, so too you can approach the round pen with different attitudes.

I round pen Oliver before trail rides. First off, it gives me a chance to see if he is sore anywhere, muscles, hooves etc. before we get riding. This is especially true if he was just trailered somewhere and perhaps pulled something mildly not visible to the naked eye. I owe it to him to take him out riding feeling his best. Secondly, it gives him a chance to stretch everything out. I don’t keep a lead on him, we “free lunge” and I use my hands for communication. 

I point, he goes. I say whoa, he stops, I change pointing hands he changes direction. He actually seems to enjoy the little bit of free movement before we put all of the gear on. I have fun, he has fun. If he wants to walk a couple times around that is fine, most often though he chooses to trot. 

No whips, no chasing or running at the horse…. It is the beginning of our fun time together.

After a couple of go-arounds each direction and I am convinced he is sound and fit, no breathing problems (he has allergies) and he has focused on me (Being a former stud, he finds mares quite enchanting), we tack up, do a few lateral flexes and disengagements and off we go. 

There is no negative pressure and no “gonna make you move” attitude, just two living beings getting into the mindset of going for some fun. I stretch, he stretches, I warm up, he warms up. 

I think the round-pen is like most tools of horsemanship, the attitude with which they are employed, can make a huge difference.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Hondo said:


> Please do not quote me or attribute me as saying things I did not say. I realize you used the terms "may have" but very little difference between that a direct quote to the average reader.
> 
> You could have just as well said, "Mark doesn't label his work 'passive horse training' but 'passive leadership' is one concept he writes about."
> 
> I'm only slightly offended and will recover in short order.


I wasn't writing at you or about anything you said. I was referring to Smilie's post #92: "'Passive horse training', falls into the same mold, JMO! So, what is the opposite-active horse training????" Obviously need to use the forum's quote function more, but thought it was fairly clear what and who I was referring to. Oh, well. 

Roundpens can be useful. Or not. Most people in the UK don't even have access to one. It's one way to get a horse's attention on you, but far from the only way.

If you and your horse are getting along with one another and you have no major training debacles, your methods are working for you. Who's gonna complain.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...But that's just me. As I said, if the only successful way I could have a horse was to be his alpha, I would not want a horse.


From my thread today on riding Bandit:



bsms said:


> Let me toss this out as food for thought. It is something I was thinking about while riding this morning.
> 
> My riding relationship with Bandit is very different from Mia. Mia was simply a much smarter horse. Not that Bandit is stupid. I'd place him in the top 50%, tho not by a large margin. He is a fairly average horse.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

tss, I'm over it. Thanks for the comments.

Horses Never Lie was my second book after Tachyhippodamia. I have read Mark's book several times along with other of his books. I formed my early and present basis on him.

RCD: You nailed it! I DID have a very bad first experience in the round pen. It first appeared my tenure at the ranch would be cut short after I aborted the round pen. The next day however I was told they respected my desire to find a more gentle way for horses.

You description of the round pen makes me almost feel like I'm abusing Hondo for not allowing him to play in one!  Thank you so much.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Hey bsms, ot but while you're here, I've wondered how that new style bitless bridle turned out/worked out. How you liked it, or not.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Hondo said:


> There is a reason for a horses behavior, but it's not respect/disrespect.


Well yeah. Clinton Anderson would agree completely. He uses the term respect because it makes sense to horse owners, not because it some kind of physiologically/psychologically accurate description of what is going on in a horse's mind.

We anthropomorphize our horses because it puts things in terms that make sense to us. Just like we talk about the sun rising. It doesn't, but you'd be a bit of a jerk if you felt the need to explain the whole phenomenon of the earth's rotation every time somebody talked about sunrise.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Joel Reiter said:


> We anthropomorphize our horses because it puts things in terms that make sense to us.


Well yeah, it makes since to us but I think it can also be detrimentally misleading.

Respect/disrespect has at least some emotional baggage attached to it for at least some if not most people.

Looking at the source of the problem, whatever it is, as something entirely detached from us with any emotional value removed, I think is helpful both for the horse and human.

I think it's likely more helpful in the long run to think about a horse as a horse rather than as a human.

On a side note, just for the fun of it, I have on occasion in the past contemplated the setting sun as myself rotating down out of sight of the sun. Just to play with the different perspective it presented. But I don't think an analogy of the setting sun really means anything here.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"Respect" is shorthand. Used with the right audience, it is fine. It is easier to say, "That horse doesn't respect its rider" than to say, "That rider has poor communication, vague boundaries and is unaware of that his horse is doing, resulting in the horse engaging in unwanted and unhelpful behavior."

But it is obvious from many threads here than many folks take it to mean "My horse does not esteem me highly enough because I hurt his feelings and he resents me. Maybe if I take it easy on him, he'll like me and then start respecting me more since I'm such a likable rider".

OR: "I need to get tough and do some butt kicking. I'll take my disobedient horse over to that round pen, spend 10 minutes tacking off his tack while he eats grass, and then put him in the round pen and kick some equine butt! I'll teach that naughty horse! Repent, sinner!"


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Hondo said:


> I think it's likely more helpful in the long run to think about a horse as a horse rather than as a human.


Absolutely. The more accurately we can understand what is happening in the brain of a horse, the better our chance of communicating. And I think Rashid makes some valuable contributions to that. I just wish that instead of saying, "I think X is wrong" he would say something like, "be careful when you apply this term that you don't take it literally."


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Agreed. Rashid is more or less my guru, but I have not diefied him. And I have noticed the veiled slight digs he does on occasion seem to make toward others. And I do not support that. But I do support his overall thesis.

Most of the trainers are at least to some degree entertainers I think. I'd like to be able to sneak around somehow and see how various clinitians actually interact with their own horses out of sight of the public.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Hondo said:


> There has been a lot of brain mapping in the last several years. I'm not into brain study per se, but I am re-reading Temple Grandin's Animals In Translation for the umpteenth time.
> 
> She says the portion of the human brain that forms respect and disrespect is simply not found in horses and other animals and of course quotes the research and researchers that have determined this. She goes on to say that respect is a somewhat complex concept that is beyond the conceptual abilities of a horse.
> 
> There is a reason for a horses behavior, but it's not respect/disrespect.


Interesting. I must have missed that bit in that book & will have to re-read. I have always thought of 'respect' from animals in terms of trust & calm training. In that way of thinking of it, it must be earned, and it does apply to horses IMO. But why I personally have such a 'bee in my bonnet' about the term 'respect' is that to many people it seems to be a moral 'condition' that they expect of their horses, and if they are 'disrespectful' they 'deserve' punishment. Yada yada. Horses are intelligent beings IMO, but they just don't think like that, don't do abstract, ethical ideas. I bet they're the parts of the brain that light up in (some) humans but not in animals. Heck, it's hard enough for many humans to really get it sometimes!

Horses do what works for them & quit doing what doesn't work, and can get reactive and 'resistant' when confused/frightened. Stick to those basics, and you will see that any 'disrespect' you get is on your shoulders & just shows that you need to work more on clear, effective communication, reinforcement, and proving your 'safe' & trustworthy.:wink:


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Joel Reiter said:


> He uses the term respect because it makes sense to horse owners,


I personally think the term tends to get in the way of good understanding, comes with too much 'baggage' and labling something as 'respect/disrespect' doesn't help. Eg. 'Why is my horse not letting me catch him?' answer; 'he is being disrespectful & you have to make him give you some respect.'

It would be really interesting if the term was disallowed here, to see what more useful suggestions would be made...


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

loosie said:


> It would be really interesting if the term was disallowed here, to see what more useful suggestions would be made...


I see your point, but if we want to start banning terms, the first two on my list would be spoiled and abused, both of which seem to mean almost anything. Furthermore, neither have much to do with training, because being clear and consistent works regardless of whatever background we wish to project on our horses.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

thesilverspear said:


> The OP in this thread may have called it that, but 'passive leadership' is but one concept he writes about.


I just looked in the mirror and noticed I have egg all over my face. Not only did I say "passive horse training" but I named the thread that.

I owe *thesilverspur* a huge apology and a big thank you for pointing out my error.

I had not looked at the title for some time. I can hardly believe I used that phrase but there it is. I hate it being there now for how misleading it is and would change it if I could.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Another term often misused is "discipline", as tho to punish. No, it means to teach. I never run a horse in a round pen as it changes the horse's mind from a thinking one to a reactive one. Even the speed of the trot is monitored. Much of my pen work is done at the walk with numerous changes of direction, halts, backing. My arm extension is a dressage whip as it's touch can be feather light.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Saddlebag said:


> I never run a horse in a round pen as it changes the horse's mind from a thinking one to a reactive one.


I think the round pen is a good place to work out trot to canter transitions before you try them under saddle, but otherwise I agree.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Saddlebag said:


> Another term often misused is "discipline", as tho to punish. No, it means to teach. I never run a horse in a round pen as it changes the horse's mind from a thinking one to a reactive one. Even the speed of the trot is monitored. Much of my pen work is done at the walk with numerous changes of direction, halts, backing. My arm extension is a dressage whip as it's touch can be feather light.



I think some breeds and some individuals flip into reactive mode more easily than others. 

In the year we have been working with Oliver, he has gone reactive precisely once. Knock wood, he has never even spooked and I have tried. I want to know how he reacts so I am prepared for when it will inevitably happen. 

I know what you mean though, Cowboy is my most reactive horse and round penning does seem to get him into the wrong frame of mind, but then again he was "Cowboy-ed" at some point and is petrified of a whip and the jingle of spurs. 

"*I see your point, but if we want to start banning terms, the first two on my list would be spoiled and abused, both of which seem to mean almost anything. Furthermore, neither have much to do with training, because being clear and consistent works regardless of whatever background we wish to project on our horses*."

Joel, I agree that the term "abuse" has been so over used that it has become nearly meaningless. On the other hand I have seen truly abused animals who will hurt themselves or others in an attempt to get away from the object or person they associate with past pain and terror. Many others have not necessarily been abused, but have experienced the misuse or misapplication of tools which leave them with less than warm fuzzies. The latter horses are fairly easy to change, the former require a careful approach. 

Horses learn from the past and their experiences and link emotions to objects and situations (horses do have a limbic system/paleomammilian brain). The associated emotions are then recalled with the learned memory. 

Not unlike when you catch a whiff of a certain smell ,like after a rain and you get a feeling of peace. and comfort. If scientists are correct, that is not some function unique to humans, any animal with a limbic system is capable of experiencing memory linked emotion. 

This has been one of the problems of helping soldiers with PTSD. Because the flashbacks are linked so solidly within the limbic system to many external stimuli, rather than the reasoned part of the brain, it is difficult to transfer control over them to other parts of the brain where traditional therapy could halt the process. The best progress has been made using behavioral modification techniques. which is what we essentially use with animal training. 

Being "clear and consistent" however, will only go so far in a case of an animal who has been _truly _abused to the point of desperation, the emotional link is entrenched. Training in those cases also has to be well thought out and individually ordered by the person doing the training as you are de-programing and then reprograming the association not within a reasoned brain, but within a primal brain.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I saw Mark Rashid work with a horse that was brought to the 'clinic' at the Equine Affaire for the demonstration and I was impressed with the way he worked with it. Some trainers seem to have a fixed agenda but he seemed more inclined to tailor his approach to the individual horse
That's where having the experience to 'read' horses matters.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

In the end, there are many many good trainers that just train horses, understanding them. (by the way, all good trainers use an approach that differs slightly, depending on the horse they are working with, and is also why all those 'cookie cutter NH techniques often fall short, applied incorrectly, CROSS the board, or to the wrong horse as to where he is at in his training and his mind.)

These trainers know how to read horses, know when to apply pressure and when to release it, train horses sot hat they remain calm, confident and learn to trust
They just don't sit up at night, google web sites and then agonize over terminology-The horse sure as heck doesn't care if you use the word dominant, respect, leadership, ect, as long as you treat him correctly and mold him into a confident and happy useful horse, that likes his job. A horse knows who areal horseman is, and the rest is just smoke and mirrors and endless debate over terminology versus just getting on with training good horses
That knowledge comes from working, training, riding , handling numerous horses, and horses that continue to be sound in body and mind, and all the searching for gurus , worrying about terminology, means not much.
The horse is not trying to be a major in English ligature!


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

"The horse is not trying to be a major in English ligature!" 

I should hope not.  If he's trying to strangle you with the reins, you've definitely got training problems.

He's probably not interested in English literature, either, although I read Jilly Cooper's 'Riders' to mine, and she appreciated its depth, its lyrical prose, and its substantive literary qualities.

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

Otherwise, yes. I agree, good trainers, whether they are Names or just some competent amateur horse owner with their own critters, don't get all twisted over terminology.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> "The horse is not trying to be a major in English ligature!"
> 
> I should hope not.  If he's trying to strangle you with the reins, you've definitely got training problems.
> 
> ...


Yes, I should proof read more, before I click on submit!
All too often, things are over analyzed, to the point that relevant information is lost in theories.
When you reward a horse, by understanding timing, and recognizing the horse';s slightest effort toward compliance, the horse does not give a rat;s a'--, what that technique is called.
When you become that leader who he can trust, who he knows is fair and consistent, he will give you his very soul-who can ask more of a horse?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Smilie said:


> ...When you reward a horse, by understanding timing, and recognizing the horse';s slightest effort toward compliance, the horse does not give a rat;s a'--, what that technique is called...


Perhaps not, but when you try to teach others to train horses, then terminology becomes important.

If I hire a trainer who only speaks Chinese, and he trains my horse well, I'm content. But if I pay someone to teach me, then the words they use cannot be ignored.

And if we try to help others learn by posting on an Internet forum, then the connotations of the words we use become critical. A bad turn of phrase can result in the person doing the opposite of what we believe is right.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Do agree basically with what you've said Smiley, but...(of course :icon_rolleyes: )


Smilie said:


> why all those 'cookie cutter NH techniques often fall short, applied incorrectly,


I don't at all think 'cookie cutter approach' is confined to 'natural' as opposed to 'normal' horsemanship actually. I think a major difference between 'NH' is it's more focussed on teaching the HUMAN to understand & be effective with the horse. And that is the biggest issue, especially with 'remote' learning, all these video courses, etc, because words/terminology can only convey so much. 



> These trainers know how to read horses, know when to apply pressure and when to release it, train horses sot hat they remain calm, confident and learn to trust


Yes, people who know what they're doing & do it well do it regardless of lables. But how do you explain 'feel'(not just literal) to someone who doesn't get it?? _We_ may use a term like that with understanding (now - I remember reading TD's book when I was a teenager & it was gobbledigook! Years later I picked it up again & wondered how it could have confused me so much, it all made sense), but talking to learners (people, not horses), you very often do need to analyse & clarify perceptions of terms.



> The horse sure as heck doesn't care if you use the word dominant, respect, leadership, ect, as long as you treat him correctly


No, but your attitude/mindset about 'dominance', 'respect', etc will absolutely influence HOW you relate to a horse, and ultimately whether you do it 'correctly' & well. As an accomplished trainer, you may not even be conscious of the principles you work by, but I bet that most people starting out, struggled to make sense of at least some concepts & had to really analyse them, hear them from some different perspectives to really understand them in the first place. 

That is the purpose of these 'philosophical' discussions IMO, for experienced people to analyse & explain their understandings of terms, methods, approaches, for others to better understand. Not that I don't find it often enlightening myself to hear other's ideas too... Don't know that I'll ever consider myself other than 'a learner' too...


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Pardon bsms that I posted before seeing your reply - you effectively said the same in far fewer... terminologies! ;-)


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Wonder if I can link a vid here... I found one that seems to fit the bill for 'passive horse training' ...and 'passive child rearing' at the same time!

...Nope, won't let me, but it was a couple of horses tethered to a... Hills Hoist type contraption(non Aussies might have to look that up), with a child in a toddler swing on one of the arms! 

...But wait, can at least attach a pic of a Hills Hoist... even found one with child pre-attached!:biggrin:


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Thread should have been titled: Passive Leadership Horse Training


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes, Hondo, that would have been a better term!
Far as terminology, helping new people to horses in their training, I'm not so sure
I see more posts by people wrongly applying what some guru applied a term to, in NH, then anything else
Lunging for 'respect'. Endless join up in the round pen, on broke horses, way beyond ;join up
Carrot sticks, flags , way over used. Even passive leadership can convey the wrong impression, and the entire analogy to herd interaction, where that order int he herd changes, thus the passive leader, does not apply tot he on eon one relationship of a horse to a human
If you wish to use a comparison then use the example of two horses and how they interact. One of those horses will be 'dominant' to the other, and that remains a constant, unless one horse becomes weaker, ect, and that role is reversed, which I have not seen yet.
In that relationship of your' herd 'of two, you must remain the clear leader. Does not mean you are abusive, and that lower down horse sure misses that dominant horse, wants to be with him, if you take him away
Far as the term 'feel', no amount of internet discussion of that term, will teach a person 'feel' and timing. That is only learned by hands on.
If I was new to horses, and I read 'passive leadership training,' I would have an image of where that horse acts upon you, while you remain apathetic, and soon posts would follow, 'why does my horse buck, rear, walk into me, etc
Sorry, just my viewpoint, having watched many new people train horses, trying to embrace NH, yet have ahorse that they really can't ride out of his comfort zone.
Of course, this is a generality, as many others have learned to apply the basic principles these NH horsemen have tried to convey, in spite of off shoot marketing, like carrot sticks, 7 games, be Nice halters (nerve lines, really), right brain/left brain, horsenality, endless hindend disengaging, twirling of lead shanks, ect


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Horses in a domesticated herd, with an unnatural element (geldings), in an unnatural environment (fenced or stalled) are somehow expected to retain their “nature”. Nothing about them or their lives resembles a feral herd. 

Because of human manipulation, the effects of “nurture” increase exponentially over that of a feral herd, making the effects of nature less of a factor in behavior. The “natural” behaviors of animals can be altered, especially when it is done from before birth over successive generations. 

Horses learn; each comes into this world with a certain “nature” (some of which is manipulated prior to conception by humans) then, they learn from their environment, from each other (often their dam, who is also domestic) and from us. Change those variables and you can change the behavior. 

A horse can overcome its nature, if that was *not* the case we could not ride them. 

If then, we are able to overcome that much of nature, it is reasonable to expect that other parts of their “natural” instinct such as communication could be likewise altered by “nurture”. 

If the only way a horse is ever communicated with is through the concept of “alpha” or “domination” then that is all they will ever learn to communicate, for the simple reason they have never been exposed to anything otherwise. 

In terms of language, if all you ever heard spoken was English, you would never learn to communicate in any other way. Just because you learned a second language, does not mean the other is forgotten, rather that your choices of communicating have just expanded. With animals, as with humans, I like having many different ways of communicating as possible.

This is not to say that an initial line of communication does not first have to be established, requiring us to speak to them in a language they already naturally understand, but rather, that establishing "dominance" for lack of a better term _is a starting point_ and not the end point for establishing communication. This is why I said at the beginning that abject beginners may have difficulty understanding and implementing some of Mark's concepts.

Point; Through many hours of observing one horse interacting with herds....

1) Oliver has apparently learned somewhere along the way either by human hand or his dam’s tutelage, that compromise and cooperation is the first tool to use to establish leadership and domination is a last resort. 

2) That the only option on the menu is not winner takes all. 

I approach him as an individual, using the same language of choice I have observed him using with other horses and it is as simple as that. Like him, getting "dominant" in our communications is a rarely necessary last resort and not the first choice.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hondo said:


> Thread should have been titled: Passive Leadership Horse Training


Sorted!!!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

jaydee said:


> Sorted!!!


Thank you thank you thank you jaydee! :loveshower:


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie said:


> Far as the term 'feel', no amount of internet discussion of that term, will teach a person 'feel' and timing. That is only learned by hands on.


Smilie, I would agree that no amount of internet discussion can teach feel, but see if we agree on what it means. I think feel is made up of two parts:


Power of observation -- to see how a horse is reacting, to be able to see the ears, the tail, the feet, the head, the lips, the eyes, etc. all at once.
Knowledge to interpret -- to process all that information and recognize whether the horse is resisting, fearful, confused, trying, bored, etc.
Timing is knowing when to apply pressure and when to release it. If you have feel, then timing is easy. If not, it's very difficult.

If there's value in all those NH exercises you disdain, might it be a safe way for beginners to learn to watch their horses' responses and learn to interpret them?


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

I think any term needs to be fully explained and also understood by the other person. There are some terms that I don't like but hearing them used with a full explanation makes perfect sense to me. One problem IMO is that novices often don't take the time to really comprehend what they are reading or hearing. Words mean slightly different things to different people. The word "passive" applied to horse training could certainly sound unappealing to someone who wants to take an active or assertive position, or interest someone who would like to take a softer or less aggressive approach. Forget some of the words and labels used and comprehend the concept. I keep encountering people who take a portion of what "an expert" said, often misinterpret that, and get themselves into trouble.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

As one equine vet behaviorist stated, horse have a greaT ability to adapt, but we s humans must make sure never to exceed their ability to do so

I will outline some key elements that he touched on.
Horses need the ability to be able to move almost constantly, and this relates directly to their hoof, mental, digestive and physical health. They can adapt to times of confinement, but exceeding that limit has a price, in both causing sterio typi behavior, increased risk of colic, hoof health and ulcers.
Sure, we can use cribbing collars, treat with ulcer medication, use tranquilizers, use shoing that disguises hoof health problems, until clinical lameness occurs, but in the end, allowing a horse to be a horse is key to long time longevity, both physical and mental.
All the modern catch terms don't replace good horsemanship, learned through working with many horses, and having those horses go on to remaining sound in body and mind, and horses that youth and non pro can enjoy
That non pro does not care if the horse was trained through passive leadership, traditional good training, NH, ect. What counts is a horse that is safe, enjoys his work, becomes part of that family, is reliable -a horse you can take on a trial ride, and ride along with a drapped loose rein, while enjoying the scenery, and a horse you can take to a show, if you wish, that does not blow in presence of strange sights, a horse you can put your grandchild on, and that horse becomes a safe baby sitter, and then, if you get on, that horse rides to the level of training he has, picking up leads, ect with invisible leg cues
This same horse is easy to catch, welcome you when you go to get him out of the pasture, because he both enjoys his job, feels secure in your leadership, and certainly is not agonizing as to whether you are a passive leader, or a strong leader, in whose presence he feel secure
I am a clear alpha leader to my horses, even if that term seems politically incorrect, but no one can dispute the love, mutual affection that I have with my horses, to the point I organize my life around my horse that needs special care. 
I have not one horse hard to catch, even those that I ride regularly. Not one of my horses works out of either intimidation or fear, but all know that I am always alpha to them. This works for me, and has , for over 30 years, loving, training, riding , not one, or two but many horses.
I know that people new to horses esp, that come from an educated background, like to put horses on the proverbial couch, and get caught up in semantics, when horses are basically quite un complicated, feeling secure with a clear leader, black and white boundaries and fair and consistent treatment
Apply whatever label you wish, but in the end it just boils down to good horsemanship, based in empathy, understanding the horse as a prey/herd species, and no theory or label with superseded that.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I have a book by Tom Dorrance called True Unity. He talks an awfully lot about feel and timing in the book. He must have thought words could at least help understand the terms or he wouldn't have written about it. I don't think he was ever a beginner.

It's also been my observation of the alpha here at the ranch and in reading about herd alphas that none want to be around the alpha for the most part. If a horse comes to you, enjoys being around you, then it would seem you may just happen be a chosen leader, AKA (passive leader by Marks terminology) rather than an alpha, although alpha sound a little more P/C and has a little better sounding oomph.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo, do you remember if that was the book where he also discussed the difference between "direct" and "indirect" feel?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Smilie said:


> If you wish to use a comparison then use the example of two horses and how they interact. One of those horses will be 'dominant' to the other, and that remains a constant, unless one horse becomes weaker, ect, and that role is reversed, which I have not seen yet. In that relationship of your' herd 'of two, you must remain the clear leader


Haven't you? I've many times witnessed horses 'change roles'. 2 of my current guys seem to just take it in turns who's the 'bossy one'. I remember, after having 'dominance heirarchy' drummed into me, reading MR's book & thinking 'that can't be right' because it was so foreign to what I'd learned. At that time had a stable herd of 11, living on 20 acres & lots of spare time(in my past life...). I spent a lot of time observing. Since then I've observed many different groups of horses & I reckon there is (often, not always) a big difference between 'respected leader' and 'dominant'. And dominant is often not the leader. THAT is the gist of Mark's 'passive leadership' theory, in my understanding.



> If I was new to horses, and I read 'passive leadership training,' I would have an image of where that horse acts upon you, while you remain apathetic,


Well, that is why it's not a good idea to just take a few words on (your perception of) face value without seeking understanding before applying something or judging it. :wink:


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Hondo, do you remember if that was the book where he also discussed the difference between "direct" and "indirect" feel?


I think this is a test. Now I gotta go read again as those two terms pique my interest. Only a few pages left on the third time through on Animals In Translation so I'll read him again.

I downloaded and saved the story about him you posted. I'm wondering if he was a bit autistic and could think like them more than normal and understand more than normal.

Have you read Tachyhippodamia? That was my very first horse book. I have trouble believing everything he says but I also have trouble NOT believing everything he says.

The story in your post about Tom Dorrance tends to make me lean a little toward believing the author of Tachyhippodamia.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Tachyhippodamia...no, but now I will have to look it up and read it. I don't think he was autistic at all, I think some people just are born with a gift and if we are lucky, they share it with us. 

Of all of the trainer's out there of whom I have read of their philosophies and techniques, he is the one I can relate to the most. Not guru worship, but reading what they write and seeing it reflected in the reality of my own experiences. Things that make me go huh, maybe there is something more to that, I'll give it a whirl and see what happens.

I had a Cognitive Psychology Professor in College that used to say (paraphrased) "Use your own brains and stop renting space in other people's". That always stuck with me. He was right though. 

Psychology is great at sticking people into nice neat little boxes. When you start working with real people and encounter their individuality all of the "scientific studies" and manuals and professional journals in the world do not hold the solutions, only hints regarding which path to try next. The rest is an intangible, inexplicable trusting your gut often on the fly. The best psychologists learn to think out of the academic box, search for their own solutions, the rest become professors. 

For me, TD has been the one that gives the best hints and invites you to use your own brain and your own perceptions.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Tachyhippodamia, By Willis J. Powell, 1872. Actually written about 25 years before that but not published for fear of being convicted of Animal Magnetism.

He claimed to have learned the secret of the original Horse Whisperer who worked in secret also being afraid of being convicted of animal magnetism.

People who sneaked a peek in the barn where he worked said that he stood so close to the horse that he appeared to be whispering to it. That is the original source of the term Horse Whisperer.

There was no mention of him using a round pen although Willis J. Powell does comment on their use on page 97.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Nice tease, now I HAVE to read it....animal magnetism was a crime, who knew?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Are we heading towards Animal communicators?

Here is an interesting read on the history and origin of Horse whispering

The Origins of Horse Whispering.

here is the final paragraph from above link, which sums things up nicely:

s the heyday of horse power waned with the introduction of modern machinery the whisperers passed into the twilight -a myth, born out of ignorance, and shrouded in secrecy and superstition, whose day had passed. But has it? Just try an internet search for 'horse+whisperer' and you will be amazed at the number of hits. Whisperers, it seems, now come in both genders and all shapes and sizes, and variously offer 'horse whisperer training techniques', 'secret techniques' and even whisperers with 'clairvoyant understanding'. There are ‘whispering’ challenges and time trials, courses offering to teach the horseman’s word, in fact a whole little industry whose various journeyman gurus circle the globe performing brief but expensive clinics and seminars for the ‘enlightenment’ of the horse owner, so perhaps nothing has really changed! And – as has, no doubt, always been the case – there are those who quietly go about the business of altering the way in which we view and manage the horse, and exposing the typical master-servant relationship to the light of twenty first century ethics. Finally perhaps the true mystique of the horse is that, through our relationships with them, we are able to rediscover that precious connection between us and the rest of creation – a truly mystical oneness that is not bought and sold, and requires neither show nor whisper!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Nice tease, now I HAVE to read it....animal magnetism was a crime, who knew?


The link I posted might shed light on your question of why


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Are we heading towards Animal communicators?


Not necessarily.

I didn't believe in little green spacemen either but I still went to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It raised enough questions I had never thought of that it inspired me to learn a lot about space in the following years. Intellectual curiosity...life is boring without it.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Animal communicators? Is that another term for cues?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_J._Powell

https://herddynamics.wordpress.com/horse-whisperer-daniel-sullivan/

Horse Whisperer – Daniel Sullivan


A horse whisperer is a horse trainer who adopts a sympathetic view of the motives, needs, and desires of the horse, based on natural horsemanship and modern equine psychology. The term goes back to the early nineteenth century when an Irish horseman, Daniel Sullivan, made a name for himself in England by rehabilitating horses that had become vicious and intractable due to abuse or accidental trauma.

Daniel Sullivan (died 1810) from Mallow, Co. Cork, Ireland, was the original founder of the most important method of horse training and remediation of abuse that falls outside of the old traditions based upon European schools of dressage. Sullivan was an Irish horse trainer and rehabilitator of horses that had been made intractable or even vicious because of an unusual trauma or extreme abuse. Not very much is known about Sullivan as he was secretive about his actual methods. To the people who were able to watch him at work, he appeared to frequently stand so close to the horse that they assumed he was whispering to the animal. For that reason he became known as the “Horse Whisperer.”


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Animal communicators? Is that another term for cues?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_J._Powell
> 
> ...


The link I posted, very well explains the history of "horse Whispering', both the good and the chalatins , and also the association of Witchcraft, way back when.
Far as Animal communicators- they are professed psychics, able to communicate with animals, even long distance 
They use' cold reading'

The Dog Trainer : Do Pet Psychics Work? :: Quick and Dirty Tips â„¢


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

http://www.equine-behavior.com/Origins_of_horse_whispering1.htm.

The article above was written by a person that is willing to go to the ends of the earth and willfully write fabrication on top of fabrication to justify a lifetime of horse mistreatment. Sad. Is Ab Beck his name or did he choose to be anonymous?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Ahh. It's Andy Beck of the White Horse Project began 17 years ago. He has a long list of "articles" claimed to have appeared in magazines and journals over the last ten years. Of the articles I checked, I did not check them all, none had a publication or author associated with them.

I guess it's my fault. I did add to the thread: good, bad, and UGLY.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

This Andy Beck? Interesting....

"Human and Horse have been in some kind of relationship for thousands of years; first as hunter and prey, then as master and slave, and many present day owners are quite content with that master/slave relationship. 

But over the last 30 years an increasing number of horse-keepers have begun to look for another paradigm, in which partnership and harmony replace slavery and compulsion. The search has produced some interesting consequences in the areas of use, management and training, and has created major challenges to traditional methods and attitudes...... "

Andy Beck


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I'd differentiate between 'horse whisperers' and 'animal communicators.' The former are trainers, who understand the body language of horses and how to communicate with them so well that it looks like they are 'whispering,' rather than merely beating the cr*p out of a difficult horse. The latter are people who claim they can speak with animals telepathically. 'Your horse says she used to event and she really misses it.' Yeah, okay. 

That'equine science degree' there looks like racket. The ugly indeed. No clear idea what your applying for, who accredits it, what the qualifications of the people running it are, what you learn (beyond, 'we derive our ideas from someone's ethology of wild horses').

I was intrigued by this bit:

"Legal and cultural issues regarding horse care are very different in the UK. This can be difficult to reconcile in one training program. Also changes in legislation are difficult to keep up with and assess from such a great distance. As such it makes more sense to have a UK based program for Hoof Care Certification that  is aware of regulations as they come about, and is immersed in and adapted to the cultural nuances there. "


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I realize that a Horse whisperer is different than an AC. I mentioned it just in passing, in a sort of 'tongues in cheek ; comment.

I did read the history of horse whisperer, and there was a great deal of range in the beginning, far as what that entailed, from true horsemen with empathy towards horses, and those that used less than steller methods, usually alone with the horse in that barn!
I think the end paragraph pretty much summed up the entire issue, and Horse whisperer, is just another label, along side NH, organic, etc
You don't need to be called a horse whisperer, in order to read and understand horses. There is nothing magic about it, or even exceptional.
Just like there were good horsemen that always used the horse's innate nature in their training program, just never applied NH to it, so have there alway been horsemen that seemed able to understand and read a horse more than others, without ever using the term ;horse whisperer.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Smilie said:


> I realize that a Horse whisperer is different than an AC. I mentioned it just in passing, in a sort of 'tongues in cheek ; comment.
> 
> I did read the history of horse whisperer, and there was a great deal of range in the beginning, far as what that entailed, from true horsemen with empathy towards horses, and those that used less than steller methods, usually alone with the horse in that barn!
> I think the end paragraph pretty much summed up the entire issue, and Horse whisperer, is just another label, along side NH, organic, etc
> ...


Well, yeah. My point was that 'horse whisperer' does not equal 'animal communicator,' as there seemed to be some confusion earlier in the thread. That's all there was to it. Really. I wasn't concerned with the etymology of 'horse whisperer,' just saying, it usually isn't used to mean parapsychology. It means a trainer, who does whatever, good or bad.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Yes, that Andy Beck. If you go to the link posted by Smilie, The Origins of Horse Whispering. , which appears to have been authored by Andy himself, and then go to list of articles at the bottom, then erase "articleindexpage.htm" in the URL address, it get's you back to his site.

As mentioned, none of the other articles I checked, and I certainly did not check them all, have "AD Beck" at the end. That is what I base my "suspicion" on that he authored that ill begotten article. No one ever suggested that the Irishman actually whispered into the ear of a horse. That's ridiculous. That was a false assumption made because he was seen standing unusually close to the horse.

The article is filled with lie after lie to my understandings.

But all this discussion including all good, bad, and ugly has helped me cement my thoughts and understandings.

I think the main thesis of this thread and of Mark Rashid's remarks boil down to using fear as a training tool.

I am thinking that is a fork in the road that leads in differing directions in training.

Sullivan and Powell are credited with being the first to employ a method of gentling wild horses without the use of fear,and spreading the knowledge to others. I'm sure that method was used before but not recorded as I have found.

It is the use of fear that causes me to remain mostly against the use of a round pen. Not as you use it, RCD, but how it is used in the only real life use that I have seen or watched on YouTube. I've watched a few new age horse trainers clearly using fear to acquire obedience in the round pen. And the round pen itself lends itself to the use and misuse of fear. They can't get away even if they are scared.

It was explained to me that the reason to use a round pen is because it's better to be dragged around a round pen than down the rocky river bottom.

That to me suggest a different training method may be needed.

Tom Dorrance "caused" an animal to be scared when he mounted him. Said so in the article you posted. But he did not want the animal to be scared. And he did not use fear as a training tool.

So, there you go. Two opposing frames of mind. To use fear, or not to use fear.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

So in other words......

"A technique can have a 'Here, horse, let me help you' feel behind it. Or it can have a, 'You better do this or else' feel behind it. The feel behind the technique can be the factor that decides whether the technique is effective or not." ~Mark Rashid 

TD called it "indirect feel"......This is actually from his brother Bill...

Horses are intelligent and they can make decisions. This is the reason that they can sense what a person wants them to do and will try to understand a person’s intent. Through his natural instinct of self-preservation, a horse will respond to two kinds of feel that a person can present. He will respond to a person’s indirect feel, which means that he will either react to or ignore a person’s presence – and how a horse responds depends entirely on the person. This indirect feel is what you have out in the pasture or corral, when you don’t have any physical contact with the horse, like a halter or snaffle bit. A horse will also respond to direct feel, which is when you have a physical connection with the horse through some part of your body, the halter or the snaffle, or a rope any place on his body, even if it’s connected to the saddle horn. ~ Bill Dorrance


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Oh yeah, regarding etymology of 'horse whisperer:

When it began to look like I was actually going to get a horse I began reading and ran into Horse Whisperer right and left. I wanted to know what the heck a horse whisperer actually was as the info seemed conflicting. My research led me to Sullivan and Powell. After reading Powell's book I wound up with Horses Never Lie as my second.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Horses are intelligent and they can make decisions. This is the reason that they can sense what a person wants them to do and will try to understand a person’s intent.


That is really good. Title of the book please?

When Hondo had the huge sarcoid in his ear he was very reactive about it being touched. I suspect he endured a bit of pain from it being handled in the past.

I was wanting to at least try doctoring it. Very large and ugly. He could be a hundred feet away and the minute I stepped out the door with medication, he knew and would refuse to allow me to approach. Even slammed me to the ground once. I laughed, got up, and gave him hug and a treat.

I can now run my finger down either ear as far as I want and he even likes it.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo said:


> I've watched a few new age horse trainers clearly using fear to acquire obedience in the round pen.


...as have I. As a matter of fact I watched my trainer/instructor get that way with Oliver a couple of times......both in the round pen and in the saddle. That was until Oliver bucked him off and broke his collar bone and shoulder. So I got a highly recommended colt trainer to ride him (a supposed horse whisper)....same attitude, similar results minus the broken bones. 

Been sitting mum on saying this for a while.......

But you see, when I tried to point out what I was seeing building up and warn them....I'm a pleasure rider, haven't shown in 30 years...combined they had 100+ years of experience training thousands of horses.... I backed down when I shouldn't have. 

Each time I was able to get on him immediately following the crack ups, ask for the same things and not have a single problem. That was when I decided I was going to dust off my old riding skills and do the rest of it myself unless one or the other of them was willing to start exploring another approach. 

Since then, my trainer and I have had some really thought provoking discussions. He has read Mark's books and has spent the last 6 months watching Oliver interact with me in and out of the saddle. 50+ years of training habits is a hard thing to change. 

He has come to the conclusion that this particular horse appears to be very attuned to "indirect feel" and requires a different approach. Its a start.

I told him that I was not letting him back on my horse, risking another injury until he figures himself all out (we are friends in a father-daughter kind of way, so I can tell him that without a fit). He seems to get it now, luckily he is open minded, I just wish he had been a bit more so before he got hurt. 

A lot gets said about how many people are hurt because they were not aggressive enough with a horse who developed bad habits, but this experience left me wondering how many horses like Oliver end up being labeled badly because someone was too aggressive and the horse likewise developed bad habits.

I'll have to sift through my e-reader to get you the title, it is one I captured and put on my computer for easy referencing.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Hondo said:


> Animal communicators? Is that another term for cues?


Yep, seems there are a lot of us here that are effective 'animal communicators'!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Been sitting mum on saying this for a while.......


The simple clicking of a like button just cannot express my appreciation for that story. Reminds me so much of a story in one of Mark's books about a trainer/owner getting thrown with the horse making a circuit or two passing gas.

No hurry on the book but I would eventually like to purchase and read it. I'm sure there are more jewels strewn throughout.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Here it is Hondo......"True Horsemanship Through Feel" by Bill Dorrance and Leslie Desmond


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> ...combined they had 100+ years of experience training thousands of horses....


Was that 100 years of experience one time, or one year experience 100 times?

Also, 100 years experience doing it right, or 100 years doing it wrong.

Me. Funny guy, huh?

Edit: We crossed. Got the title saved along with your story.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reining, why do you then have a trainer?
I myself found that the horses I trained totally myself, understood me better and trusted me more
I would not let someone on my horse twice, if I did not like how he rode
So, Once again, we some how have fear connected with all training, if someone does not apply the word Horse Whisperer to their name- I really don't see any rhyme nor reason.
I don't train using fear, nor do many people that I know.
The roundpen has a use-not on a broke older horse, but to put the first few rides on a colt.
Hondo is way past that age!
It is also counter productive to ride for long in around pen, and I think both Cheri and I have touched on that reason.
In fact, I know people that can Horse whisper, but do not want the word "Horse Whisperer' applied to their name.
The movie by that title has multi examples of what not to do. Yes, just a movie- still?/


*Nomenclature*

The term "horse whispering" dates to nineteenth century Europe when an Irish horseman, Daniel "Horse-Whisperer" Sullivan (d. 1810), made a name for himself in England by rehabilitating horses that had become vicious and intractable due to abuse or accidental trauma.[8][9] Some natural horsemanship practitioners do not use the term "horse whisperer" to describe themselves,[10] some horse trainers dislike the "horse whispering" moniker to the extent that they openly ask that the term not be applied to them.[11]
"Natural horsemanship" is a later term, originating in the western United States, and not coming in to popular use until around 1985.[2] The term became linked to "horse whispering" in the 1990s, when the popularity of Nicholas Evans' book _The Horse Whisperer_, and the later Robert Redford film of the same name, promoted popular awareness of natural horsemanship.[1] However, some trainers linked to the movement, such as Mark Rashid, have stated their discomfort with the term "natural horsemanship."[12]


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo said:


> Was that 100 years of experience one time, or one year experience 100 times?
> 
> Also, 100 years experience doing it right, or 100 years doing it wrong.
> 
> ...



I don't know that there are any hard and fast rules of right and wrong when it comes to horses. 

If you look back at that article about TD there were two points the author made that caught my eye. He didn't think he could ever remember seeing Tom approach similar problems the same way twice with different horses and that he did what needed to be done to get the job done, regardless of methodology or time. What was done, depended upon the needs of the particular horse. 

It was never about him, his methods, his philosophies, it was always about the needs of the horse and I think as long as you stick to that principle, you will never go "wrong". 

Oliver is a strange-ling much like BSMS describes Mia, my trainer lamented after he had healed up a bit "you spend your whole life doing something and you think you know it all, then a horse comes along that tells you otherwise."

That pretty much summed it up for me!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Reining, why do you then have a trainer?
> I myself found that the horses I trained totally myself, understood me better and trusted me more
> I would not let someone on my horse twice, if I did not like how he rode


Why do I have a trainer? Because a mentor of mine once told me that when you think you know it all and there is nothing left to learn, its time to get the h*** out. 

Trainers don't just train horses, they train people as well and since I had never trained a "green-as-grass" recent stallion myself, I figured a little help and observation might be a good thing. He rides for 1/2, I ride for 1/2. Worked out well for a time. 

He also always seemed to have a good explanation for how he was riding, based on "alpha" theory, establishing "leadership" ect. I went with his years of experience over the non-scientific feeling in my gut. Live and learn.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

By the way, I will have to back up on one point on the round pen. The original founder of this 100+ year old ranch was dragged to death about 75 years ago.

As the story is told, one of his riders was having trouble with a horse so he commenced to show him how. The horse was bucking and the headstall broke. When he went to step off the lariat caught his hand. It was hard tied which he never did. His knife was found and there were cuts on the rope. But not enough.

Had he been in a round pen he would likely have been ok.

I did watch the horse whisperer after reading Powell. Saw nothing that referred to what Sulivan or Powell did which was simply to treat horses with respect and avoid causing fear and certainly not using it as a training tool.

I don't think Sullivan was ever referred to as a horse whisperer in his time but I don't necessarily know so.

I can certainly understand why any modern day accomplished trainer would NOT want to be referred to as a horse whisperer and I doubt Sullivan or Powell would have either as whispering to horses had nothing to do with their methods.


Yes, I'm once again reminded of what I've been repeatedly told here at the ranch. All horses are different. Just like a class room of students. Every single one is an entirely different entity.

And a really good point that what is right for one horse is wrong for another.

Even though I was driving a team of drafts pulling a dump rake, mower, spring tooth, log drag, and hay wagon before most here were born, I have just began delving into what a horse really is.

The near mind reading ability of Clever Hans is, I believe, a huge consideration to think about when "training" a horse.

That story took the claim that horses know more about you than you know about yourself to a new level.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I don't know that there are any hard and fast rules of right and wrong when it comes to horses.
> 
> If you look back at that article about TD there were two points the author made that caught my eye. He didn't think he could ever remember seeing Tom approach similar problems the same way twice with different horses and that he did what needed to be done to get the job done, regardless of methodology or time.  What was done, depended upon the needs of the particular horse.
> 
> ...


You are preaching to the choir, far as believing horses are a lifetime of learning, and that is why I go to clinics given by many trainers, but riding the horse myself, why I go to events like the Annual Horse Breeder and Owner's Conference, where speakers from all over the World come to take-experts in their field
It is also why I have taken traditional hoof trimming courses, natural horsecare courses and an EPLO course
It is also why I was part of the Alberta Horse Improvement program, have taken judging clinics, ect
I hardly have a closed mind, sit back and analysis one or two horses I own, and base my conclusions on them, nor not keep up with latest health research in regards to horses
I have probably taken clinics with more than 50 trainers over the years, and watched many more give clinics, at venues like The Mane Event
No, my question arose because your horse bucked both of your trainers off, yet rode for you, so obviously those trainers did not ride your horse effectively or understood your horse-so why have them ride that horse?
Sorry, this response belongs to your first post reply


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> By the way, I will have to back up on one point on the round pen. The original founder of this 100+ year old ranch was dragged to death about 75 years ago.
> 
> As the story is told, one of his riders was having trouble with a horse so he commenced to show him how. The horse was bucking and the headstall broke. When he went to step off the lariat caught his hand. It was hard tied which he never did. His knife was found and there were cuts on the rope. But not enough.
> 
> ...


Certainly all horses are different, just like all people are individuals, but in both cases, there are basic fundamentals that drive each species. A cat does not act like a dog, nor a deer like a wolf
Thus, there are basic fundamentals that we use in training horses, due tot heir prey and herd nature, taking into account, just like people, horses have individual strengths, weaknesses , ability , temperament and learning curves
That is why I might do a month of groundwork with one horse, and only a week with another. It is why one stays in a snaffle for three years instead of two It is why one might need to be lunged with a slicker tied on for the first time, while another horse has no problem accepting saddle bags, slickers, ect right from the start
NH trainers did not invent using training methods that took into account different horse personalities.
At the same time, there is also the fact that horses declared not to like bits, are the result in most cases, by someone not knowing how to progressively train them using a bit , was at fault, or someone with bad and abusive hands, who should stay with a bittless devise, thus doing less damage
Just like riding many different horses, including green and problem horses, makes you a better rider, so does dealing with many horses over the years, give you a better insight into their nature and individuality, then having one or two horses and basing opinions on them, and reading info over the internet or fixating on some guru 
NH trainers over use the round pen, or at least, many of their followers do. I started horses before I had a round pen or any enclosed area, other than a pasture.
A roundpen has a use, riding colts, or teaching a horse to lunge, as that horse can't get stuck in a corner, but that does not mean you have to do 'roundpenning'
Any tool can be mis used. I think guns are a great example of that!
I can go into the individual characteristics 
So, Hondo, you don't need to get on a colt for the first time in a roundpen.
You are certainly allowed to just check that head around and climb on in the great open spaces. Let me know how that goes for you!


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

We can_ all_ get caught up in, "step down and let ME fix this (horse with a problem.)"
I believe that the horse sees you as the herd leader but perfectly understands that you are NOT a horse! When he accepts that you feed him and make his life comfortable, he WILL accept being told what to do, as well. My dogs geldings learned to play with sticks from watching my two dogs. My gelding, "Buster Brown" watches me do things, like step on the back on a shallow, rubber feeding bowl to flip out, and mimics me trying to do the same.
I do NOT see leadership as *passive. THAT is the follower, who is double minded.* Perhaps the article has a poor title? Leadership is active and intentional. I KNOW what I want my horses to do every time I am around them. I reinforce my leadership by making them move their feet (turning on the forehand) when tied up for grooming, to accommodate MY comfort, and this has the payoff that they watch for my cues on the ground.
When it comes down to it, NONE of us here are really happy unless we are riding or driving our horses. I have had to spend so much time this year working that my horses (my "toys") have been neglected, and this weekend I had to go back several steps in my training. Sure brightened ME up to ride again! Couldn't help it--need to buy a new roof for my barn and money isn't growing like the weeds!
My point? Being passive is a poor way to train your horse. Being passive isn't the same as being calm, and praising your horse, and rewarding your horse.
"Discipline" has gotten a bad connotation in this PC world. It ISN'T beating your animal into submission. It is the drive to start training and get up every day and KEEP DOING IT!
The Principal that fired me from my Middle School job was furious when I told her that the students there needed discipline. Somehow (stupidly), I changed from teaching Science to teaching Drama--the previous Drama teacher retired and talked ME into it! Yes, I majored in it, and I am fluid in it, and I tried to teach students that their favorite entertainers were VERY DISCIPLINED, but this Principal didn't understand the difference between physical violence and applying a strong "want to."
You have to understand the difference when you work with animals. My 8yo dog, "Rose" (Husky/GS x BC) shies if you smack her even on her rump for bad behavior (like killing one of my chickens, for instance.) Isolation works best for her and letting her figure it out. But, when I leave the property to walk down the street, OR, if I feed late at night, ANY ONLOOKER would swear that she is heeling on a leash, even though she is loose and heeling next to me because she chooses to. She didn't learn this because I beat her. She didn't learn this because I was passive. My dogs live inside WITH ME, and I train them and reinforce training every day, by insisting that the dog in my path move, instead of ME stepping over them. It becomes second nature for them to be obedient, yet Rose will lay down on my feet at night when I sit. Certainly she does not fear me.
It's the "chooses to" that we want our horses to do, and I BELIEVE that we have be ACTIVE in how we train.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

loosie said:


> Yep, seems there are a lot of us here that are effective 'animal communicators'!


 I would say you are right Loosie. Wanting to remain somewhat "modest" here, I do get the gut feeling with many horses that their behavior is not what it first appears to be, so my approach might be entirely different than someone else's. The gelding that I was told was a bit of a nipper and that I should carry a whip when going in his paddock (actually his "nipping" was more like charging with bared teeth and chasing people) I never saw as a dangerous horse but one that was defensive and wanting attention. Giving him some attention and ignoring his ear pinning turned him right around and it all happened in one encounter the second week I worked with him. The BO said to still never turn my back on him. Hard not to do because he was now following me around as I worked and would give me a nudge in the back if he wanted a scratch.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> I hardly have a closed mind.......No, my question arose because your horse bucked both of your trainers off, yet rode for you, so obviously those trainers did not ride your horse effectively or understood your horse-so why have them ride that horse?
> Sorry, this response belongs to your first post reply


It is simple Smile, you just keep doing things the way they have always worked for you, no one is telling you to do otherwise. 

While I have seen other horses work fine that way, those ways have not worked out the best for Oliver. I consider myself very lucky to have found a trainer and a good friend who is willing to seek alternatives with me rather than continuing to go down a path that is obviously not working well for the horse. 

My trainer produces finished bridle horses, so I can assure you that he is a fine rider and trainer for most horses. Why did I have them ride him? Because he helped me train him to the bosal and mecate, something I had never used before and had to learn to use with a green horse who had not used one either. With the colt breaker, because not all that long ago I was once a “true believer” in “alpha” theory and that it applied to all horses. Oliver has shown both my trainer and myself, otherwise.

As such, I am very glad that there are accessible, alternative approaches put forth _by very well-known and experienced professional horse people_ that are more suited to training them each in a way they seem most responsive. 

Nowhere did I say that you have a closed mind only that my trainer had an open one. Be assured this is not about you.

Those who have found success with a method of any type, yourself included, are as always, free to pursue those for themselves. I am happy for them and more importantly their horses. 
In kind, however, those of us who are less than satisfied have an equal opportunity to discuss ideas and personal experiences regarding something that works best for our particular situations.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I never had an argument with anyone doing what works for them, but rather responded to the implied suggestion , that only these grues like Rashid have the 'true light, when it comes to training horses, much along the same way some people become religiously narrow minded , that only a certain denomination has a grasp on 'the true gossiple.
Maybe I'm reading into things a bit, but blanket statements that all round pen work is evil, that being alpha to your horse equates with using fear in training and abusive techniques, ect
I see why people like Cheri avoid these threads, and should do likewise, and why I feel compelled to defend any training without "horse whisperer or Natural', stamped on it.
I have no problem with people embracing these concepts as if the rest of us are totally ignorant of them, but I do have the problem with the message that unless you aleign yourself with these trainers, thus belong to 'us', you then are shoved in the classification of anyone whop trains without empathy, kindness , understanding or a true relationship with their horse.
Yes, it is simple-carry on!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> So, Hondo, you don't need to get on a colt for the first time in a roundpen.
> You are certainly allowed to just check that head around and climb on in the great open spaces. Let me know how that goes for you!


Actually Smilie, been there done that. My father in law gave my oldest son a pony colt around 38 year or so ago. I built a 2 acre fence for him.

Son didn't have much interest and I was self employed with a backhoe, bulldozer, and dump truck without much spare time.

But I did find time to go out and mess with Moonshine. He was too small for me to ever really ride but I taught him to lead and using a stool I would just lean up against him laying my arms over his back. At around two years I got on him. Bareback. No bridle. Sat there petting him and talking to him. Got off. I repeated that many times over the next year or so. No round pen. Lots of knee sized rocks on the ground in NW Arkansas.

Had never read a word about horse training. Certainly no clinics or instruction from anyone. But I was raised around animals. 

Then we had to move which meant selling Moonshine.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> I do have the problem with the message that unless you aleign yourself with these trainers, thus belong to 'us', you then are shoved in the classification of anyone whop trains without empathy, kindness , understanding or a true relationship with their horse.
> Yes, it is simple-carry on!


 Did you ever stop to think that perhaps those who do not entirely embrace "alpha" theory feel similarly, being "shoved in the classification" of being weak, overly emotional, anthropomorphic and void of common sense? 

I am sorry if you feel that way, but I think others on the other side of the issue can more than relate to it. 

For me this is not an either or situation. There are different horses who require different approaches, in different situations and at different times. Discussing them and reflecting upon them with others, simply adds more options to the table.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Smilie said:


> I never had an argument with anyone doing what works for them, but rather responded to the implied suggestion , that only these grues like Rashid have the 'true light, when it comes to training horses, much along the same way some people become religiously narrow minded , that only a certain denomination has a grasp on 'the true gossiple.
> Maybe I'm reading into things a bit, but blanket statements that all round pen work is evil, that being alpha to your horse equates with using fear in training and abusive techniques, ect
> I see why people like Cheri avoid these threads, and should do likewise, and why I feel compelled to defend any training without "horse whisperer or Natural', stamped on it.
> I have no problem with people embracing these concepts as if the rest of us are totally ignorant of them, but I do have the problem with the message that unless you aleign yourself with these trainers, thus belong to 'us', you then are shoved in the classification of anyone whop trains without empathy, kindness , understanding or a true relationship with their horse.
> Yes, it is simple-carry on!


Who implied any of that? Who implied that anyone is a guru who must be followed? No one on this thread. Hondo felt like some of Mark's hypotheses about 'passive leadership' resonated with him. And he doesn't like chasing his horse around a round pen. So what? Him and lots of people. I may have said that horse whisperer means a trainer to some people, but merely in the context that it *didn't* mean someone who claimed they psychically communicated with horses. 

I like Mark Rashid and his wife, Crissi MacDonald. I like Buck Brannaman, Carl Hester, and Reiner Klimke and Kyra Kirkland and Philippe Karl and Sylvia Loch and Linda Tellington-Jones and a whole host of other people. There are no gurus. There are merely trainers who are very good at what they do and very good at communicating their methods and philosophies in books, clinics, videos, so plebs like me can access it. I really like those people because they write books, do clinics, and make their stuff accessible. I like a soft approach to riding and horsemanship while recognising that you have to be a hardass sometimes, which all those people espouse, although with different methods and techniques. 

If Hondo feels better about his riding and horsemanship when he isn't thinking of himself as 'alpha,' and he isn't getting run over by his horse on a daily basis, so what? Like a lot of people, I don't worry about being 'dominant' or 'alpha' either but I also like it when my horse doesn't run over me, or moves off a light aid. So I train those things and don't make a big deal out of it, like every other competent horse person.

Mark Rashid is a firm trainer when he needs to be. Like any skilled horseman. His issue with the 'dominance' paradigm is that novice handlers use it as a justification for treating a horse roughly while failing to teach it anything, with the view of 'showing him who's in charge,' and end up with a neurotic badly-trained horse. A trainer like Mark sees a lot of people who are with their wits end, and he will tell you that one way to deal with this is to try to get people to have a different paradigm for their relationship with their horse. It's about how you communicate with the owners rather than the horse.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

thesilverspear said:


> Mark Rashid is a firm trainer when he needs to be. Like any skilled horseman. His issue with the 'dominance' paradigm is that novice handlers _use it as a justification for treating a horse roughly *while failing to teach it anything*_, with the view of 'showing him who's in charge,' and end up with a neurotic badly-trained horse. A trainer like Mark sees a lot of people who are with their wits end, and he will tell you that one way to deal with this is to try to get people to have a different paradigm for their relationship with their horse.


 
^^^This! :thumbsup:


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I have on occasions asked other people that I know to be trusted accomplished trainers to ride a horse that I've been struggling with - it can help seeing what's going on in the saddle from the ground and/or maybe they have something in their box of tools that can work that I haven't thought of. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't - on the occasions that it doesn't I don't write that person off as being a failure, I just see a horse that's maybe smarter, more challenging, more persistent which means I have to dig deeper for a solution

*Hondo* - I find this video of Hemplings explains really well how round penning can be used in an 'aggressive' way that in the long term serves no purpose as you end up with a horse that's a 'victim' and not a willing partner. 
Hempfling is one of those people that I would describe as a horse whisperer though I'm sure he doesn't see himself that way and he is more than willing to share his methods with others


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

whatever works and turns out happy safe horses, but labels really just add confusion
I find passive leadership, as much of an oxymoron as shanked snaffle
You either lead or you don't lead. If you don't lead, the horse will.

Passive :influenced or acted upon,without exerting influence or acting in return
Leader: a person that directs, director, guiding head of a group activity

Sometimes, terms just become catch phrases without meaning anything, or just a way to feel inclusive, because you talk the lingo
I'm happy to reasonably discuss a specific training issue , or horse,and how you would address it, using what you consider 'passive' leadership
It might actually surprise you, when cut down to the core, versus catch phrases, our approach might not be that different!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

For the upteenth time. Mark observed and noted that the horse most others wanted to be around and followed more than others did not try to be the leader. He led only because his actions and dependability caused him to be followed, hence a leader.

For lack of a better term, Mark first described this horse as a passive leader because he was not demanding it. He merely led by example. Mark clearly wished at his first formal talk about this that a different name would have been chosen.

Strange that one who repeatedly claims words do not matter would be grabbing a dictionary to discount Mark without even looking at or considering what he really means.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes.

It's not worth getting into a tizz about labels or a dictionary definition of the word passive.

Let me reiterate:

Mark was contrasting the 'passive' leader, a confident horse who won't take crap and will hold its ground, but generally doesn't display much aggression unless something attacks it first, to the actively aggressive horse who is always chasing its herdmates around, throwing kicks, and driving them away from water/gates/food. This is a problem, Mark argues, when humans believe that latter horse is the 'alpha' and they think need to model their behaviour off that horse in order to communicate with their horses. In his clinics, he encountered a lot of people who were doing just that.

A more concrete example: at my yard, there's a field with four geldings. One of them will chase the others around when he's in the mood for it, and he'll drive them away from the gate, from piles of hay in the winter, and generally harass them and be an ***. The other three are pleasant and chilled out. Those three hang out together; they play and graze together. The fourth gelding is usually on his own. His herdmates 'move their feet' and get the hell out of his way, but do they follow him? No way. They just don't want that horse to chase or kick them. 

Mark's theory is that a human looking for a positive relationship with a horse should not act like that horse. Which might seem bleedingly obvious to an experienced horse person, but he's dealing with the less experienced, who are like, "I keep chasing him around the round pen to improve our bond; I don't understand why he won't trail ride by himself."


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'll try phrasing it like this, after a life in the Air Force: A squadron has one commander. It has multiple leaders, and it is a rare but happy squadron whose commander is also a leader. It also has some nice people who are neither a commander nor leaders.

Too many horses either have a commander who is not a leader, or a nice person.

Being the top dog has little to do with being a leader, although many top dogs don't understand that fact. Being nice is nice, but it doesn't get the job done by itself. And some of the best leaders are very subtle in leading...you can lead from behind if you do it right.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> For the upteenth time. Mark observed and noted that the horse most others wanted to be around and followed more than others did not try to be the leader. He led only because his actions and dependability caused him to be followed, hence a leader.
> 
> For lack of a better term, Mark first described this horse as a passive leader because he was not demanding it. He merely led by example. Mark clearly wished at his first formal talk about this that a different name would have been chosen.
> 
> Strange that one who repeatedly claims words do not matter would be grabbing a dictionary to discount Mark without even looking at or considering what he really means.


Well, I guess I am just following what happened with the word Alpha and dominant, as those words were taken as dictionary terms, versus understanding as to how they really applied in a good training program
Funny, that it was okay in that case, but not okay now????
I also went around in a circle , trying to explain the correct application of those terms , in relationship to training, which had nothing to do with the strict dictionary definition, nor is it synonymous with forceful and fear based training
Glad you now experienced and maybe understand my frustration!
Again, in relationship to your horse, there is no herd' made up of many individuals. There is just you and the horse. Only one of you can lead, and for myself, that, individual is me , and not the horse. Funny, my horses love my company, wander up to me when I am out in the field, and riding, I sure as heck know horses trust and feel safe in a leader that is clear in his leadership, but fair
Charlie goes out for half a day of grass, and always greats me with a low whinny when I go to get her back in


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

bsms said:


> I'll try phrasing it like this, after a life in the Air Force: A squadron has one commander. It has multiple leaders, and it is a rare but happy squadron whose commander is also a leader. It also has some nice people who are neither a commander nor leaders.
> 
> Too many horses either have a commander who is not a leader, or a nice person.
> 
> Being the top dog has little to do with being a leader, although many top dogs don't understand that fact. Being nice is nice, but it doesn't get the job done by itself. And some of the best leaders are very subtle in leading...you can lead from behind if you do it right.


I can live with many of your points, BSMS!
A good leader leads by example, fairness ans empathy. At the same time, when 'push comes to shove', that leader has to be followed, without question My horse does not get to mutiny! 
It is also why wild horse could be captured, if that lead mare ran into a trap, as they followed her without question
Truly, be honest, how many problem horse posts appear here and elsewhere, not because horses were treated unfairly, abusively, but rather with no definite leadership, to the point that horse takes control?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Wanna 'like' your last response again bsms! ...And 'respect' without fear & 'dominance'(or perhaps dominating) is something that my 'top dog' naval commander father & I can never agree on...


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Truly, be honest, how many problem horse posts appear here and elsewhere, not because horses were treated unfairly, abusively, but rather with no definite leadership, to the point that horse takes control?


 
Perhaps that has less to do with the success or failure of an approach and more to do with the types of people who are going to ask for help. 

I doubt much that someone who is treating a horse unfairly or abusively is going to come on line and talk about it. 

Those who get horses who have been poorly treated in the past and then come looking for advice here are often advised to stop being so emotional and establish respect. They get flayed alive for being a wimp and then others are less likely to say anything. 

IMO Less indicative of a success of an approach and more about the nature of people.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Only one of you can lead, and for myself, that, individual is me , and not the horse.


On the surface, those words would appear to be a no brainer. But what about a marriage? Poor example perhaps, but the leader switches depending upon the relative conviction of the two parties, or should I think.

Two friends deciding what to do on Saturday afternoon. One time one says, the next time the other says.

I'm looking for a trail I can't find. Hondo says, "Gimme the da#med reins, I'll take you to the trail".

I'm leading Hondo back to the herd. He balks, raises his head, and points over that-a-way. We go that-a-way and lo and behold, there is the herd. Has happened many times.

So am I the leader when he takes me to the herd and trail? Yet if I feel firmly he has no problem in going the way I want to go. Unless there is a rattler in the middle of the trail. Then he won't go. Or if he's decided something in the brush wants to eat him, he won't go until he cautiously checks it out.

There does not have to be a 100% all the time leader in a human relationship and I don't think it has to necessarily be that way in a human/horse relationship.

If I was really mean I'd say, but I'm not so I won't, about how abductees develop a bond with their capturers as a survival mechanism.

No, really Smile, I'm doubting more and more that you are an alpha. I think you just like to talk tough to cover up your softer ways. I bet your horses are out back giggling how you're a push over


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Smilie said:


> ...Truly, be honest, how many problem horse posts appear here and elsewhere, not because horses were treated unfairly, abusively, but rather with no definite leadership, to the point that horse takes control?


We've disagreed often enough, but I'll agree that a great many horses I read about on HF fit that description. Of horses I've met...I live in an area where many horse owners are middle-aged women who take them up because they always wanted one. No offense is intended, since I only objected to getting horses because they love to eat green dollar bills, particularly when you live in the desert and the dollar bills get baled and fed! But I started at 50, knowing almost nothing about horses, and certainly logged a lot of time going down the wrong track.

I've done the "If my horse is my friend..." thing. But Mia liked me, yet wouldn't obey me very often, and spooked really bad. It took a lot of work and some pain to get Mia semi-normal, although I think some of her spookiness was tied to her genetics. 

Happily, the local trainer I hired worked with me as well as Mia, and she pulled me aside and asked, "Would Mia tolerate that sort of attitude from the other horses in her corral? So why do you tolerate it in her?"

But the same trainer told me the vast majority of clients she met would have sent Mia to an auction early on rather than try to fill in the holes.

One lady who lived near me went thru horses so fast that our farrier said he rarely worked on the same horse (she had 5 at once) more than twice. It was always the same story: "He was sold to me as a good horse, but now he is a nightmare so I'm going to sell him". Finally, the farrier got fed up and told her the horses she bought were fine, and SHE was the nightmare! Then he left without getting paid...

Others I've met became afraid of their horses and took up endless groundwork as a reason to not ride.

One, a friend, I totally understand. She's in her 60s, rode alone, was afraid she would get hurt, but likes having a horse. So she walks him, grooms him, spend time with him simply because she enjoys being around a horse. Doesn't ride, but so what? She's happy with the horse, and the horse doesn't have a bad life. 

I don't knock someone for being afraid. Taking up riding at 50 (or 60+) isn't like starting as a kid. I've had one fall, in Jan 2009. I didn't ride today, but I jogged 4 miles...and my lower right back is throbbing. 6.5 years later, and I took 800 mg of ibuprofen. But if they keep a horse because they enjoy being around them, and lead them and spend time with them - I won't knock them at all. I just get upset with the ones who do endless round pen work, month after month after month, refusing to admit WHY they don't ride!

Horses and people like nice, but nice is not sufficient to make someone a leader - and horses do need leadership.

I was lucky. I started as a very dominant person (does that surprise anyone on HF?). I bought Mia. Mia wouldn't be dominated. I wouldn't give up. It eventually became a 7 year course in leadership. I'd probably need 20 to graduate, but she is now mostly a broodmare. I wish her well, although I worry about her still. She's probably doing much better without me, though, since I'm not God's gift to horses.

Bandit isn't nearly as smart as Mia, or as jumpy. After 3+ months, we're still learning about each other. It amazes me when I see someone post, "_I've had my horse for 2 days and we have the most amazing bond_!" Two days? Get back with me in two years...or three!

Bandit would undoubtedly accept being dominated by a tough rider. Maybe even by me. But that would leave him a horse who goes past scary things because he's more afraid of his rider. A confident horse will go past scary things because his rider says they are not scary, and his rider knows. I want a horse who is confident and eager, not a horse who is nervous but has no choice.

For someone like me, who wasn't raised around horses, there is an elusive middle path, snaking between "_Do it dammit!_" and "_Oh please...can't we go past the garbage can THIS time?_" Or worse, "_I know I've been round penning him for 4 years, but we're developing such a great relationship...I'm changing his name to Pat.._." A horse can be ruined at either extreme.

But each horse is different. Well, not always. I've met people who have been around horses their entire lives, but who were always around one type of horse. Those were the experienced people who rode all their lives who told me to just whip Mia's butt when she didn't want to go forward! After all, it always worked for them. So I tried it, and Mia flew backwards! The harder I whipped her, the faster we went - backwards! That was my introduction to a critical principle of equine knowledge:

*Some folks who have owned horses their entire lives are full of horse poop!*​
Every newbie needs to learn that lesson. Sooner or later, they'll experience it! And once they learn it, they can start seeking that middle path, the one that weaves back and forth and sometimes seems like the path through Mirkwood...but it is the only path I know for someone who really LIKES horses! I love reading. And advice is sometimes worth listening to. But in the end, you need your horse to show you the path. And your next horse might need a different one.

PS - My signature applies, 125 years after it was written.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Hondo said:


> There does not have to be a 100% all the time leader in a human relationship and I don't think it has to necessarily be that way in a human/horse relationship.


Hmm, I agree with this to a point, that I strongly feel it's important to be considerate & respectFUL of the horse's attitudes, wants, etc, and I will very often 'ask' & go along with their wishes myself. 

But for safety's sake, of having a horse respond regardless, in certain situations it would be dangerous for them to choose(I wanna run across this busy road!), or in situations where they need to trust you despite apparent danger(can't go over that bridge, there's a troll under it!), not to mention getting things done when they just prefer not, I do feel that it is the human's responsibility to be the 'leader'. Maybe it's a 60/40% relationship, but the human still needs to 'hold the sway'. 

As we're comparing human relationships, I think parent & child is a better analogy - I'm not 'domineering' with my kids and I respect their ideas, but at the end of the day... mother knows best & they will do as I say, or else. For their own good. (They're not teenagers yet... bit concerned about that...:icon_frown


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I love old westerns. Not the modern ones, where everyone is a jerk. I like the old ones, the ones about myth, the ones that were always morality plays. There was a plot line used many times which went something like this:

Joe & Pete don't like each other. Things escalate. Finally, Joe is in a saloon. Pete walks in, a fight develops, and Pete is faster than Joe. He kills Joe...but it is self defense.

Later, he tried to explain it to Trampas (or a lead character on whatever show was using the plot line). He tells how Joe drew on him, how he had no choice.

Trampas stares at him.

Finally, Pete blurts out, "_Trampas, if you had been in that saloon, you'd have done the same thing! You would have shot Joe too!_"

And Trampas replies, "_*But I wouldn't have been in that saloon*. You knew Joe was there! Once you walked in, nothing good was going to happen! You made the decision to kill Joe when you walked in, knowing he was there!_"

Riding is like that sometimes. We push and push, use a saddle that doesn't fit or try to get the horse to do something he wasn't trained to do, and when he "disobeys", or "doesn't respect us" - well, we shoot Joe. Because we had to! He drew, and we couldn't let him get away with it!

I've been on my horse more than once, thinking, "_Trampas, I shouldn't have stepped in that saloon!_" 

Trampas knew something about passive leadership.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

BSMS, I really liked your post(s) and found myself nodding quite a bit!
Hondo, yes, my horses do know my soft spots. I think we agree quite a bit below the surface on some basic principle, but, yet different nuiences.
See, if I am lost, or riding out in the dark, not sure where that trail goes, I will let my horse find the way, but that is way different then the horse telling me that he won't go where I ask him to go
It is also different, if I am not sure a certain obstacle is safe, like, maybe a bog, where I have no idea if there is a bottom, thus don't force the horse to go through it, and the horse refusing to cross some mud hole on the trail, where he can't see bottom, yet I know there is a good solid bottom
That is why I have a problem with labels, versus just talking about good training principles, applied as the situation fits
When I am lost, and know my horse can find the way back, thus give him his head, am I being passive or, still a strong leader, smart enough to know when the horse is better equipped than I, to deal with that situation?
When a captain tells his subordinate to take over a situation, is that not different than that subordinate deciding to take over un asked?
There is a big difference also in dominating someone, and being the dominate being in that relationship of two. I don't dominate a horse, but I am dominant to the horse. Maybe many don't see this distinction, but for me there is one
While there are many examples of a horse finding the safest trail down, and I will give the horse that choice, if I myself am not sure, there are equal examples of a horse taking over, not allowing himself to be guided, plunging deeper into a bog, trying to cross a river where you know there is an under tow, ready to spook sideways into traffic or over a ledge, and then yes, I have to be that un questioned leader
Thus, while one can spin different meanings to passive, trust, alpha, dominant, natural, etc, ect, in the end, what counts is how you apply that term, in relationship of what it means to you.
If you then produce good horses, that are happy in their job, trustworthy, enjoy working for you, and horses that you in turn, put their needs before fancy vacations, and other luxuries, what do these labels really mean?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I'm struggling with the argument about labels?
The word passive is simply being used to describe a way of being a leader that's the opposite to 'aggressive' 
Flo (RIP) was the typical 'passive' leader, she grew into the role, she never fought her way into it. She was the leader because all the other horses trusted her, she was fearless, fair and always the 'same' horse day in day out. If she moved they all followed.
Horses don't want to be around a horse they fear. True respect isn't based on fear


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

When I read about the diversity of individual horses as posted by Smilie, it was like she was talking about my mare. I had a wonderful trip down memory lane.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Hondo said:


> Yet if I feel firmly he has no problem in going the way I want to go.


I'm not a Parrelli follower but he calls it a 51/49 % partnership. Parent child is maybe better than marriage or friends. But still there are circumstances where Hondo and most any horse will say NO! And knowing Hondo, if he feels that strongly he has a good reason and I'm glad he is saying no. I almost got us stuck in deep quicksand like mire by him saying, "Well, ok if you really think it's ok".

George C. Scott liked the moral character of Western movies as Justin Playfair in the movie They Might Be Giants. One of my favorite. I like the old westerns myself. We used to go to town every saturday afternoon and I'd get to go watch a Western (usually) for a nickle with a nickle box of cracker jacks. Hop-Along-Cassidy, Roy Rogers, and that bunch.

Names for training methods don't have to always be considered labels I don't think. We need names to talk about things but yeah I reckon NH, Passive Leadership, Old Cowboy Training, etc can become meaningless labels if there are not clearly understood meanings associated with the terms.

Our whole communication system is based on terms and there definitions.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I think where we are running into problems is not in the definition of the terms but in connotation.

The connotation of a word is the image or feeling that is attached to it. This is often different according to culture, context and individuals.

For instance, the word “discipline” standing alone, to me is not negative, it is positive. 
However, in a discussion regarding abuse, where the abuser is calling the beating of a child “discipline”, it takes on a very negative connotation (image) even though the definition “the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience” has not changed. If you hear the word used in a negative light often enough, the image the connotation repeatedly pulls out then eventually elicits a feeling of disgust each time you hear that word. 

Again, connotation can be highly individualized depending upon one’s personal experiences. For Smile, “passive” has a negative connotation, based perhaps in her experiences of having negative experiences with it. 

On the other side of the coin, those of us who have had constant dealings with so-called “Alpha” people at work or just in life, or perhaps having been one ourselves (myself included), the word “alpha” brings out memories of things done or said that perhaps we would rather forget and takes on a negative connotation. 

Thank you limbic system!

So, where does that leave us in communication?

It requires us to get out of ourselves, out of our own perspective and to consider their words from the perspective of the person who is using them. This is easily done face to face where you can read the body language of the person speaking or you are speaking to someone who's history is a known entity, very difficult to discern on line, without further questions being asked.

Think of it as very good practice for effectively communicating with horses who most certainly have different connotations than we do, not necessarily with words, but with objects, environments and body language.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

jaydee said:


> I'm struggling with the argument about labels?
> The word passive is simply being used to describe a way of being a leader that's the opposite to 'aggressive'
> Flo (RIP) was the typical 'passive' leader, she grew into the role, she never fought her way into it. She was the leader because all the other horses trusted her, she was fearless, fair and always the 'same' horse day in day out. If she moved they all followed.
> Horses don't want to be around a horse they fear. True respect isn't based on fear


No, passive is the opposite of active

Now here we go again, with respect being equated with fear. Not true.
Nor is it true that if you are alpha to your horse, you then have your horse working out of fear, being with you because he has no other choice
Again, the herd analogy id flawed. There is no herd . There is just a herd of 'two, you and your horse, and herd order dictates that one of you leads, one is alpha to the other
Smilie and Charlie live together, amiably, but Smilie is definately alpha to Charlie, choses which feeder first, moves Charlie if sshe wants to, and never the other way around.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I'm not a Parrelli follower but he calls it a 51/49 % partnership. Parent child is maybe better than marriage or friends. But still there are circumstances where Hondo and most any horse will say NO! And knowing Hondo, if he feels that strongly he has a good reason and I'm glad he is saying no. I almost got us stuck in deep quicksand like mire by him saying, "Well, ok if you really think it's ok".
> 
> George C. Scott liked the moral character of Western movies as Justin Playfair in the movie They Might Be Giants. One of my favorite. I like the old westerns myself. We used to go to town every saturday afternoon and I'd get to go watch a Western (usually) for a nickle with a nickle box of cracker jacks. Hop-Along-Cassidy, Roy Rogers, and that bunch.
> 
> ...


Yes, a partnership with your horse, but not an equal partnership-you must remain the controlling partner, even if only by a small %


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The only negative I have of old westerns, as they sure are strong on good old fashioned values, is the way western horsemanship is portrayed.
Ever see anyone gallop off without jerking their horse's mouth, or jerking same horse to a stop, with horse throwing head up in pain, mouth open!!!
No wonder, any English riding watching those movies ,considers western riding to be no more than jerk and spur, using 'big bits! 
Sorry, off topic, but one of my favorite rants, and it cetrainly is miles away from showing good , kind communication with your horse.
If horses are working out of fear/pain, no better example than some of those old westerns, JMO


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Names for training methods don't have to always be considered labels I don't think. We need names to talk about things but yeah I reckon NH, Passive Leadership, Old Cowboy Training, etc can become meaningless labels if there are not clearly understood meanings associated with the terms.
> 
> Our whole communication system is based on terms and there definitions.


 If you wanted to start a discussion about the "X" method, and how it differs from the "Y" or "Z" methods, no one would have any preconceived ideas of what those methods were and would be forced to learn what those methods entail to form an opinion. Unfortunately some people can't get past the label. It gets worse when a trainers name becomes the label especially with the people that find it necessary to follow a guru. There are definitely a few trainers out there that I am not a big fan of, but I would be the last person to say that everything that comes out of their mouths is a load of bunk.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

adjective: *passive*


 *1*. 
accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance.
"the women were portrayed as passive victims"
synonyms: submissive, acquiescent, unresisting, unassertive, compliant, pliant, obedient, docile, tractable, malleable, pliable 







No passive isn't the opposite of active, in fact used in the sense of how you train horses in a non aggressive way it really has no meaning at all. Its just a word that's been selected because it gives the sense of being non-confrontational.
It would be impossible to train a horse without being active in some way and I don't think that people like Rashid would argue with that, the difference is how you train them. 
A horse does need a leader - no one is disputing that - its just what sort of leader do they need - one that they follow willingly built on trust, mutual respect, consistency, fairness or one that they obey because they're afraid of the consequences if they don't.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

When you procure a “used” horse, you do not have the benefit of the insight of shared history. You are not dealing with a blank slate, nor are you dealing with a known entity.

In Psychology, we do a lot of case study analysis and then formulate a potential path of therapy going forward. 

Perhaps this process will clarify the different approaches that people will use. I keep journals on my horses.

I will use my horse as a case study for y’all to have at it and explain using your methods how you would approach solving this horses issues. 

What is stated below is how he came to me on day one, not having handled him myself other than a couple of pre purchase rides, short lunging and vet check and 30 minute transport. 

_Cowboy (AKA *C*ountry *O*ut *W*est), 8 yo, 15.3, 3100 # quarter horse. Foundation performance horse breeding (nature). His known usage has been as a working cattle horse on the Four Sixes ranch until the age of 4, beyond that the history at this point is unknown (nurture)._

_He is a very “obedient” horse, compliant and obviously trained. However when you are on his back, you get the feeling you are riding a powder keg with a very short fuse that could be lit at any moment. Being calm, cool, confident and collected yourself (we used three different test riders), does nothing to change the feeling coming out from underneath you. _

_He trusts in nothing and no one; while at liberty, he flips into a reactive state of mind at the mere sight of a whip, containment in round pen, a quick movement of a hand in his direction, the end of a lead rope, carrot stick, any object, even the offer of a treat results in a very skeptical approach and quick stilted retreat, eyes never leaving you. This is somewhat mitigated by the approach of a man over a woman. _

_He resists being caught and when he is, his behavior under lead is well mannered, though never relaxed. He stands tied, ground ties, stands for saddling, grooming, bridling, mounting, picks up feet, can be touched all over, backs, loads and unloads, trailers well, and will ride through anywhere you point his nose (we rode him unknowingly through the ranch’s “death pit” with five dead horses and three dead dogs). Again, the entire process of human contact appears to be one of absolute unease on his part. _

_At pasture he has quickly taken over top status in the herd, pushing around both Ghost and Caspian, often for no apparent reason, other than the thought suddenly crossed his mind. Sometimes Ghost is unable to get out of his space quickly enough and Cowboy will run at him and bite while old Ghost does his best not to trip and fall. The word that comes to mind is “bully”. He is hair trigger spooky there._

_The vet check found one old tendon injury to the right back hock and the need for a chiropractic adjustment,(which was done) but nothing that would interfere with normal usage. _

_This is a horse that rides well, but is far from being a happy horse. He is neurotic. While his training seems to keep his reactive side under control when saddled, this horse seems unable to otherwise enjoy his existence, even at pasture. The concern at this point is not so much for the safety of the rider, though that could change, but more so for the long term health of the horse. as when he is reactive mode, he is not beyond causing injury to himself or possibly people in the vicinity._

How would you approach working with this horse? Perhaps you see nothing wrong with this horse or think it is a lost cause? Analysis?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Smilie said:


> ...Ever see anyone gallop off without jerking their horse's mouth, or jerking same horse to a stop, with horse throwing head up in pain, mouth open!!!...


Directors loved that. I don't remember who it was, but one western star who grew up around horses was told to jerk the horse's face and make him thrash around - "it'll look great!" He refused. Said he rather be fired than act that way.

Some of the western actors were good riders. Reagan was very good. Several others grew up riding. The lady who played Elizabeth on "The Virginian" learned to ride as a kid by getting on and riding bareback until she stopped falling off. When she rode on the show, she always looked happy. So did her horse.

Sure can't say that for many others. Western riding has had a lot of terrible PR because of all the yanking and jerking by idiots who didn't know how to ride a horse, or because of idiot directors who wanted "action". A lot of them flopped around and waved their elbows so much they looked like birds trying to take off!

"26 Men" was a pretty hokey series, but the co-star was a ranch foreman before getting an acting job. It was one of the few old westerns where I saw people riding thru desert like I live in. In one episode, the guy was twisting and turning his horse between the cactus, both going fast and looking comfortable doing it. The horse looked like a local ranch horse too. Made me realize what a total amateur I am...


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

EDIT: transposition...1300# not 3100#!!!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

While I was out riding Charlie this morning, I got thinking as to why the word dominant was such a problem for some, and came to some thoughts.
First, that alpha/dominant horse in a herd made up of many horses, has horses below him of various levels of dominance over other horses in that herd.
The horse next tot hat alpha, is pretty dominant himself, thus the dominant horse has to use a certain level of 'dominance to be the alpha leader of the entire herd.
In fact, he does not even bother enforcing any order further down, as others in that herd are doing it for him, including that passive leader.
When there is only two of you, you don't apply 10 pounds of pressure when one oz will do. There is only the two of you, but there is one that is alpha to the other.
All that word dominant then means , is that you occupy that position just above him, and not that you use strong force, fear or aggression to establish that. It is simply a herd order, in a herd of two


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

RC and D - he sounds very much like Looby was when we first got her. My DH thought I was mad to keep her, my vet told me to send her back but here we are several years down the line and I now catch DH smooching with her and my vet has her on his list of horsey success stories that he tells people - including the bit when she tried to kill him the first week we had her!!!
Its a very slow uphill job to get these horses anything close to right and despite what some may say they never truly forget things from their past that made them the way they are, scars, mental and physical, fade but don't disappear.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Jaydee, I have had him now for nearly two years and you are correct, we are making slow but steady progress. 

I was curious though if perhaps the actual actions others would take would better define the differences between the approaches of passive vs alpha training.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The first two years with Loo the progress was very slow, the riding side improved faster than the handling because she was very suspicious and nervous of anything remotely aggressive, she was actually a very compliant horse so I can never understand why anyone felt the need to 'rough her up'
I've never adopted the alpha approach with her in the sense of trying to bully or pressure her into anything because it wouldn't work.
Every summer I've tried to carry a leafy fly swishing 'stick' on her and failed because it sent her into a meltdown and set her progress back yet this summer I tried and she took no notice of it at all even when I used it to swish flies off her


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

jaydee said:


> adjective: *passive*
> 
> 
> *1*.
> ...


So, are you going to argue also how passive immunity differs from active immunity?
I also assume that you are equating using the word alpha and dominant means using aggression and force, and I totally, totally disagree with you!

What about genetics-we have dominant and recessive as being opposing
Words are just that, and it is how they are used in context that is important
How about the expression 'sleeping with someone', meaning having sex with them. Logic would dictate that the parties are doing anything but sleeping
Horses are herd animals. That means, there is a herd order. When there is only two of you, one has to be the controlling partner, however subtle that difference is.
THat also does not mean you don't take past history into account. Reading the horse is every bit as important as trying to find a label that fits, and then fixating on the label, rather than the method
Naturally, on a fearful horse, you first have to over come that fear, before any training can take place, as a fearful horse learns nothing

How about we use Star Tex lingo and call the human number one!

If you wish to say passive is just a word, and how it is used is what counts, then why, oh why, can't you apply the same logic to dominant.
' Beam me up Scotty, and don't forget number one (my second in command ) I guess Captain Kirt did not wish to apply the word 'leader' to himself, passive or otherwise-he is just above number one!
How about we call that human number one and the horse number 2 in that 'herd', as dominant seems so offensive


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Thanks Jaydee, 

We have had the same approach with Cowboy. Though he did reinjure that old hock only two weeks after we brought him home (in one of his frenzies) and he was unridable for almost a year. Most of our work has been on the ground with very well thought out patterns of reward and building trust in us and in the environment. He has taken quite a shine to my husband (who doesn't have an aggressive bone in his body) and my youngest daughter.

The biggest change though came when we brought in Oliver who relieved Cowboy of his leadership duties (peacefully I might add). 

I have to ask this though. Since you are British, why do you have a horse named Loo? Was she really that bad?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

OKay, lets forget labels and a talk about a situation.
A horse has earned to walk into people, while being led (God knows, we got enough mares like this in, to be bred! )
How would you deal with it?
A stallion has learned to bite people, often taking the opportunity when that person is off guard, and has already put one person in the hospital

Pony has learned he can run off with little kids, run them against obstacles, ect

You are feeding a large group of horses at liberty, and an alpha horse runs another horse over you

Lets get back to a fundamental fact, actually stated by one of the accepted fathers of natural Horsemanship;
:be as gentle with a horse as possible, but also as firm as needed, to make that horse a good citizen'
Failure of the latter part,has caused many horses through no fault of their own, to wind up as slaughter animals, and more horses are ruined by that failure , then by any abuse. That is not saying abuse does not happen, as I have reported some


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

When I was little my favourite TV program was Andy Pandy and he had rag doll friend called Looby Loo. 
Looby came to us with no name and no history and it was the first name that came into my head - though she was pretty much headed down the toilet when we took her on!!!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Let's start with your first example.

Horse walks into me I stop lock my hand in place and do not move. Eventually he runs out of slack rope and will either stop or run into pressure. I have not created additional pressure, he created his own pressure by running into it himself. That is passive. I did nothing but hold the status quo.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be that I would stop before he actually walks into me.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Looking at my monthly expenditures Hondo comes in as a big No. 1 with me being a distant No. 2.

Try as I might, I just cannot get my head around me being #1 and Hondo being #2. Same with my dog. Putting myself as No. 1 anywhere just doesn't "feel" good to me. But that's me.

Have not watched any old Westerns in years. Now I gotta go rent some and yell at the people doing that stuff. (don't worry, nearest people are 1.5 miles away and that's only the ranch house)

RCD, another case where words are insufficient. Have to see/watch the horse and I likely still wouldn't have a clue. Sounds a lot like Cody though who was ridden abusively until retirement. Well known history. The ranch took him in for free for retirement because you could put a baby on him and he would not harm it. Great with kids. I have only one time succeeded in 1.5 years in giving him one treat.

Yet the ranch said once he had a halter or bridle, he would do anything as directed. But he would have to be in his pen eating to be caught.

My four young grandkids were here Christmas and they could all walk right up to him. Pet him. Give him treats. He seemed to enjoy it.

When Sage Heart was born a couple of months ago Cody would not leave the side of her pen. The ranch finally had to start feeding him pellets for fear he'd starve himself. Finally turned him in with Mom and baby. She finally allowed baby to be near him.

Cody loves kids. People, baby horses, whatever. He has the saddest eyes. I water thinking about him and the life he has had.

I know your horse is in good hands.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

When I went to work for the man/place I stayed with for 10 years I was introduced on day 1 to his best hunting horse, a mare that he said 'If she didn't bite me when I went in she'd kick me on the way out'
She never did that to him - if I'd lashed out at her for it she'd have only become more defensive, because that's what she was already doing due to past abuse. I had to learn how to avoid her biting and kicking and let her realize that I wasn't a threat and was actually someone she could enjoy being with
It took me the first hunting season to fully achieve that but I did and she's high up on my list of 'best horses I've ever known'


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> You are feeding a large group of horses at liberty, and an alpha horse runs another horse over you


Human error. Redesign feeding arrangement. Shouldn't be feeding horses anyhow if you don't know better than to let that happen.

That said, you would have given me a standing ovation the other day. I had returned Hondo to the herd and was standing letting him eat grass and petting him before pulling his halter.

Molly, the abusive lead mare, turned her rump toward Hondo and popped her hinds up about a foot as a warning. With me standing there with Hondo.

I started chasing her all over the field with Hondo trotting behind. I finally pulled his halter and got close enough to throw it into her side twice.

We've made up since but I don't think she'll pull that again.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

W


Smilie said:


> OKay, lets forget labels and a talk about a situation.
> A horse has earned to walk into people, while being led (God knows, we got enough mares like this in, to be bred! )
> How would you deal with it?
> A stallion has learned to bite people, often taking the opportunity when that person is off guard, and has already put one person in the hospital
> ...


You are getting very wound up by nobody disagreeing with you. 

Don't think anyone on this thread lets their horse barge into them, bite, or run off with them, or advocates that anyone should. Of course you'd correct that stuff, as emphatically as needed!

But even those hypotheticals should have qualifications. I.e. Is it a young horse who doesn't know, or an older one seeing what it can get away with?

I'll reiterate what I've said before. Unfortunately when you talk to Joe Schmoe on the street about being "dominant," that sounds like "dominate," which sounds like "aggression" which ends up as "whack your horse until he submits." Yes, that word has other meanings, but we're not talking to geneticists or immunologists here, or using in that context. 

Horses sometimes do need a firm correction to learn the difference between right and wrong behaviour -- duh -- but you have to be quick and smart with your correction. When a handler is neither, you have to train them more than the horse. And the art of that is finding whatever language communicates to that person what it is they should be doing. It's a bloody sight harder than training horses!


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

jaydee said:


> When I went to work for the man/place I stayed with for 10 years I was introduced on day 1 to his best hunting horse, a mare that he said 'If she didn't bite me when I went in she'd kick me on the way out'
> She never did that to him - if I'd lashed out at her for it she'd have only become more defensive, because that's what she was already doing due to past abuse. I had to learn how to avoid her biting and kicking and let her realize that I wasn't a threat and was actually someone she could enjoy being with
> It took me the first hunting season to fully achieve that but I did and she's high up on my list of 'best horses I've ever known'


 I had a similar situation with a TB mare that was purchased as a brood mare. She was cooperative but nervous on a lead but extremely defensive in the stall. My strategy was to ignore her threats and let her settle in. I was hanging a water bucket or something one day and must have made some kind of movement that she misinterpreted and she charged and snapped at my face. She then retreated to the corner and stood there trembling. I do not know how I was able to remain calm but I did and just stood there talking softly to her. She was much less defensive after that and gradually became very calm to work around. She eventually turned out to be a very sweet natured mare. Now that snap did come about two inches from my face but my gut instinct was that it was still a warning and she could have easily done some damage if she was truly aggressive So, somewhere in her past she was mishandled and became defensive and then was punished for being defensive and that pattern had to be broken. I think that would qualify as "passive training" and I don't think I would have ended up with as good a result any other way.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Never got into Westerns... except Paint Your Wagon... not sure what morals were learned from that one...


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Textan49 said:


> I think that would qualify as "passive training" and I don't think I would have ended up with as good a result any other way.


Oh darn. Now I wanna change th title back to passive horse training. Just kidding jaydee. But what an excellent and spot on example of passive training.

Horse stood there and figured it out. He was supposed to beat me and didn't. This guy is not the other guy.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

There are actually very few horses that are 'born bad' and when they are there's usually some underlying physical cause. 
It's humans that create bad horses - lack of correct training, poor management and abuse mainly.
A horse that's maybe bad to lead and pulls or pushes all over you is usually that way because its never been taught to lead properly - hitting it over the head with a piece of 2 x 2 to 'sort it out' is nothing short of punishing the poor thing because some human had already failed it
As Silver Spear said already - of course there are times when you have no choice but to use some form of punishment but it does have to be immediate and never done in temper
Constant nagging and bullying a horse will only create a surly resentful horse


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Human error. Redesign feeding arrangement. Shouldn't be feeding horses anyhow if you don't know better than to let that happen.
> 
> That said, you would have given me a standing ovation the other day. I had returned Hondo to the herd and was standing letting him eat grass and petting him before pulling his halter.
> 
> ...


Well, I gave that example, as it happened to a young mother, whose husband I knew slightly through the App association
He went to Europe,on a horse selling trip, leaving her to feed the horses. I have no idea of her experience, but obviously, those horses, unlike mine, were not taught that they were not allowed to show aggression towards each other, when a human was in that field
Bottom line, she got between two horses , and became the accidental target, as one kicked at the other, during feeding time
She died.
My horses learn that they are never allowed to show aggression towards each other, when I am out with them, even at feeding time. I used to feed anywhere from 15 to 20 horses in the winter, using a hand pulled chore sled
Because, I do go away at times, and have others feeding the horses for me, some with not that much horse experience, or someone not knowing the herd dynamic, I enforce this zero aggression whenever anyone is feeding or other wise interacting with them.
Thus, the woman that farm sits for me, and also for others, has more than once commented on how respectful my horses are, and how she always feels safe feeding them. This is not true at some other places she sits for
So yes, I make sure every horse in that herd, knows I am alpha to the entire herd, and no horse gets to run another horse over me, nor does a horse lower down get to chose over me as an escape route

Waters are also being muddied here, by just 'training', or talking about re -trained spoiled and /or abused horses, so lets stick to simply training a horse correctly from the start, as the other tow need taylored approaches, depending on past history, much like rehabilitating a spoiled child, or one with a history of abuse

I have raised many foals, and foals are not born knowing boundaries, and thus you enforce them towards you, just like a horse would.
It is not cute, for a foal to turn his rear and kick at you. I will make him understand it is not allowed.
When first trimming feet on those young horses, I am tolerant with them learning to both accept giving me their foot, and taking it away , before zI am finished, but I do teach them to accept having that foot handled, over time, for as long as needed.
Once they understand fully, are good at standing tied solid, my expectations increase tot he point that the horse does not pull his foot away, nor does he need to be hand held for any farrier work
Bitting, esp in young stallions, simply not allowed. They get to run into a pin. 
Many situations , I most likely use what you term passive training, just don't label it that way.
I think Mark just coined anew word, to give the impression that he discovered an entirely new way of training, allowing him to write books and gain a following, when in a reality, he found a label that can even be mis construed , and applied it to a technique that has been used, along with the herd/ leader based training, depending on situation, reading and understanding the horse you are dealing with
His rant, on jointed bit curbs (he calls them all TT ), shows that his conclusions can be as flawed and wrong as anyone else.

You might think that you have unique relationship with Hondo, that I don't have with any of my horses, and I will tell you that you are dead wrong
Just like a good parent teaches a child boundaries, makes decisions in the best interest of that child, so does a horse owner help that horse to become a confident individual, with mutual trust and habits learned that will best ensure his future, should something happen to you

I show love to my horses through providing exercise that they need, the space they require, the balanced diet that will keep them healthy and strong, and the boundaries and discipline that will keep them safe


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

jaydee said:


> There are actually very few horses that are 'born bad' and when they are there's usually some underlying physical cause.
> It's humans that create bad horses - lack of correct training, poor management and abuse mainly.
> A horse that's maybe bad to lead and pulls or pushes all over you is usually that way because its never been taught to lead properly - hitting it over the head with a piece of 2 x 2 to 'sort it out' is nothing short of punishing the poor thing because some human had already failed it
> As Silver Spear said already - of course there are times when you have no choice but to use some form of punishment but it does have to be immediate and never done in temper
> Constant nagging and bullying a horse will only create a surly resentful horse


You are preaching good horse training to the choir!!!!
One does not need the label 'passive', to embrace those principles, as they have been echoed in any good training program for eons!
There is really nothing new under the sun at times!!!!!!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> W
> 
> You are getting very wound up by nobody disagreeing with you.
> 
> ...


If I sound like I am getting wound up, it is because the message I am getting here, is that is you don't apply passive to your training, then you must be in the camp of training through fear, abuse and intimidation, which is of course,wrong, and why I hate labels, as it also suggests on the other end of the spectrum, you never correct a horse, and are 'passive', should he become reactive towards you
Look at Jaydee;s last post, for instance-just common truths accepted for eons by good trainers, way before the word 'passive' ever came along

Yes, more problem horses are man made, both through abuse, but equally by not establishing any boundaries
We also (well, some of us ) really select for mind now, breeding horses, as much as for any other attribute, thus there truly are very, very few horses that are born bad minded, over the past
But, the rare one does exist, just like all human physicopaths don't have a history of abuse-they just are what they are.Those rare horses don't even fall into the training discussion, in my books, as they should be removed from the gene pool
Sure, on an abused horse, you have to re again trust-that is a no brainer

But, the most common horse that has become bad, through human handling, is the spoiled horse-a horse that has learned he can balk and buck (yes, pain issues ruled out first ), can pull away, and even kick out, when leaving, can bolt, rear, you name it.
You are then forced to use what it takes, so the horse is never successful at that vise again, before any true re-training can begin. Even then, that horse will never have that clean slate of a mind , as a horse that never learned those bad habits to begin with


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Smilie said:


> ...
> Waters are also being muddied here, by just 'training', or talking about re -trained spoiled and /or abused horses, so lets stick to simply training a horse correctly from the start, as the *other tow need taylored approaches*, depending on past history, much like rehabilitating a spoiled child, or one with a history of abuse ...


The *others*, spoiled or abused are not the only two 'others'. 
Currently I have one who was simply untrained, and not handled much until maturity. He was neither spoiled nor abused. There are many other 'others', the word 'ruined' comes to my mind immediately. 

Another word is 'backyard'. Or even 'grade' as they indicate not being a product of a high-end breeding program. Breeding for a good mind, purpose, conformation, athleticism, and all the rest, especially trainability.

Please do not leave the 'others' out of a training discussion. They are skin and blood just like the rest of us. And likely to be the only type of horses I will come in contact with.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Here is my take after reading a couple of Rashid's books:

Tailor your approach to your horse. Don't expect every horse to act the same. Few horse's have inbred problems or are 'bad horses'. Most have training problems. Think about it, and try to find a way of teaching your horse what it needs to know. Set the horse up for success, not failure. Don't blame the horse, and don't blame yourself. Just get started on training for what you want instead of what you have.

Any good horseman has always done that. But too many trainers, and in particular too many newbies who rely on DVD trainers, use one approach and then blame the horse if it doesn't work.

Here is an example.

The lady who worked with Lilly, Trooper and Mia did a wonderful job. But she had been taught the 'rope shaking' thing for backing a horse up. She had spent her entire life doing it.

When she worked with Mia, the more she shook and snapped the rope, the more concerned Mia got. Mia did not back up. But she WAS surprised! The lady decided she needed to 'make herself bigger'. So she started flapping her arms and stomping. Mia's eyes got big. I'd swear I heard her say, "Call someone quick! She's ready for the funny farm!"

So I asked if I could try something. I took the lead, walked to Mia, said, "Back" and touched her chest with my hand. Mia started backing, and I walked with her going backwards for about 70 feet.

The lady thought a moment, then said, "That obviously works for you both, so we'll move on to something else". Unlike some trainers I've seen, she didn't feel a need to prove her system of training was THE way of doing it. When she finished with Mia - and SHE told me it was time to stop formal training and just start riding - she started looking for chances to work with Arabians.

The feeling I get when watching a lot of DVD trainers is that they need to prove their system works. After all, why buy it if it doesn't? What Rashid suggests is doing what all good trainers do - take each horse as an individual, and work things out.

Riding Bandit yesterday, there were three cases where Bandit was very concerned about going forward.

1 - Very Scary Trash Can. He had passed dozens without problems, but one was Very Scary. So we took 5 minutes to go 100 yards as he worked out, with my support, that it really wasn't as scary as HE thought. It was as Non-Scary as I thought!

2 - Unhappy about going forward. Wanted to call it quits and return to the corral. Tough luck. You eat my hay, you go my way. I was going to be as dominant as needed to enforce my rule. No nice guy. Had he not given in and done things my way, we'd have had a fight as big as he needed. 

3 - Not totally scared, but very concerned. Stopped to think about it. Then heard a hum. It wasn't an air-conditioning unit. Hmmm. Then a swarm of migrating bees passed about 50 feet in front of us. If we hadn't stopped, we'd have been in the middle of a big swarm of bees. Migrating bees usually are not aggressive, but I have no desire to be surrounded by a thousand bees. So we turned around and left.

So...I let him work it out, with me supporting. I said "Get with the program" and was willing to use force and dominate. And I listened, and we beat a retreat. I think Rashid would agree. I'm dominant enough to say he goes my way. I'm passive enough to sometimes let him pick the speed, or agree that he is right and we need to go elsewhere. I retain the right to decide, but I listen to his concerns. I don't feel the need to prove myself or my techniques. When I make mistakes - and I do, regularly - we just start over the next time. We're a team, but I have the majority vote...while also understanding that HE has 4 feet on the ground, and I have zero.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I don't think anyone has ever tried to say that 'passive' means doing nothing Smilie and I wasn't preaching anything at all in my post - simply trying to make a point that horse problems are on the whole created by humans, even failure to establish boundaries is 'training' because everything we do (or don't do if it means giving out the wrong message) is training to a horses mind
You can't live long in the horse world without coming across many people who call themselves trainers who think the only way to cure a problem is with brute force.
None of our foals grew up into horses (at point of sale) that would bite or kick but they didn't need to be beat to a pulp to establish that rule.
We also bought a lot of horses and ponies from unwarranted auctions in the UK and they had plenty of problems but I never found that anything but fair, firm, consistent work was necessary to get them on the right track again. I've had a few that earned a good whack but even then it was a last resort.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Well, seems we all basically agree after all, labels or not!
I certainly know that both ends of the spectrum, far a strainers exists
Those that are abusive, using the old snub them up, sack them out and the buck them out, and those that allow the horse to 'take them for a ride'
Many, not all,, of the abusive trainers, were/are people that use a horse just for a tool, needing to get a job done with that horse asp
I know an outfitter, that started young horses for free,in exchange for their use for the summer
He taught 'whoa', using a running W. Those horses then went out for day rides in the mountains, unshod. When they got really sore, he would shoe the front feet-that is abuse, plain and simple.
I also know a reining trainer, that I would not even send a horse to, that I did not particularly like. Yup, he has success in the show ring, but has blown the mind son many horses he has trained
I think, basically, I use Rashid's ideas, and only have a problem with labels, for the simple fact, that they can be mis construed, or substitute for really learning to read a horse, treat him as an individual , adjust training,according to where that horse is at, both mentally and physically, in a fair consistent manner .
Many people that follow labels, like NH, organic, and yes, passive leadership, either think that the wheel has been re -invented, or that if you apply .natural, organic or passive, it is automatically better, and none of those basics under those labels have ever been used by people, who never bothered to apply labels. They were just too busy turning out good happy useful horses
My friend got very badly hurt, by a trainer that claimed to be an NH trainer, using no bits to start a horse, as bits were evil.
Nope, he used a long shanked mechanical hackamore to start her horse.
I expressed my concern, when I went to watch him ride her filly. He pushed that horse through nothing. If she got tense, he got off. She was also confused , not surprising, as no leverage devise should ever be used to start a horse
Bottom line, when my friend got that horse back, and she balked, asked to go forward, and she then tried to push her, the horse bucked her off, fracturing her pelvis
As BMSM mentioned, so many people get lulled into a false sense of doing the right thing, because they use something , often incorrectly, advocated by whatever label, be it NH or other wise I am referring to that rope twirling, but could equally be eluding to endless join up, disengaging hips, and lateral flexing at the standstill
Going beyond the horse world, far as people blindly following labeling, there is the example of organic, where the claim is that NO pesticides are used.
Well, synthetic pesticides are controlled, true, but what is not mentioned, is that organic pesticides are used, many of which are way more toxic to the environment than any synthetic ones
In the end, good horsemanship is good horsemanship, and it transcends labeling, and the silent endorsements of those training methods, are the happy, healthy using horses that last a lifetime


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I really feel that Mark Rashid is being unfairly characterized above. 'Passive' is an adjective he used to describe a certain type of herd dynamics. He thought it was a useful way for humans to think about training horses; one of many useful things to keep in mind. And he kept encountering people at clinics who would chase their horses around a round pen, or with a lead rope, and say, "Well, that's what the alpha horses does, so it's what I need to do to be alpha." It isn't. That's his point. The *real* alpha doesn't run his herdmates around needlessly.

He would be surprised if someone thought that it meant that he believed he had reinvented the wheel, as you say, and devised a new system of horsemanship.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> Any good horseman has always done that. But too many trainers, and in particular too many newbies who rely on DVD trainers, use one approach and then blame the horse if it doesn't work.


...Or blame the method or trainer, rather than recognising it may be the interpretation & application of it...


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

loosie said:


> ...Or blame the method or trainer, rather than recognising it may be the interpretation & application of it...


Or fail to accept that 'One size does not fit all' and sometimes you have to move on to Plan B but you might have gotten to Plan X,Y, or Z before you find the one that works best
And sometimes its just about being patient and allowing the horse to understand what you're wanting - they don't all learn at the same speed


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Reading the last few posts, I thought a good phrase might be "subtle leadership". Not "Hey, I'm the Big Cheese here!" approach, but also not the "If you're in the mood and it wouldn't be too much bother_..._" style. 

One definition I heard of leadership was "_getting folks to do what you want while they think they are doing what they want_". That always seemed a bit manipulative to me, and those who know me say I have the subtlety of a freight train.

"Leading from behind" is another phrase I like, but if you say that about horse training, someone will stand behind their horse's butt and smack him to make him go...:icon_rolleyes:

There is also something to be said for the old statement, "_You can't cure stupid!_" Not sure it applies to horses, but it would match a lot of riders. I'm pretty sure I heard Mia say it a time or two, but she never said who she was talking about.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

_ think we have about beaten this old pony to death, and most of us agree on the 'final analysis'
Then, there are also some qoutes I like to use, in regard to training horses, and the first belongs to Cheri

Horses are only as good as you expect them to be

Horses are creatures of habit, thus, can be trained or become untrained, learn good habits or bad, and that choice is not the horses, but the trainer/handler, as horses don't make moral judgements of right and wrong-they are creatures of habit

Horses actually feel secure in strong, fair leadership, and not in grey inconsistent boundaries

If you don't lead, the horse will-it is his very nature as a herd species. Does not mean you have to be abusive, exert that leadership stronger than is required, but you do need to be an active leader, thus also reacting correctly to a horse's reaction, versus 'being acted upon, but not re acting
I think many of Rashids ideas are sound, though not new, but I do think he coined an incorrect terminology to define' his' principles, that can be every bit as mis leading as to what 'alpha or dominant imply, when use correctly and in context of principles involved
I did read one of his books, as I am always picking up horse books, no matter subject, discipline, author ect, esp if I find then at a used book store
I found nothing new, and found his self absorption in martial arts, distracting
I also think he did a great dis service , far as his incorrect rant on all jointed mouth curb bits, as their correct use has filled in a lot of the former need of the double reins and Vaquero tradition, in developing a good bridle horse, esp on the finer more sensitive horses bred today.
_


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> I really feel that Mark Rashid is being unfairly characterized above. 'Passive' is an adjective he used to describe a certain type of herd dynamics. He thought it was a useful way for humans to think about training horses; one of many useful things to keep in mind. And he kept encountering people at clinics who would chase their horses around a round pen, or with a lead rope, and say, "Well, that's what the alpha horses does, so it's what I need to do to be alpha." It isn't. That's his point. The *real* alpha doesn't run his herdmates around needlessly.
> 
> He would be surprised if someone thought that it meant that he believed he had reinvented the wheel, as you say, and devised a new system of horsemanship.


Agree, but where did this endless round penning come from? 
Not from good traditional training, but by the entire NH movement, so that people can't even conceive training a horse without a round pen, use round pen work incorrectly, do join up over and over again, on a broke horse way past being new to human interaction
There is nothing wrong using some round pen work, once or twice, on a green horse, seldom handled, correctly. That does not mean chasing that horse endlessly around, but understanding how to read a horse's body language, and just having him concentrate on you, showing you can direct his movement, or for that first ride or so
Round pen work, done without understanding what you are doing, is more harmful than good, and is a great example of an idea, incorporated into a system with a label (NH ), can be extremely mis used, even if that trainer, who uses it, uses it correctly, like many good NH trainers (Chris Cox, Stacy Westfall, ect )
"passive leadership', has the same danger of mis application, by people that want an ABC training manual, able to be applied without reading the individual horse or situation. Thus, passive leadership, used incorrectly, can become ineffectual leadership, by some,very easily.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - Mia was an Arabian, I'm pretty sure that most of the more intelligent horses spend a lot of time wondering why their stupid human wants to do certain things!!
There are times when I feel like we've exhausted all the resources we have when trying to teach Honey something new and using a sledgehammer to knock it into her would be quite satisfying but then she'll come out the next day and do it perfectly. I wonder if she maybe has to go away and think about these things in her own time.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> ... "subtle leadership"_ ...
> 
> _I like that term.
> 
> ...






Smilie said:


> Agree, but where did this endless round penning come from? ...
> 
> an idea, incorporated into a system with a label (NH ), can be extremely mis used,
> 
> "passive leadership', has the same danger of mis application, ...


I feel that the word 'pleasure' has that same type of connotation. Many, many people unwittingly use that term and it is taken by horsemen/women to mean their interests are in Western Pleasure.

The above reference to NH 'connected' to 'roundpenning' is another common connotation. Maybe in early Parelli language 'normal lunging' was the same as 'roundpenning'. If so that was to be avoided, it entailed endlessly and mindlessly running a horse around boring it to death. Don't do that.

*'ROUNDPENNING" -- What is it exactly? *

At first I thought it was just working inside a round pen, but now I think it has become some specific activity. Possibly connected to a poor rendition of 'Join Up', which I am really not too clear on either. Haha

I think 'Join Up' is a Monty Roberts thing. Never officially learned it. Seen enough bits and pieces to generally get the idea. Don't think I've set out to do it, generally have the horse on a line, even in a round pen.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I hadn't heard about 'roundpenning' (or NH) until I came here, I could remember very briefly some stuff about Monty Roberts and his 'join up' but it completely washed over me as not something I had use for.

It bothers me to hear too many new owners thinking that join up is vital to success when it isn't because the horse isn't learning anything or doing anything beneficial to its physical fitness - could well be the opposite


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

yup, NH has made a new verb; round penning'
It is a great example of a tool, that has application, used for a limited time, in the right situation by someone that knows what they are doing, but has a great potential for mis use.
I will give an example, how it can be used correctly.
It has application in starting a horse, that has not been handled much, but certainly not a 'needed' tool, because I started many horses before I ever had around pen, or even any contained area, for that matter
You can teach a horse basic lunging, bitting them up gradually, having them reverse direction, stop etc, without needing a lunge line, and also with no chance of pulling them out of position with that lunge line
My son started quite a few outside colts , putting 30 days on them, with that owner expecting the horse to be riding end of thirty days, with basic like all gaits, 
basic leg yielding, beginning of softness in the poll, able to be ridden in the open, etc. That left very few days for ground work, before he got on and rode
First ride, he would step up in the stirrup on each side of the horse first, lean over the back, step down and walk away. The horse would follow him. That is an example of what is referred to by some as 'join up'
This is a very, 'passive' if you wish, first mounting and ride, letting the horse think about it,and no feeling of being trapped
That first day of riding would be with him getting on, getting the horse to move off at the walk,using legs and disengaging into a small circle first, then just trotting , walking and stopping that horse, all on a loose rein
Three days max in the round pen and he rode that horse out in the pasture.
Since I am no longer starting colts, my round pen sits there un used. The only time I use it, is to exercise Smilie, at liberty, when I have no time to ride her, and since she is dry lotted, I want her to move daily
I never lunge my broke horses, as I find lunging boring and if I can't get on a broke horse,without lunging that horse first, something is wrong
A round pen is a nice tool to have , if you start colts, but not needed. 
Certainly, I don't see why anyone would 'round pen a broke horse, or attempt 'join up', on a horse that already has lots of relationship with humans, having been trained and ridden.
Have no idea why people who buy a new broke horse, feel they need to round pen that horse and do 'join up'
In the end, you take what works for you, from many sources, just like you take things from various clinics and form your own program, that works for you and your horse
In the end, that combo can consist of passive leadership ideas, some principles from the herd/prey mentality of horses, some NH , some good traditional training, and all made into the right 'soup', by experience gained riding/training many horses, and then seeing if that combo consistently turns out happy well broke and useful horses that stay sound in both body and mind
As the old saying goes, 'the proof is in the pudding'!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Too many of the horse expressions used are misleading - and not just in NH.
"On the bit' doesn't really have anything to do with the bit - it means the horse is 'understanding your cues/aids and responding correctly to them
'Half halt' isn't about stopping a horse


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The dressage definition of "on the bit" requires a lot more than a horse who is responsive to cues."_The horse which is being ridden on the loose rein is like a bow which has not yet been strung... When the horse is 'on the aids', its body becomes spanned like a compressed spring - the strung bow...the hindquarter becomes more loaded, the centre of balance moves backward beneath the rider's seat; because of the forward impulse the horse's neck rises UP off the withers and upon finding resistance at the bit, it yields at the poll resulting in the correct head position._

_ It is particularly through the unity of centres of balance, which occurs when the horse is correctly put on the aids that the horse becomes liberated, allowing it uninhibited motion and enables it to respond easily and instantly to the rider's wishes._" - The Dressage Formula, page 54​It was the second paragraph that was like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Mia had tons of "uninhibited motion" pretty much regardless of where I was on her, and she was pretty uninhibited with slack in the reins, or not! And no western horse needs to 'have his bow strung' in order "_to respond easily and instantly to the rider's wishes_". YGBSM!

Mia proved to my eternal satisfaction that even a 'strung out' horse can turn up its own butt with stunning speed. I've had bruises put on my thigh from the poley of my Australian saddle, and the one time my western saddle slipped came when she did it from a strung out and relaxed position. Mia also proved she could respond well to my pinkie finger used on a mostly slack rein. In a curb, she could "_respond easily and instantly to the rider's wishes_" with slack reins - and she wasn't even well trained.

"Liberated" isn't exactly the expression that comes to mind when I see a horse who is "on the bit". :icon_rolleyes:

I'm not opposed to riding with contact. Bandit seems to like it sometimes. Putting a horse "on the bit" or "on the aids" seems like overkill UNLESS the goal is to teach collected gaits, in which case it is one way to do it. But Mia came "self-strung'! She sure as heck didn't need me to "string her bow" for her! :rofl:


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Even reining horses working in a curb on a loose rein are on the aids, as is a horse working a cow. I'm making an educated guess here, but presumably cavalry horses worked in a curb on a loose rein. I don't know how you'd wield a sword while riding with two hands. But those horses are still working in an uphill frame, lifting their backs, and are in front of the rider's leg (another great phrase). You still get the 'strung bow' feeling without direct contact. Obviously your book is explaining how to do it in dressage, with contact (if you want to learn dressage, read dressage books; if you want to learn how the reiners achieve collection, reading a dressage book might not be the way forward) but other disciplines certainly require the horse to be on the aids, using his body in a similar way (look on YouTube for a pas de deux of a dressage horse and a reining horse; more comminalities than differences).

My horse on a trail ride, strolling along on a loose rein, is not on the aids/on the bit, but she can still change gaits on command and steer. Not as balanced or as lightly, but whatever. If she gets spooky about something, I gather her up and put her on the bit. She goes *more* forward when I do this, but will be less spooky or at least more controllable should she spook. 

Here's the thing that can sound contradictory and confusing to a lot of people. The horse (my horse, your horse, any marginally sound horse) is very capable of going from 0-60 in a second; shifting from a plodding, on-the-forehand walk to a flat-out gallop in the opposite direction before the rider knows what's happening. The horse can spook, jig about, practice airs above the ground, while being strung out and behind the rider's leg. Indeed, the horse doing those things is the opposite of what Herbermann means. There is lots of motion, sure, more than you want, but the kind of motion he means comes from relaxation and elasticity, not anxious tension. It feels totally different. I would suggest that when the horse is on the aids, when it's "_liberated, allowing it uninhibited motion and enables it to respond easily and instantly to the rider's wishes," _it is *less likely *to play up, to engage in the huge whirlaway spooks.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Actually, I had better success calming Mia by keeping her on a loose rein. And horses working cattle are not on an uphill frame, lifting their back. At its extreme, a cutting horse is the opposite:








​ 
It goes back to how one controls a horse. Using the reins and bit is a method, but it is not a requirement.

If "on the aids" meant "listening to and responsive to cues", then everyone would want their horses to be on the aids. I wish that was the meaning. But dressage and the FEI have brought a different meaning to it.

If you ride forward, you are already over the horse's CG. You don't need him to shift his weight back to unite your balance.

The lifting of the back - and it is lifting, not rounding - is not a requirement for an agile, responsive horse. A horse can do a 180 faster than you want to ride it without using a collected gait just prior. Indeed, many of us have no desire for a horse to be ready to spin at any moment...although I spent years with one like that!

Barrel racing horses don't "collect" to get around a barrel at high speed:








​ 
Horses can turn, stop, do 180s, accelerate, run - do all sorts of things without "_the forward impulse the horse's neck rises UP off the withers and upon finding resistance at the bit, it yields at the poll_".

THAT description, of the forward impulse finding resistance at the bit and thus causing it to yield at the poll and shift the CG aft and raise the back, is an integral part of what "on the bit" or "on the aids" means. It has nothing to do with how most western horses are ridden.

And the correct head position, outside of an arena, is rarely the one created by putting a horse on the bit (aids) - which the FEI says results in a near vertical face. Given how that impacts a horse's vision, it is the equivalent of putting blinders on a horse.

I'm not saying it is wrong for either dressage, reining or any other sport that values it for whatever reason."_I very strongly believe that every one of us should think twice before asking the horse to do something which is not imperative for the game to which the horse is assigned._" Littauer, Schooling Your Horse pg 8​That philosophy is more in keeping with passive, or subtle, or restrained leadership. I like that it gives the human the responsibility for deciding what the "game" is - moving cattle, trail ride, arena sports, etc. But it then expects the human to show consideration for the horse.

" I would suggest that when the horse is on the aids, when it's "_liberated, allowing it uninhibited motion and enables it to respond easily and instantly to the rider's wishes," _it is *less likely *to play up, to engage in the huge whirlaway spooks."

That is the opposite of my experience. I find making the horse a partner and expecting him (or her) to use good judgment does, in fact, teach judgment. Of course, some of the teaching comes the same way we humans learn good judgment - by using bad judgment and having unhappy results. But if I can ride it out and deal with the results, the horse can learn too. 

Mia made big gains after I took the advice below to heart. Bandit seems to be responding well, also. Maybe it is me - something strange about how I ride - but often the less control I take, the more control I have: :think:










I find the best way to get a horse to engage its mind is to expect him to use it. To require it, if need be - although it often feels like it felt when I taught my kids how to drive a car...:eek_color:...grabbing the wheel is for emergencies only.

And please remember, I have no objection to teaching a horse collected gaits if that is one's desire. Done well, I admire the result. But millions of horses go their lives being responsible and responsive partners without ever going "on the aids". Heck, many have done it without ever seeing the inside of a round pen! ​


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Diplomatic leadership?? A diplomat being someone who can tell you to go to hell, in such a way that you look forward to the journey!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

This post from SueC quotes Tom Roberts at length. He was in the British Cavalry in WW1 - yes, ONE - and later moved to Australia. He help found a dressage club there. I've found his thought on training a horse and the attitude we bring with us very helpful. He wrote 4 books..."Horse Control - The Young Horse" is my favorite - written well before a certain NH trainer revolutionized the world of horses < / sarcasm >:



SueC said:


> ...This is from the beginning of “_Horse Control – The Young Horse_” (Griffin Press, Netley, South Australia, 1974):
> 
> *TRAINING PROCEDURES:*
> 
> ...


I think Tom Roberts would appreciate my signature line, from a book he undoubtedly read at some point:


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Smilie said:


> people can't even conceive training a horse without a round pen, use round pen work incorrectly, ...
> Round pen work, done without understanding what you are doing, is more harmful than good, and is a great example of an idea, incorporated into a system with a label (NH ),...
> "passive leadership', has the same danger of mis application, by people that want an ABC training manual


Yep, must say, because I've seen/heard it be used badly more than I care to remember & far & away more than I've seen it done done well, 'round penning' is a term that makes me cringe, like 'respect' & 'being alpha'. Also amuses(& irritates me a little) that I'm not sure if, in Australia at least, many people would have even known what a 'round pen' was 10-15 years ago, whereas they seem to be thought of to many as a vital 'tool' these days. And what IS wrong with a few corners anyway, I'd like to know?? My cynical self suspects it might be because it mightn't look quite so neat & easy when you're putting on a show for people, if the horse sticks his nose in the corners... 

But IMO any term whatsoever has the 'danger of misapplication' due to misunderstanding & perceptions. Just like some perceive 'NH' as a load of rubbish, because they've seen people do something badly & it was labled 'NH'. Just had some confusion in another thread, because it seems that some people(Americans?) use the term 'grain' to mean 'anything not hay/grass'. So, should say 'grain' is a 'dangerous' term that is unhelpful because it may be 'misapplied'?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Something I've been thinking about. I wonder how much training Tom Dorrance had. How many clinics he went to in order to learn what he learned. And if he'd been better or worse if he'd had more.

It just seems to me that sometimes all this stuff can get in the way of heart to heart with the horse. I think I know what heart to heart is with people, but don't ask to explain what I mean between people and horses.

But still, all the rules and stuff just seem to get in the way sometimes. And the horse knows it I think. And just puts up with it for the most part.

There are times I think all this stuff needs to be put aside and just look at the horse for a minute.

Sorry, I guess I'm frustrated. Bad hair day probably.

Carry on...........


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Wow, bsms, awesome different view of a working cutting horse there - thought it was just someone sitting on a horse that was lying down at first!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Originally Posted by Smilie 
people can't even conceive training a horse without a round pen, use round pen work incorrectly, ...
Round pen work, done without understanding what you are doing, is more harmful than good, and is a great example of an idea, incorporated into a system with a label (NH ),...
"passive leadership', has the same danger of mis application, by people that want an ABC training manual


Holy cow, the world is coming to an end! I can find nothing to disagree with Smilie on that!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Go and have a little lie down Hondo - maybe a cold cloth on your forehead and a drop of something alcoholic would help?!!!!!


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Originally Posted by Smilie
> people can't even conceive training a horse without a round pen, use round pen work incorrectly, ...
> Round pen work, done without understanding what you are doing, is more harmful than good, and is a great example of an idea, incorporated into a system with a label (NH ),...
> "passive leadership', has the same danger of mis application, by people that want an ABC training manual
> ...


 Hah! My first impression of a "round pen" was, "Nice idea and could be very useful for starting colts or working with problem horses" "Round penning", makes no sense to me at all since many of us have succeeded very well without one. 

ABC training manual ? Part of the problem with newbies is it seems that many of them are expecting to be able to follow the steps without understanding the concept behind the steps. Throw a label and a few words that the person is going to get their own impression from without a full understanding of the concept and they certainly could go off in the wrong direction.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

jaydee said:


> Go and have a little lie down Hondo - maybe a cold cloth on your forehead and a drop of something alcoholic would help?!!!!!


I did better. Went and spent two days and nights one on one with Hondo and Meka, my dog. All better now.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Stirring the pot.

I ride in a lot of brush where I will sometimes have my face almost to Hondo's mane and pushing stuff to the side with one hand.

On my two day trip on one occasion of brush busting I missed a solid 3" inch limb and whacked it pretty hard with my forehead (wearing a helmet).

The instant I hit, Hondo stopped and froze before I even had time to react. Did not move a muscle until I said, "Ok buddy, let's go".

Now I have no idea if he was trained for this or if he just reacted on his own.

The tongue in cheek question is: If a person were to attempt to train this kind of reaction in a horse, would it be best to use the Alpha Label or the Passive Label when training?:hide::hide:


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Not sure you can train a horse to 'care' about its rider - it might be more about the type of horse
My one time boss' mare had a fall when I was jumping her at a show - she tripped somehow and ended up in the middle of a spread with me on the floor right by the side of her, if she's tried to get up she's have trampled me for sure but she lay there until I got up and then scrambled to her feet, shaken but unhurt. 
I've had other horses and ponies that really 'looked after' the rider but I've also had some very nice natured, well trained, talented horses that didn't


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I have posted this story before, possibly even somewhere on this thread, but since it applies to Hondo's question....

My daughter forgot to recheck her cinch when we went riding out into the Hill Country brush. My trainer was up ahead of me, then me, then her (her horse is very small and it is easier for her to keep up than the rest of us having to slow to a crawl). We were trotting when all I heard behind me was "EEEEK!" followed by a thump. Her boy is a four year old that she mostly trained herself (with a lot of guidance) from the time he had just turned two. When I turned around the saddle was hanging under his belly and my daughter was on the ground between his feet. He was flexed around looking at her as if to say "Hey! What are you doing down there? You are doing it all wrong!" He stood stock still waiting for us to fix everything and get her back on. I know a lot of four year olds that would have not only trampled their rider, but gone off into the woods bucking and kicking trying to dislodge whatever beast was clinging to their stomach.

How much of that is this pony's/horse's nature and how much of it was training. How much of it was the "bond" he has formed with my daughter for the past two years? 

Fast forward three months, she is riding him alone over to a neighbor's house and cutting through the woods. She is bareback. Less than three feet from him a doe jumps up out of the tall grass, deer runs off. Wheels start turning in the horse's head as he watches the deer run away. Three seconds later he spooks, dumps my daughter (who had relaxed before she got the horse's mind back on her). He stands there a second, looks at her, looks at the deer and then runs off himself after the deer (and straight to my neighbor's house). 

We had trained him to react to a saddle hanging on him not to move (guess we should have done it with only a rider too). We worked on that using passive methods. 

The second instance she did a couple of things wrong and because she did not act, the horse did.....that said, he did first turn to her for instruction, both before he spooked as well as after she got dumped, she just didn't provide it in a timely fashion. Now again, how much of that is nature or nurture? 

That horse is not a baby sitter by nature, if that had been me in either instance, he would have been outta there, no questions asked, Hasta La Vista! But for her, he at least looked to her for what to do next. They have formed a partnership, unique to them using a combination of methods.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I'm sure that most of the time when horses spook for a real fear related reason they expect the rider to stick like a limpet too them while they get them both out of danger!!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I think he spooked from fear, just a delayed one. That horse is a real thinking type. 

My daughter said she could see him thinking....Hello deer, oh! You surprised me! Hey why are you running? It can't be from little ol' us! That means there must be.... OMG danger! Spook........dump. Hey we gotta get outa here, you coming or what? Hurry up we gotta run! Follow me!

To hear her tell it is very funny.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I think that sort of thing is down to the horse's nature. My horse will do her best to not let a rider fall. But horses spook, and the laws of physics are what they are, so sometimes riders fall off anyway. When they do, she hits the brakes and waits for them to extricate themselves from the floor. I've come across other horses who could care less. You hit the deck, you hit the deck, and that is your problem. 

If I could train *any* horse to try to catch its rider, or reliably stop when one falls off, I'd make millions. Outwith any training I have consciously done, my horse has decided it is her job to carry the rider, and she will do her best to make sure you stay on board. 

I knew someone who was on a trail ride with their older mare, who they had for some years. They were going down a steep hill on slick footing, and the mare slipped, falling on top of her rider. Rider was injured, but mare was not. However, mare lay perfectly still for an hour or so, until another hiker came along the trail and was able to ease the rider out from under the horse and call for help. Once the rider was out of her way, the mare got to her feet without any trouble. Her decision to lie still and wait for help assuredly prevented any further injury to the rider. 

I don't think you can train that.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I agree that it depends on the horse, far as looking out for the rider
I can think of a few instances where I benefited.
First two were both with my Peppy San/bright Eyes brother mare, now thirty.
When she was about three, we still lived on our acreage. The farmer next door, left an opening to his fields, where I was welcome to ride, when crops were off
I was still working, so would rush home to put a ride on one of my young horses, esp as it was winter, thus got dark early
I was thus teaching San Stone flying changes in the snowy field next to us.
She slipped and went down. I was obviously not thinking straight, after that fall, I all I can re-calm was wondering as to which of my legs she had fallen on.
Turned out to be my right, so I thought, 'good, I can still get back on and practice some roll backs along the fence"
Next thing i knew, I was in our back yard, with my son standing out on the back deck asking me what was wrong. He yelled for my hubby to come and see, as he said, "i asked mom what is the matter, and all she says is that she can't remember'
Not until I had been in the hospital for afe hours, did I re -call having gone down with my horse.
This was a young reining bred mare, with lots of 'zip', yet she must have realized something was wrong, and took me home carefully at a walk.


Next time, a few years later, I was taking a cow down the fence and turning her, at a clinic. At that time, the arena had a duel purpose, and thus had a cement floor under that sand, which was taken in and out, depending on activity/event.
She slipped with her back end, stopping that cow, so that she wound up sitting like a dog, with me sliding off, and her teetering over me. I could not have gotten out of the way, had she fallen backwards. There was deathly slience in that arena , with the clinician and other riders holding their breath. With tremendous effort, she managed to heave herself forward. I am convinced that she made that desperate attempt, only because she did not want to fall on top on me


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I really like these comments and stories. Due to leaving the cinch a little loose, I've had to step off Hondo twice due to the saddle making it to about 2 o'clock. Hondo froze both of those times too. I think I like Hondo.

But talk about an equine protecting it owner, check this out. I think some training must have been involved but not sure what protocol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-Q9XQFm74


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I think that is what some people describe as Cowy. 

My old ghost did something similar with my neighbor’s mini. We think is eyesight isn’t what it used to be and he thought it was a calf. 

One thing is for sure that mini didn’t get within 20 feet of my daughter and myself under his watch. 

He did moves without a rider that left me standing with my mouth open, the old guy still has it when he needs it. 

Go Ghostie-boy!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I think he spooked from fear, just a delayed one. That horse is a real thinking type.
> 
> My daughter said she could see him thinking....Hello deer, oh! You surprised me! Hey why are you running? It can't be from little ol' us! That means there must be.... OMG danger! Spook........dump. Hey we gotta get outa here, you coming or what? Hurry up we gotta run! Follow me!
> 
> To hear her tell it is very funny.


I don't buy a horse worrying about getting his rider as well as himself out of danger, when he spooks and then bolts.
Nope, the horse at the point has tuned out the rider, does not trust the rider's leadership, and is just leaving, whether that rider comes along or not
Yes, horses are allowed a true fear spook, when something pops out unexpected, as that is only natural, but if that horse then tries to spin, an bolt, I have failed to gain my horse's trust and , yes', respect.

The horse might be say, 'we gotta go', but he has to trust you enough, when you answer,' nope, it is safe', and control his instinct, trusting your judgement, thus not bolting

Today, we went for a ride, taking our dog along, who can have selective hearing at times! He found a cotton tail, that ran across the path in front of us, chasing that poor rabbit, ignoring the 'quit/. He chased that rabbit right under my horse, who just tensed, but neither bucked nor tried to bolt
Having deer jump out, is very common, even elk, and every once in awhile , even came upon a grizzly bears, who all have left thus far, happy to see the last of us, as we of them. 
I do not expect my horse to try and bolt,, unless of course, that bear decided to charge, at which time, my body language would be saying anything except that everything is okay, and no danger!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

[

Cowy, is just a horse that wants to work cattle, and any aggression towards cattle is not allowed . That mule is not showing himself to being cowy, just protective 
Donkeys here are used to protect sheep from coyotes, and it is just a natural instinct for them, mush like a guard dog Makes sense that mules (half donkeys) , might have a similar ;gurad, instinct
 







[/QUOTE]


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> I don't buy a horse worrying about getting his rider as well as himself out of danger,


I think I could have predicted that. Just because your horses may not support that notion does not mean others horses DO support that notion.

Horses are different.

People are different.

Relationships between people and their horses are different.

I could never be convinced that Hondo did not react as he did because he thought I had a problem when I bumped my head. Or when he froze when the saddle slipped.

Smilie, horses DO exist beyond their instinct and behavior modification. Even the great heralded Skinner finally came to that conclusion.

Here's one for ya to shoot down. I have never ever seen a horse hanging with his buddy throw his ears back at the approach of another horse intent on joining them. And I have almost been living with this herd for about 1 1/2 years. Not that long but it has been intense.

I have, however, seen many times, as you have I'm sure, a horse throw back his ears at the approach of another horse intent on joining him and HIS human. Hondo will get downright nasty with some of them.

So explain so even I can understand. Is it instinctual to ok the approach with a buddy and also instinctual to NOT ok and approach with a human?

I cannot come up with a scenario where evolution would have formed this instinct toward humans. Can you :?: :?: :?:


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo:

Here's one for ya to shoot down. I have never ever seen a horse hanging with his buddy throw his ears back at the approach of another horse intent on joining them. And I have almost been living with this herd for about 1 1/2 years. Not that long but it has been intense.

I have, however, seen many times, as you have I'm sure, a horse throw back his ears at the approach of another horse intent on joining him and HIS human. Hondo will get downright nasty with some of them.''

Reply:

Well, you have not watched enough different herds! If you have never seen a horse threaten another horse, esp a new horse, that approaches his equine buddy, you have not watched enough horses!
Many horses will be possessive of 'their human', esp if that is the person that always feeds them, looks after them, ect. My horses know that the horse that is haltered, led to the barn, is the one that is groomed and fed some beet pulp. If allowed, the more dominant horse, tells the rest to 'bug off', that human is mine '(ie, coming to do something nice for me, and I am going to make sure my head goes into that halter! , or he feeds me that treat, or whatever.
Don't flatter yourself by reading the wrong thing into why Hondo might be possessive of you-it is not un common, esp in horses allowed to demonstrate that towards other horses.
Sure horses can rise above their instincts, once you get their trust in your leadership-that was the whole point in my post!
It is 'natural, for a horse, when he spooks, to get the hell out of there, and then observe from a safe distance if his action was justified. The horse that reacted first, then made an assessment from a safe distance, is the horse that survived, while the horse that waited, often became dinner
What we do with training, built on trust and respect, is to have that horse learn to trust our judgement, thus dampen that flight after a true scare spook, and in other words, over ride the way he is programmed by nature to react
Saddle slipping and those incidents I mentioned, are different, and the horse is protecting the rider. However, when a horse bolts, after a spook, he is purely reacting like a horse, and like he would act if no one was on his back. He certainly is not bolting to save the rider-you are just incidental in his flight.
If you reasoning made sense, far as that spook and bolt, then every green horse must be taking care of their rider, and once they become better trained, thus just spook, but neither try to spin or bolt, they must no longer be protecting that rider! Completely backwards!
The horse that spooks and bolts simply does not trust the rider, and thus reacts to look after his own skin.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> The horse might be say, 'we gotta go', but he has to trust you enough, when you answer,' nope, it is safe', and control his instinct, trusting your judgement, thus not bolting
> 
> _And if the leader is 11 years old and didn't think to reassure the horse at the time? That is why I pointed out her error.
> _
> ...



On Oliver's first off property ride we had a similar situation with a beagle flushing out Jack Rabbits, seven or so ran in front of through and behind Oliver, followed by the baying beagle and he completely ignored all of it. We had to step over a rotting deer carcass in the middle of a tight spot in the trail, after chasing off some rather ornery vultures and deer jumped out constantly on the trails, he didn't even tense....so is that proof that somehow he believes me to be a better leader than your horse does of you or perhaps that we have something extra on our relationship or maybe he is just better trained....That seems to be the point you are making but the argument can go both ways. 

My daughter made some mistakes and I said as much. She is 12 now and personally, given the numbers of offers to buy him I have had on that horse after people see them ride together, including several "professionals" who want him for their kids or grandkids. I think she is doing a bang up job training him.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Not bashing your daughter at all! Afterall, my oldest son was 13 when he started to help me train colts. I always gave him one, in exchange, and he thus showed a horse he trained himself, against youth that rode horses maintained by trainers. It is what turned him into the great horseman he is today!
No, my comment was just on the analysis as to why the horse bolted, not being altruistic!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo, try googling horses possessive of owners. Many posts out there on that.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Okay, sorry for the misinterpretation. Momma bear moment. :wink:


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo, 

The first mare I got was a brood mare who had spent the past seven years out at pasture. She had solid previous training and riding experience, but was pretty rusty. 

Rusty alpha brood mare with attitude + Me = not fun for anyone. We did nothing productive except butt heads constantly. 

My neighbor girl who was about 11 at the time and completely new to horses wanted to buy her. I watched them together for a time and agreed to sell her to them (they lined up lessons for their daughter). That mare positively melted for that girl. 

Anyway as time went on the little girl grew older and developed a seizure disorder where she would zone out and not remember a thing, she couldn’t move at all during that time. That old brood mare knew several minutes before a seizure was coming on and refused to take another step. It took some time for her parents and the trainer to put two and two together and when the mare would do that, they knew their daughter needed to get off.

A year ago the (now 16 yo) girl was leading two horses at once (not my kid, so what could I do , other than raise the question). The two horses were buddies. One of the horses spooked and knocked the girl down, she didn’t release the lead rope and the horse was still fighting to get away. That same brood mare stepped over and then stood directly over her and didn’t budge until the other horse was under control and the girl stood up. She was scraped and bruised but otherwise unhurt, it could have been much worse. 

I defiantly think it happens.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> The horse that spooks and bolts simply does not trust the rider


This I do not entirely buy and given thought I doubt that you do. There are situations where the fear of death is so drastic and sudden that no amount of trust in the rider can prevent a spook and bolt.

I get really pained when people tend to immediately default to, "Oh your horse just doesn't trust you" in so many instances.

There IS such a thing an genetically high and low fear horses.

No, I'm not flattering myself by Hondo's possessiveness. I learned this about all horses early on here at the ranch before acquiring Hondo. I was just comparing the lack of possessiveness between horses and humans as related to instinctual behavior. I would think I would have witnessed one horse being possessive of another horse by now but it could be that since all of the horses have been together for many years, except the young, that it just doesn't happen.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Hondo said:


> This I do not entirely buy and given thought I doubt that you do. There are situations where the fear of death is so drastic and sudden that no amount of trust in the rider can prevent a spook and bolt.
> 
> I get really pained when people tend to immediately default to, "Oh your horse just doesn't trust you" in so many instances.
> 
> ...


Gotta agree with Smilie on 'posessiveness.' I've seen horses claim a friend, and not allow anything else near it. Indeed, my mare is on individual turnout because she did this to such an extreme degree that she was a danger to herself and others. When she was in a herd of more than two (including herself), she would claim one horse as hers, charge any horse who came near it and was quick to use her heels; she'd double barrel the crap out of the interlocutor. If "her" horse's owners wanted to catch it, she would herd it away from them. 

This sort of thing goes down well at livery yards/boarding stables. Luckily, her aggression does not extend to people (she would just move horse away from owner, rather than other way around), nor does her possessiveness. Thank God. No one wants that.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

RCD, those kind of stories mean so much to me. There is a group of about 150 riders that make an annual 5 day ride that includes the ranch here where they spend one day resting and racing horses and rubber ducks.

In one of the conversations I had the topic of seizure dogs came up and I was told about seizure horses. And that they could predict way ahead of time with the reactions you describe.

And standing over that little girl. That is really something. There is so much more to horses than I could ever have imagined. Just because they don't think like us, doesn't mean they don't think. They do.

Here's a story I wrote up and read at a remembrance for a man that was born and died on the ranch. Written over one year ago.

It was almost eerie and one of my first introductions to horses being more than a horse.

The Day XXXXXXXXXXX Died.

When I arrived at the old ranch house to hopefully pay at least one more visit to xxxx, the horses were all standing around between the stalls and the ranch house where xxxxxxxxxxxxx lay.

This was not particularly unusual behavior for the horses and they often do just that. But today, this day, they were not engaging in the usual horse behavior of bickering around to maintain the established herd social status levels. And they were not going into each others pens in search of a pellet left behind.

They were just standing as if statues and just looking.

Hondo, the treat hound always smelling both of my hands and all pockets for the treat he knows is somewhere to be found was just standing with his nose about a foot and half from my shoulder. Asking for nothing. Just standing motionless.

I mentioned my puzzlement to xxxx, xxxx's daughter, who happened to be outside also.

Her comment: I think they have probably come to pay their respects to my dad.

Now I have a great respect for xxxx's knowledge of horses. But how could this be? Horses don't do that. Do they?

As xxxx, myself and her mother entered into the room where xxxx lay, we all looked at the North facing window. To our surprise, there was Cloud Dancer looking directly into the window at xxxx.

My puzzlement deepened. xxxx's mother along with xxxx seemed to think nothing unusual about Cloud Dancer's behavior.

Now Cloud Dancer has a long history of nurturing. She was an aunt to all new born horses until at last after a long period of never being able to have one of her own finally came proudly walking up the hill to the ranch house with Wisdom trailing behind.

xxx told me the story himself. All the horses had come in for pellets but Cloud Dancer was not to be found. All were worried util she came almost floating in a prideful strut up the hill to the house with her newborn youngster behind her.

And then there's the story about the time she repeatedly came to the front porch stamping her feet until xxxx finally followed her. There was a horse not belonging to the ranch that had been locked out of food and water and was near death. Cloud Dancer stood guard over the horse for three days until she was strong enough to fend off other horses upon her entry as a new member of the herd.

As this discussion went on about Cloud Dancer, she finally left the window. 

A few seconds later she was standing at the West facing front door staring intently at xxxx, lying in his living room bed.

Cloud Dancer finally again left only to reappear at the South facing window and looking in intently at xxxx.

When she finally left for the last time, I knew I had learned something about horses that I had never known before.

And I think I may have learned something about the man I came to visit.

Rest In Peace xxxxxxxxxxxx, The Horses Love You.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

thesilverspear said:


> Gotta agree with Smilie on 'posessiveness.'


Thanks. A good story. I'm still learning.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I/m not going to go into the zones of personnel beliefs, nor try to deny that horses grieve, can be protective in certain instances, as there have been enough accounts to verify this
Both Smilie and CHarlie, who for years spent winter turn out with Einstein, stood at the fence opposite the field where Einstein was put down, and watched the entire process, then stood there until he was buried.
My friend, who volunteers for handi capped riding, sees the exceptional horses that make allowances for those riders, that they never would for able bodied people
However, a horse that spooks and bolts, WHEN, his rider is telling him that there is no reason to do so, both with cues and body language, does not trust that rider completely.
A horse that has learned to trust his rider, to the point he realizes that he does not have to look out for the ;lions', because his leader/rider is doing so, does not question as to where he will or will not ride or lead, nor does he revert to instinct and bolt, if his leader assures him that there is no reason to do so
I think I gave the example before, of a situation where it certainly would seem to Smilie that she was being attacked by a predator, yet she shut down that attempted bolt in two strides, when I told her 'whoa'
Riding by a tarped hay stack of bales, suddenly several bales came rolling out from under that tarp, with coyote leaping out behind them. Smilie naturally gave two big jumps, esp as I myself was startled, but came back to me, when I assured her that we were not under attack-that to me shows a great relationship with a horse, and mutual trust.
One of our studs we gelded, still had the natural herd protective drive, when he was turned out with the main herd.
A new filly got in with them, jumping a fence, and the rest of the herd chased her.
That ex stud placed himself between that filly and the herd, with the fence on the other side, and protected her, until we could get her out of that flied


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Ok Smilie, couple of questions popped into my questioning mind with your post.

Why are you so certain that Smilie's reactions were based on trust? Could it be that she's just seasoned enough to quickly assess such minimal threats? And could you be to some degree flattering yourself on what you regard as her trust?

And what if a real live lion had jumped out from behind the hay bales instead of a coyote? Would her trust have prevailed?

I don't think I'd want Hondo to watch a horse being put down. I'd be afraid he'd see things he did not understand.

And on me flattering myself about Hondo's possessiveness, no flattery there because when the herd begins to move, he will abandon me without looking back or a moments hesitation


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_The horse that spooks and bolts simply does not trust the rider_"

In Mia's case, she bolted because she FORGOT her rider was there. The best way to end a bolt on her was to call her name. When an ear flicked back, the bolt ended.

On a few occasions, I ended up getting her stopped, pulling her head around, put a wrap of the reins around the horn, and dismounting during the second it took her to get straightened out. When I did that, she'd bolt forward about 50 feet, then turn and come back to me. She would then put her head against my chest and wait for me to make things better.

If she was loose, and something scared her and I was nearby, she would come to me.

So did she trust me? Yeah. A scared horse doesn't run to a person she DOESN'T trust and then stand next to them, trembling. But would she blow her mind, and totally forget I was on her? Yeah. When she remembered I was there, the bolt was over.

Single data point of one horse with one rider. But I don't think fear-based bolts have much to do with 'trusting the rider'. I think the horse gets so scared it forgets its rider and can only think of its fear. A horse doesn't bolt away from the herd because it is more conscious of the herd. One of the best preventatives to a bolt is to engage the horse's mind when it is getting tense so that it still remembers you. IMHO.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

No humans involved here, just horses. To determine the motivations sometimes it helps to remove a variable that you suspect is causal and then observe reactions.

While in the paddocks we had started a fire. The horses were eating and for whatever reason that day conditions were right that the pops of the juniper burning were echoing rather loudly off the nearby hills. I was watching Cowboy and every time there was a loud pop he would spook and run about forty yards or so before noticing that no one else had run with him and stopping. This happened over and over for more than an hour. I felt bad for him.

He does follow Oliver as the leader and does not dispute his leadership, he is relieved by it. He worships the ground Oliver walks on, sticks to him like glue at pasture, trusting in his protection and guidance. Barring human intervention, he never leaves Oliver’s side. 

He still spooks and bolts, even when Oliver doesn’t. 

Just because he accepts Oliver as his leader and trusts Ollie’s judgement does not negate the reaction to his own thoughts or instincts. There is a difference between trust and brainwashing. 

From that observation, I would say that trust in leadership does not have a grip on whether or not a horse will bolt when spooked.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Horses pick up on things like bears way before we do so I would expect a horse to get edgy in situations like that regardless of them seeing their human as a leader. I'd be as afraid if not more afraid than them. 
The one occasion when Flo rejected my leadership and refused to go through somewhere she saved us both from serious injury, sometimes you maybe should put your trust in them


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo:
'And what if a real live lion had jumped out from behind the hay bales instead of a coyote? Would her trust have prevailed?"
Answer:
You missed part of the total picture, Hondo. If a real lion jumped out, the last thing I would do, is remain calm, and tell my horse to hold her ground and that I assessed the situation and determined there was no reason to run-hell, I'd be telling her 'RUN", and not just using my voice, but my entire body!


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Indeed. I was riding through the woods and both myself and horse saw a couple loose German shepherds. The horse got a little spooky, and I spun her round and told her to run back to the barn. 

Barring situations like that, I agree that a trained horse who trusts its rider will *stop* spooking once the rider reassures it things are fine and asks it to. If the horse takes off and you can't pull it up for love nor money, that's a much bigger problem with your training than merely spooking in the first place.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

jaydee said:


> Horses pick up on things like bears way before we do so I would expect a horse to get edgy in situations like that regardless of them seeing their human as a leader. I'd be as afraid if not more afraid than them.
> The one occasion when Flo rejected my leadership and refused to go through somewhere she saved us both from serious injury, sometimes you maybe should put your trust in them


Yes, of course, if you are not sure of a situation, there is time to listen to your horse
However, i'm pretty sure deer don't attack or eat horses, nor coyotes for that matter, so if I tell my horse something is okay, because it truly is okay, I expect my horse to trust me in that judgement
I ride in bear country, so if my horse is a bit concerned, moving through willows, I take that under advisement, knowing my horse can smell a bear, and don't blindly tell him to continue on,. before I'm sure it is safe, and that just the wind is moving some willows
There is a big difference between asking your horse to trust your judgement, when you know something is not a threat, be that a deer, a mountain bike, a rock, ect, and blindly ignoring your horse's sense, when you yourself are not sure of a situation
There is also no way, even if you wanted to, to convince your horse that a charging bear, ect was nothing to flee from, as your entire body would be telling him otherwise!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Oliver is a horse, and you are a human, thus that herd dynamic does not completely apply, as I'm sure Oliver does not care if his buddy spooks or bolts, but as a rider, you should, and through training we teach them to control that bolt after a spook
Other horses don't expect another horse to act otherwise than nature programmed him to react, but we , through training do, or how else would the horse have served us so well???
Human leader and horse leader are not one and the same.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

i agree, BSMS, that a horse that truly fear bolts has simply tuned that rider out, and that is why getting that horse's attention back on you, before that bolt, is so important.
It is why, when a horse gets excited, tense, you focus on familiar exercises that get his attention back on you, and not stare at his focus of anxiety, head up, in what is 'flight mode',and a point where you have lost that 'telephone connection' with him


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Oliver is a horse, and you are a human, thus that herd dynamic does not completely apply, as I'm sure Oliver does not care if his buddy spooks or bolts, but as a rider, you should, and through training we teach them to control that bolt after a spook
> Other horses don't *expect* another horse to act otherwise than nature programmed him to react, but we , through training do, or how else would the horse have served us so well???
> Human leader and horse leader are not one and the same.


 

Discriminatory prediction of behaviors and the resultant expectation of temporal events is a processual function of the right prefrontal cortex, which according to some in past discussions here, since it is underdeveloped in the horse they are incapable of. Are horses capable of executive function or aren't they?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> "_
> If she was loose, and something scared her and I was nearby, she would come to me.
> _


_

If Hondo is with me at my compound and something concerns him he also doesn't want to get more than ten feet from me. If I go inside he goes to the fence and starts worrying.

Had not connected that with trust but makes sense.

Thanks, that make me feel good._


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

jaydee said:


> Horses pick up on things like bears way before we do so I would expect a horse to get edgy in situations like that regardless of them seeing their human as a leader. I'd be as afraid if not more afraid than them.
> The one occasion when Flo rejected my leadership and refused to go through somewhere she saved us both from serious injury, sometimes you maybe should put your trust in them


jaydee, Hondo will hear things I cannot hear and will spot things moving at a distance that I can barely see.

But there are often times where cows or deer will be standing motionless 50-100 yards away and he doesn't see them until I stop and point his head. When he finally sees them, his head comes up a little along with his body as if to say, hey look, cows.

Now I know that animals, including us, sense movement more than stationary. I guess that's why cats and lions move slow and wait.

But I've wondered at times if Hondo's vision is up to par on stationary stuff. It's just real obvious but he doesn't see them until I point his head. I do that so they don't startle him when he gets closer and they start moving as in my last spin and bolt. (my shoulder still bothers me)

So is that normal for them not to notice things that big and that close?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> i agree, BSMS, that a horse that truly fear bolts has simply tuned that rider out, and that is why getting that horse's attention back on you, before that bolt, is so important.
> It is why, when a horse gets excited, tense, you focus on familiar exercises that get his attention back on you, and not stare at his focus of anxiety, head up, in what is 'flight mode',and a point where you have lost that 'telephone connection' with him


This!! IMO is what should be explained instead of just saying one's horse just doesn't trust them.

I've been doing as described above since my last hard get off and have had hardly a spook and very little movement when there was.

I do stop him and point to a cow or deer he has not spotted until he sees it and then we move on. I want him to see it before it moves.

I just don't let too much time pass before I ask him something.

Good advice.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Discriminatory prediction of behaviors and the resultant expectation of temporal events is a processual function of the right prefrontal cortex, which according to some in past discussions here, since it is underdeveloped in the horse they are incapable of. Are horses capable of executive function or aren't they?


Okay, to put it in plainer language, as this is not a psychology class
Whether another horse flees or not, does not affect the horse 'leader', so they have no interest in dampening any flight reaction of a fellow horse, ie, no expectations in that regard.
That more reactive horse, also , has the advantage, should that fear be justified, his buddy who was slower to react, becomes dinner instead of him.
All I want in a horse, whatever psycho babble you wish to apply, is that when I, from another species, as a leader,that does care,as to whether he bolts,and when I ,unlike that fellow horse, am riding him, and tells him that something is not a threat, he learns to accept and trust my judgement, as unlike his fellow horse, that bolt, involves both of us.In other words, I have a vested interest in him learning to trust my judgement. He can react an dbolt out in the pasture all he wants, but hopefully not running through a fence
Food aggressive horses , that act aggressive towards people, as well as towards other horses at feeding time, can, and do learn that you are not another horse intent on his meal
You can be a leader with different expectations than another horse, and ahorse can learn those expectations


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> jaydee, Hondo will hear things I cannot hear and will spot things moving at a distance that I can barely see.
> 
> But there are often times where cows or deer will be standing motionless 50-100 yards away and he doesn't see them until I stop and point his head. When he finally sees them, his head comes up a little along with his body as if to say, hey look, cows.
> 
> ...


A horse's vision is different than ours

'

​A 1992 study showed that horse vision is not as sharp as human sight. If good human vision is 20/20, a horse rates as 20/60. This means that details a person with 20/20 vision can see at 60m are only visible to a horse at 20m. The findings were obtained by measuring brain activity when horses saw different sets of lines on a television screen.'

From this link:

The Horse Forum - Reply to Topic


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

*Visual field*

 


The range of a horse's monocular vision, blind spots are in shaded areas


 


A horse can use binocular vision to focus on distant objects by raising its head.


 


A horse with the head held vertically will have binocular focus on objects near its feet.[9]


Like most prey animals, the horse's eyes are set on the sides of its head, allowing it close to a 350° range of monocular vision.[10] Horses have the largest eyes of any land mammal,[11] and are lateral-eyed, meaning their eyes are positioned on the sides of their heads.[12] This means horses have a range of vision of about 350°, with approximately 65° of this being binocular vision and the remaining 285° monocular vision.[11]
This provides a horse with the best chance to spot predators. The horse's wide range of monocular vision has two "blind spots," or areas where the animal cannot see: in front of the face (making a cone that comes to a point at about 3–4 ft in front of the horse) and right behind its head, which extends over the back and behind the tail when standing with the head facing straight forward. Therefore, as a horse jumps an obstacle, it briefly disappears from sight right before the horse takes off.
The wide range of monocular vision has a trade-off: The placement of the horse's eyes decreases the possible range of binocular vision to around 65° on a horizontal plane, occurring in a triangular shape primarily in front of the horse's face. Therefore, the horse has a smaller field of depth perception than a human.[13] The horse uses its binocular vision by looking straight at an object, raising its head when it looks at a distant predator or focuses on an obstacle to jump. To use binocular vision on a closer object near the ground, such as a snake or threat to its feet, the horse drops its nose and looks downward with its neck somewhat arched.
A horse will raise or lower its head to increase its range of binocular vision. A horse's visual field is lowered when it is asked to go "on the bit" with the head held perpendicular to the ground. This makes the horse's binocular vision focus less on distant objects and more on the immediate ground in front of the horse, suitable for arena distances, but less adaptive to a cross-country setting. Riders who ride with their horses "deep", "behind the vertical", or in a rollkur frame decrease the range of the horse's distance vision even more, focusing only a few feet ahead of the front feet. Riders of jumpers take their horses' use of distance vision into consideration, allowing their horses to raise their heads a few strides before a jump, so the animals are able to assess the jumps and the proper take-off spots.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_vision#cite_note-14
From this wikipedia link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_vision#cite_note-14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_vision


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

In plain English, there are certain levels of cognition and if an animal can perform one thing on the level, barring an obvious deficit, they can most often preform others on that same plane of cognition. 

You therefore can’t for instance, claim that a horse *cannot* reason that there is a difference between the way a human shows affection and a horse shows affection and recognize it as an expression of affection, but then say on the other hand, that they *are capable* of reasoning that bolting with the herd, but not with a human is acceptable. They require the same levels of cognitive abilities. 

If anything, a horse’s brain physiology would be more adept at differentiating types of affection, since it is body language and contact, which we know horses are masters of perceiving, than they would be of discriminating what behaviors are allowed or disallowed based upon the species involved. 

In another instance, grief; you cannot logically claim that a horse is capable of feeling and expressing grief, but not love. They are both on the same cognitive plane of processing capabilities.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...But I've wondered at times if Hondo's vision is up to par on stationary stuff. It's just real obvious but he doesn't see them until I point his head....So is that normal for them not to notice things that big and that close?


Yes. Here is a critical thing to know about a horse's vision (wiki):

"_The horse also has a "visual streak", or an area within the retina, linear in shape, with a high concentration of ganglion cells (up to 6100 cells/mm sq in the visual streak compared to the 150 and 200 cells/mm2 in the peripheral area). Horses have better acuity when the objects they are looking at fall in this region. They therefore will tilt or raise their heads, to help place the objects within the area of the visual streak._"

Thus a horse has vision which extends almost all the way around him that is good at detecting motion, but it pretty poor vision. However, a narrow strip of the eye allows it to see almost as well as a human - but they have to move their head and put the thing in that field - kind of like I need to do with bifocals.

A horse can be startled when something suddenly appears in the area of good focus. I've had Mia and Bandit startle at a stationary human when they get close enough to have the human "appear" in their area of good vision. It is also why it is important (IMHO) to let horses move their heads - if you do not, then it is like putting blinders on them.

Combine that with their limited binocular vision, and you have an animal who can see poorly almost everywhere, and see quite well in a small sweet spot (one of my books estimates that area of vision is 50-100 times better). I suspect the horse's brain would be overloaded with images if it saw as well as we do over 360 degrees. But this sort of two-stage vision allows a minimal amount of processing power to detect movement almost everywhere, and also see things very clearly if needed - *provided they can move their heads as needed*.

If I see something that I think might surprise the horse off ahead, I often use the reins to tip their head in that direction. That way they are not caught by surprise when we are close enough for them to think it is a threat. If they see it at a greater distance, and we go forward a few steps while they watch it, they can figure out it is no threat and stop worrying. And since I'm the one pointing it out to them, they seem to understand I know about it and don't care. That also helps them to relax.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Yep, I figured out the tipping the head thing but did not connect it with the binocular vision. And I will no longer try to discourage Hondo from swinging his head checking out the area.

Smilie, the link on the 20/60 vision study just takes me back to my post. If you still have the link I'd like to read the study.

I knew their eyesight was less than ours but did not know it was that bad.

It does make sense what bsms said about 20/20 for both eyes all the time overloading the horses processing center. We have a filter for our intake that a horse does not have.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> In plain English, there are certain levels of cognition and if an animal can perform one thing on the level, barring an obvious deficit, they can most often preform others on that same plane of cognition.
> 
> You therefore can’t for instance, claim that a horse *cannot* reason that there is a difference between the way a human shows affection and a horse shows affection and recognize it as an expression of affection, but then say on the other hand, that they *are capable* of reasoning that bolting with the herd, but not with a human is acceptable. They require the same levels of cognitive abilities.
> 
> ...


RCD, I have wondered at times if this kind of thinking threatens the slave/master relationship some have with their horses. Even though that slave/master relationship may be a of a loving benefactor it is still slave/master and the thought of re-arranging that relationship could be stressful, challenging, and threatening.

I think sometimes there is some self esteem based on the fact that humans are so superior (in some areas) compared to non-human animals. And self esteem is a closely guarded possession that is tenaciously defended and preserved. At least it seems so to me.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Hondo, 
Yes I do believe we (as a species) are very protective of our superiority, but I think it is more than that. Think about what it would mean if some animals at some level were capable of the same categories of emotions as humans; Abandonment, Love, Grief, Hate…….and then look at how we treat them as a matter of course. It would make us so cruel as to be monsters. 

It is far easier to accept that they are incapable of those things and to go about things as we always have, secure in the knowledge that we are good, decent, benevolent beings.

That said, without speech, proving that an animal is either capable or incapable of certain types of cognition is nearly impossible and it comes down to observations, usually of the personal variety (laboratory settings in and of themselves are often a confounding factor as they relate to altering behaviors) as anecdotal evidence. Think about how difficult it is to get humans to relay their feelings despite our mental capabilities and our ability to speak and you can see the problem.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

RCD, yes, I was thinking those things also and agree. How could some treat animals as they do under those circumstances.

There is some very interesting stuff about a parrot learning to spell without being taught. It was frustrated waiting for a nut and spelled it out seemingly for emphasis.

Pg. 281-282, paperback, Animals in Translation


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> In plain English, there are certain levels of cognition and if an animal can perform one thing on the level, barring an obvious deficit, they can most often preform others on that same plane of cognition.
> 
> You therefore can’t for instance, claim that a horse *cannot* reason that there is a difference between the way a human shows affection and a horse shows affection and recognize it as an expression of affection, but then say on the other hand, that they *are capable* of reasoning that bolting with the herd, but not with a human is acceptable. They require the same levels of cognitive abilities.
> 
> ...


I guess I am still not making myself clear!

I do not expect the horse to be born, knowing it is okay to bolt when he is in with other horses, just following his instincts, but not okay when he is with me, esp when I am on his back, thus have a vested interest in that bolt!
THat is why we train horses . Horses also aren't born to accept predators , or anything for that matter, on their back, yet we teach them to do so
You would consider it perfectly okay for your horse to buck, bolt, what ever, if a cougar jumped on his back, and still expect him to modify that instinctive behavior when you ride him, through training
Flight capability is very strong in horses, thus it is very un natural for them to accept having that ability taken away from them, yet we teach them to tie

Why then is it so hard to understand, just like a horse learns to trust that it is okay to have you on his back, he then cannot also learn through training, that when you are on his back, and tell him that there is no reason to bolt, he then will also trust your judgement in that situation, contrary to his innate nature of self preservation through flight?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hondo said:


> jaydee, Hondo will hear things I cannot hear and will spot things moving at a distance that I can barely see.
> 
> But there are often times where cows or deer will be standing motionless 50-100 yards away and he doesn't see them until I stop and point his head. When he finally sees them, his head comes up a little along with his body as if to say, hey look, cows.
> 
> ...


 Horses spook in different ways (and that's not bringing in the imaginary monster that they try to use to get out of working or the tense over fresh horse that uses any excuse to explode) 
There's the 'Oh what's that' spook which is usually just a jump on the spot or even the stand still and have a good look at it' thing
And then there's the OMG we need to get out of here or we'll die' spook that's more rooted in panic and often results in a bolt situation
My horses aren't afraid of deer because they see them all the time, they know what deer smell like so they don't get nervy when they scent them on the trails but if one suddenly leaps out in front of them their split second self preservation kicks in before logical thought does and they will usually spook - they aren't quad bikes, rocking horses or robotic. That's when rider instinct also has to kick in fast so you take control quickly and effectively
In the UK we rode a lot on busy roads and our horses wouldn't give passing trucks a second glance, or the usual rural things like cattle, silage bales, dogs etc but that's not to say that they wouldn't jump if a tiny bird flew out of the hedge under their feet.
I have had ponies and horses that rarely flinched at anything - but to be honest that had more to do with their temperament than training


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I guess I am also not making myself clear. 

You attribute that to trust. Trust has nothing to do with that. You are rewiring a biological behavioral response with behavior modification. It has nothing to do with leadership or respect or trust.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Okay, Reinin, then the same applies to allowing a 'predator' on a horse's back, and in fact, nothing we then do with a horse is based on trust

Sorry, but I like to think that when you get a horse not to spook and try to bolt, when you know that object in question, is harmless, is not based on just training, but an element of trust, built over time
If you just wish to believe a horse cannot learn to trust a rider, that is your prerogative . A life time with horse, having a horse work for me, as he would not for another rider, esp in a difficult situation, you will have to leave me the illusion that the horse has learned through repetition, time and consistency,, to trust my judgement, and yes, leadership
I certainly did not get that trust through fear or harsh methods.
When all is said and done, and my horse has a true fear spook, yet does not try to 'leave the country', to be honest, I don't really care about any theory behind it, as you don't ride theories!
Jaydee repeated the different reasons that horses spook, as we have gone over before, in various posts, and that was also illustrated very well in that Larry Trocha video
Bottom line, various types of spooks can be eliminated, through training and exposure. The spook that one cannot expect a horse notto react to, is that sudden unexpected popping out of some animal . I don't know about you, but for me it is very important that while that spook is going to happen, one can certainly train a horse not to follow that spook up with a bolt or spin or buck
For me, that is built both through the horse trusting your judgement and through training.
Show a horse enough times that there is no reason to try and flee, if you assure him that is so, and at the same time, don't lie to him, and he does learn to trust your judgement. There is a fine combo at work there, and it is not just re programming
I am not about to make 'trust' in relationship to horses, another dirty word.
That trust also goes both ways. Once I trust a horse, I will give him a total slack rein, going over some very tricky trails. At first, when I ride a green horse on some of these trails, I never give them that complete loose rein, that I can't quickly take contact on, just because a green horse tends to drop on foot every so often over the edge of a steep trail, so it is the experience of the horse I don't trust. As that horse learns to watch his feet carefully, i trust him more, and show that trust with that loose rein. So, I guess there is the component of the horse being programmed to negotiate that type of trail, getting sure footed, and I in turn 'trusting him totally, when a fall could mean serious injury or death.
Thus, analyze all you want, but when it comes to where it counts, all that means nothing
Who cares, when a horse bolts and runs with you through a barbwire fence, whether he was just being a horse, taking executive instinctive reaction, or stopped that bolt out of training or trust? The end result, far as that barbwire fence is the same, and the horse did not run through it to either same himself or the both of you. He ran through it due to blind flight, and no leader on board.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

How do you train a horse?

Stimulus-response; Response –punishment/reward.

What we do in “training” a horse interferes with the natural response and changes it. 

It can be successfully done with any horse, whether it “trusts” you or not with the use of punishment and reward. That is why sending a horse off to a perfect stranger for training works.

What is your response when a horse of yours balks at something out on the trail?

If your response is to kick harder, hit with the ends of the reins or a crop and generally through physical coercion gain compliance, then the next time the horse walks through the balk it isn’t because they trust you, it is because they don’t want to get kicked and hit with the reins! 

We humans do like to fool ourselves. Behavior modification does have its uses, but recognize it for what it is.

If on the other hand, you give the horse a moment to collect itself mentally before asking again, perhaps even investigate the object and gain knowledge of its environment or even get off and ask the horse to voluntarily follow you past the ******, what you are doing is teaching the horse that they can trust both you and the environment, that encountering the unknown does not always result in a negative consequence. We get so caught up in the idea that somehow responding as such is allowing the horse to “win” some battle of our own making. 

The latter method is what I prefer to use with my own horses, so I hardly dismiss building trust. However I do see the former method being advocated most often.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Being a confident experienced rider is more effective than relying on trust
We used to buy horses and ponies from sales and have to ride them the same day to 'test' them so they could go back under the warranty if they failed, there was no time to establish a bond or trust.
Horses are pretty good at picking up what sort of a person they've got handling or riding them and will usually respond accordingly


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reinin, you really don't get body control, do you?
Know, i don't kick harder, i put body control and forward on my horse. Horses are creatures of habit.
So, if you allow them to just stop and stare and balk, guess what. You are 'training the horse that they can do so. 
I don't have to kick my horses harder. I let them know with body language, that whatever is up setting them is no big deal, and Yup, they trust that judgement, and continue forward with only a slight hesitation
I did not get that by kicking or beating them, sorry to tell you!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

jaydee said:


> Horses are pretty good at picking up what sort of a person they've got handling or riding them and will usually respond accordingly


Hee hee, newbie that I am, I declare that as a major UNDERSTATEMENT!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Just to muddy the water a little, I would say Hondo trusts me completely. I am predictable, he now spends nights with me without the worry he once had.

Howsomever, I do not declare that he trusts my JUDGEMENT quite as much as he trusts me as an individual. He will readily let me know if he thinks my judgement is wrong and he is depressingly frequently right.

Until I'm much more experienced I do NOT want Hondo to have blind trust in my JUDGEMENT. Just trust in me.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Smile, 

I used two examples for demonstrative purposes since you seem to prefer things in plain English and used "you" in both. No where did I say that you beat your horse. Yet again, that was your leap. 

If the horses are being trained to stare and balk, then why don't my horses do that and instead are incredibly the least likely on the trail to do so? Instead they calmly walk through anything. Oliver had his first spook last week after a year of several rides out a week and has balked precisely twice. Once with very good reason. 

So nope, from my experiences, not going for it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_So, if you allow them to just stop and stare and balk, guess what. You are 'training the horse that they can do so_."

When Bandit does it, his head comes WAY up and his back gets incredibly tense. I seriously doubt he finds it 'fun". I don't think he feels like he is getting away with anything. My theory is that horses do not enjoy being afraid. And since Bandit is balking a lot less with time, I figure it is working.

That is where reading the horse is important. A balk because "I don't feel like it" is completely different in feel, and is unacceptable to me. A balk because "I don't want to die!" is something very different, and I need to convince him he is not going to die.

If I can't tell the difference between "But I want to turn right and go home" and "I don't want to die", then I have no business being out on a trail - or neighborhood road, since Bandit is more likely to be scared in a neighborhood than in the desert.

Bandit and Mia also had a third setting: "I'm concerned". They are not disobeying, and they are not scared, but...something concerns them. That can be a groundless concern or a swarm of bees, but they want my help to figure out what to do. Since a horse has better senses of smell and hearing than I do, I want them to tell me if they are concerned.

A horse can go forward because he figures you know it is safe and that is good enough for him, or because the punishment you have trained him will follow 'scares' him more than the thing ahead. Both will work. The second gets faster results. It can also result in a horse who trusts its rider. But if I'm going to own a horse and ride him for 5-25 years, then the first method makes for a more enjoyable relationship and ride. After all, I can go jogging or buy a dirt bike if all I care about is getting from point A to point B!

I've ridden a lesson horse who would not go faster than a walk for anyone - including the instructor - unless you hit him hard with a crop at least once. After one hard whack, all you needed to do was hold the crop and 'kiss'.

My horses accelerate at a 'kiss' sound. I don't carry a crop. I know which I prefer...but either will work.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

BSMS,
About two years ago I rode in a trainer’s clinic run by a trainer you would know. He was riding a horse for someone else in the clinic. The horse was having big problems earlier with the speakers set up just outside the arena rails. 

Coming off lunch break, he took the horse over, stood there and let the horse thoroughly check it out and then they mounted up and moved on, the horse did not feel the need to stop at every other speaker once it had experienced one of them. The horse had no further problems with the speakers. 

I highly doubt that if his experience with allowing a horse to stop and check stuff out had the negative consequences many attribute to it, this person would continue the practice.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

'Body control' from the saddle is one of those 'phrases' trotted out that very often can't be explained in real terms


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> BSMS,
> About two years ago I rode in a trainer’s clinic run by a trainer you would know. He was riding a horse for someone else in the clinic. The horse was having big problems earlier with the speakers set up just outside the arena rails.
> 
> Coming off lunch break, he took the horse over, stood there and let the horse thoroughly check it out and then they mounted up and moved on, the horse did not feel the need to stop at every other speaker once it had experienced one of them. The horse had no further problems with the speakers.
> ...


Looby had an 'OMG what's that' moment when she went in her paddock this morning and noticed that the old dead tree had gone and in its place was a neatly stacked pile of sawn logs. 
Obviously the work of some scary magical force that might do the same to her
She trotted off snorting with her tail in the air to get as far away as she could but when I looked at her an hour later she was grazing right next to them having figured out for herself that it was nothing to worry about


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Smile,
> 
> I used two examples for demonstrative purposes since you seem to prefer things in plain English and used "you" in both. No where did I say that you beat your horse. Yet again, that was your leap.
> 
> ...


Well, if you truly believe, allowing a horse to stop and stare, is the correct response in all situations, you have not ridden rough enough trails!
Say you ride through some dense brush, and suddenly you come to a clearing with several elk, and your horse just stops and stares, head up, body stiff, and then an elk makes a sudden move, chances are he will continue in flight mode, as that is what a head up and staring is.
Climb a steep trail, with a drop off on one side, and a boulder sitting on the other side, dense trees directly behind it. You are an accident waiting to happen, if you let your horse stall out, and stare. Should he try to spin,-good bye, see you later!
It is not possible to get a horse up to each obstacle, nor even safe, so he can check it out,
Cheri certainly knows the importance of forward, and I;m pretty sure, has ridden way more horses on trails than most here
My horses don't spook, unless there is a really good reason, and even then, don't offer to bolt. I ride trails you will never see recreational riders on,m so I do think I know what makes a safe trail horse.
I have not ridden one, two, three, five horses on trails, but dozens over the years, most raised and trained by myself
So, I;m not buying allowing a horse to stop and stare or investigate every object he sees, because he does not trust my judgement.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

And where did I say that is the correct response in all situations?

Have I not said and pointed out on multiple occasions on this thread that I believe in using a variety of training approaches?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Do you show in trail classes, Reinin?
Have your horse stop and stare, stalling out, gets you disqualified. Some trail; class designers love to add stuff that can challenge a horse.
Far as if a horse sees one speaker, or whatever, he will associate all speakers with being harmless, after checking that first one out, not so
I rode Smilie in a big two year old futurity in the fall of her two year old year
Every day, new big banners of sponsors were placed on those walls, and I had to warm her up, getting her to relax going by the different ones, every day in that three day futurity. Not only do they need to go by them, but in a relaxed fashion and on a loose rein


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> And where did I say that is the correct response in all situations?
> 
> Have I not said and pointed out on multiple occasions on this thread that I believe in using a variety of training approaches?


And, where did I say that you always pushed a horse past something? I did say that when a horse stops and stares, he has tuned you out, attention wise, so you do exercises to get his attention back on you. It is movement, even if not directly past.
Sorry, if I did not read all of your posts, but if you read all of mine, I also mentioned that you deal with spooks by first recognizing the type of spook you are dealing with, and then using an approach, geared by that


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Again, you take things as a personal smite instead of as demonstrative examples Smile and no, I intentionally choose NOT to show anymore, no need to. 

I don't compete in skating anymore either, even though I trained for the Olympics at one point. Somewhere along the way you grow up and realize that you enjoy doing something for its own sake and that is enough.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I find my horses are capable of staring at something WITH me. In fact, I'm not above pointing things out to them. Then WE look for 5 seconds (often stationary), and then WE move on, knowing that BOTH of us know what is there. I found/find both Mia and Bandit are calmer when WE have looked at something together.

I just wrote this on another thread, but I'll toss it out here as well:



bsms said:


> ...I'm not sure that equates to spooky. Cowboy is observant. He'll even run away from an angry human or an angry horse...but not much else. I think being born wild and living some amount of time as a wild horse taught him to assess before moving, and to move as little as possible and then assess some more. He can become quite agitated. That is one of the reasons no one wanted him - a 13.0 horse who was too much trouble. He objects to pain. He resents hard treatment. He can be competitive. But he doesn't 'spook' much. After all, a horse who races mindlessly in the wild dies. Generally speaking, no horse bolts away from the herd. And wild horses don't run endlessly "just because".
> 
> From my very limited experience, I have two strong preferences in horses: an Arabian mare or a mustang gelding. The Arabian mare may be a pain on a trail ride, but she'll give you everything she has if you are good to her. The mustang gelding may tell you to go to hell, but he'll have a reason and thinks things through on the trail. Bandit is half & half.
> 
> But he has also been out with a herd, roaming on square miles of land. He does get nervous about stuff, but he's never lost his mind with fear. He wants to be a safe distance from something scary and he may push hard to get that distance - but it is NOT mindless fear like Mia had. I think the total melt-down kind of fear comes from bad raising, and I think most modern horses are raised wrong. Letting a horse spend its first 5 years roaming in a herd would be my prescription for getting a sane & sound horse. I think it would at least lay a good foundation for a human to refine...


----------



## SueC (Feb 22, 2014)

Hondo said:


> Just to muddy the water a little, I would say Hondo trusts me completely. I am predictable, he now spends nights with me without the worry he once had.
> 
> Howsomever, I do not declare that he trusts my JUDGEMENT quite as much as he trusts me as an individual. He will readily let me know if he thinks my judgement is wrong and he is depressingly frequently right.
> 
> Until I'm much more experienced I do NOT want Hondo to have blind trust in my JUDGEMENT. Just trust in me.


This is a super point, Hondo! And personally, I think the best possible situation is when the horse and rider become a kind of composite organism where the judgement of both is working for the team. My horses have got me out of some sticky situations and I them. How exactly that's weighted when you're working in tandem I can't explain, but it's like you're mutually aware of each other's mind, and then one of you comes to the point where they say, "I think your idea is better!" and goes with it, and I've not found that the team decision has ever fallen on the wrong side. Situations where horse and I were both independently wrong yes (and we rolled into a ditch and had an "oops" moment, for example), many situations where the horse and I were just unanimous and there was smooth sailing, but in a difficult situation I love the feeling of being in a kind of "superorganism" with synergistic senses and abilities, and being able to draw on the strengths of my inter-species partner and being able to offer my strengths to it. It's one of the best and most humbling feelings on this planet, to go beyond your own limitations as a particular kind of organism because another kind of animal is letting you share their world, and enlarging it in the process. 

At which point, a big thank you to Dame du Buisson, the wonderful French Trotter mare who took me under her wing and taught me how this could work when I was only ten, and to my late Arabian mare who continued in this vein with me for over thirty years, and the other lovely horses who contributed as well, and to the French mare's great-grandson who is with me now and also happy to do exactly that for me, and I for him. Love love love! 

And as bsms's wise young family member so rightly said, _Horses don't talk because people don't listen._ (not sure I got that verbatim but that was the message anyroad...)


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Sure, horses talk all the time, many people just don't understand their language.
Not only do they fail to understand the' positive comments ', the horse gives you, but also fail to recognize the ' screw you'

When all is said and done, I truly think my horses work for me, through trust that I have earned, and that trust becomes a two way street.
I already stated that I listen to my horse, if I myself am not sure of a situation, or give him his head, if I am lost. That is way different than a horse deciding he will not go in a certain direction, nor not trusting me that some object is safe, when I know it is.
Every time a horse sticks his head in a halter, he is trusting you


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> When all is said and done, I truly think my horses work for me, through trust that I have earned, and that trust becomes a two way street.


I don't think anybody questions or challenges that. I think the challenge is that their horse can do the same without necessarily copying or adhering to your particular methods.

And the person that has trained the most horses and ridden the most miles do not necessarily have the best answers for all to follow under all circumstances.

I'm sure there are people in this world that have ridden more miles and trained more horses than you but using cruel methods that you would abhor. But they will tell you they are right and you are wrong.

Just because you've been successful at what you have done, and I believe you have been successful, it does not necessarily follow that you are correct in every instance or that other methods can work as well or better in a particular horse/human team.

And as one poster pointed out, some of his horses can look, others better not for long. The old refrain, it just depends, all horses are different.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I spent a lot of my childhood shadowing a cousin of my Grandfathers who'd worked with horses all his life and was excellent at his job. In his retirement he decided he needed something that would be 'easier on his arthritic joints' so would buy groups of feral New Forest ponies from the round up sales, break them and school them (he was tiny man) and sell them to local children. He would have those ponies riding out with us kids on them under all conditions in 3 to 6 months max. they never spooked, never bucked, reared or bolted
He never once attributed their success to his own ability, he always said they were just wonderful examples of what a good child's pony should be, they were born with that temperament and a decent trainer could then build on it
As I've grown up I've seen many 'trainers' credit themselves for doing a wonderful job when in fact all they've done is had horses that were bred to be solid and safe and unflappable.
Most of them would be dismal failures if they had to train a horse that had a bit of attitude.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Sue C has made an important point. The "team" is still made up of one person and one horse that are individuals plus every situation is different. My TB mare is rarely bothered by anything on the trail. On the rare occasion that I have felt her tense up I have just ridden a little "stronger", but not so strong that she wouldn't be able to stop and figure something out if she needed to. She's a thinker and flight would be her last resort. The QH mare that I worked with last year was a spin bolter. Didn't want to think about anything just put some distance between herself and anything suspicious. She had to be forced to stand still and face what spooked her. She had a brain and could use it once she realized that flight was not an option. I tend to remain calm in spook situations but other than that I don't know how much confidence in me came into play with either horse. I think my mare appreciates me letting her handle things and I think the QH mare developed confidence in herself that led to her improvement


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

You desensitize a horse by letting it face its demons, exposing it to scary things so it learns in quiet unreactive way to deal with stuff. Once a horse learns self control its a lot easier to keep it calm under pressure out on the trails
You get a horse 'traffic proofed' by getting it used to seeing traffic, having them graze on a roadside field, standing holding them at a safe distance while traffic goes up and down then riding them on the quieter roads alongside a horse that's already traffic proofed
Its all a gradual process, throwing a horse 'in at the deep end' is almost sure to end badly
We were at a jumping show on Saturday and a lot of the horses that went in the ring were having a little spook at the flower displays but they still went over fences that were higher than their own backs with no argument even if they would have 'failed' in a trail riding competition!!!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

there you go, Jaydee, us that raised our own horses, can breed for minds as well as other attributes, and train them in such a way that they never learn bad habits in the first place. Not saying i never raised horses with some attitude, that were difficult to train, as breeding also is a learning curve.
When I started out, I bred to those heavily advertised halter horses, to get a' pretty riding horse. A few worked, but I also got one stallion, with lots of talent, as his mom was running bred, while he was Crimson War bred on top-a line of horses known to be difficult
If I rode the snot out of that stud, he could win from trail to reining, HUS and western pleasure . If he was taken into a reining class, fairly fresh, with that class being first in the morning, or a trail class, he could act like he never saw a trail course, or judges sitting along the rail to score a reining class
Out on the trail he was an idiot, trying to leap a small river, landing in the middle and starting to buck. He won National trail stake, won three year old performance at the Alberta horse Improvement program, but I still gelded him after one foal crop. His foals were also hot.
Not just hot, 'but no brains home' at moments
So yes, I certainly agree that mind and ability counting whole lot, but using a horse bred for the job. While I did buy a few horses, including that spoiled running App mare, and got them ridden, I did learn to breed for minds, as I was selling horses for youth and non pros and family horses
I agree that there is more than one way to train a horse, so will just leave by paraphrasing a bit what Al Dunning once said, giving a clinic.
he was explaining a training principle, and said, 'this is not the only way to teach it, it is just the way I do it, and has worked really well for me' I believe Larry Trocha said something very similar, in his video on teaching the stop
I left a lot of my views without being specifically spelled out, far as tailoring a program, based on the horse you are working with. Certainly a scared timid horse needs a different approach that a spoiled pushy horse, a sensitive horse, different approach from a duller horse, and then there is also expectations.
Many people like a horse very light and responsive, while others are happy with a horse that is basically a good solid packer, and some a horse in between

Rider expectations have an equal approach , far as training.
I know what I want in a horse, and it has taken me many years to narrow that down, as I made compromises in the past that I would not make now
In fact, when I was young, I loved riding a horse with a bit of attitude, problem, ect, and would offer to get on those horses, proving I could ride those horses. I am way past needing or wanting to do that
Never once did I not credit Einstein, my gelding I had to put down, with an exceptional mind, and I only polished what was there. How many three year olds can you just ride in the round open once or twice, then ride them in the open fields, and while on chemo?It was certainly not because he was dull dead plug!
That horse won the hi performance jr horse buckle, all three years on our regional ApHC circuit. I rode countless trail miles on him, ponied other horses off of him., did demos at Spruce Meadows,and he certainly made me a believer, that if you really get that connection with a horse, they do learn to trust your judgement. I never used any harsh methods on him, yet, he charged a bull moose when I asked him, let me guide him back up current, going over huge boulders, when we strayed from the crossing, versus trying to scramble up a bank,alerted me to a grizzly bear, by just stopping and starting, versus trying to bolt, waiting for me to ask him what to do. The bear ran off, and I then asked Einstein just to continue on, crossing where that bear had been. No crop, no spurs, just the cue to walk on.
That, I;m sorry is trust and not just re -programing.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

jaydee said:


> I spent a lot of my childhood shadowing a cousin of my Grandfathers who'd worked with horses all his life and was excellent at his job. In his retirement he decided he needed something that would be 'easier on his arthritic joints' so would buy groups of feral New Forest ponies from the round up sales, break them and school them (he was tiny man) and sell them to local children. He would have those ponies riding out with us kids on them under all conditions in 3 to 6 months max. they never spooked, never bucked, reared or bolted
> He never once attributed their success to his own ability, he always said they were just wonderful examples of what a good child's pony should be, they were born with that temperament and a decent trainer could then build on it
> As I've grown up I've seen many 'trainers' credit themselves for doing a wonderful job when in fact all they've done is had horses that were bred to be solid and safe and unflappable.
> Most of them would be dismal failures if they had to train a horse that had a bit of attitude.


Sounds like Tom Dorrance or Mark Rashid's "Old Man".

Did you get to observe his training enough to sort of "characterize" what he did? Lucky you for being able to be around him. Sounds like an humble man.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Jaydee, again, yes, there are different spooks and different ways to deal with them
I ride down the road all the time, and have taken horses where there are huge logging trucks, something they have never seen before, and they were fine, never having had those logging trucks pass them
I don't graze horse along roads to get them used to traffic, but I will have the horse at first face any vehicle coming up behind them, ask for their face, and counterflex them, so should they spook, only direction they can go in, is into the ditch
I have also ridden horses in parades, where they see marching bands for the first time, plus all those floats, people etc.
There are times it is okay to let a horse face something and just look, but there are also times it is not okay, and one cannot expose a horse to everything he might encounter, and then, yes, you need trust and body control, plus forward.
Try riding down a road, early spring, beside a field young cattle have just been turned out in, on a horse that does not live with cattle, as we don't raise any
Those young cattle come leaping and bucking up to the fence, just curious about that horse. The horse really does not compute that the fence will stop them, and if you just let that horse stand there and stare, good luck, if he does not try to spin and bolt!
While standing there, letting a horse get 'used' to something, might be okay in many cases, it is not applicable in all cases


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hondo - he was still around when I was in my late teens and one of the people I was fortunate to have around me when I had problems so I did retain a lot of knowledge from him. I still use his methods when breaking horses and they've never failed me.
Smilie - horses are able to 'trust' in some people and it does help their confidence but the bravest horses I've ever had were 'born brave'. It's what makes some horses and ponies such wonderful schoolmasters for beginners and nervous riders, they always go where you point them and wouldn't dream of spooking or challenging their rider even when that rider is rigid with fear. Horses like that are born that way not made that way by humans


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

i agree with you on that point, Jaydee (about the being brave )
Charlie was not born brave, even though she is a half sister to Einstein (same dam )
She has been a lot more work to have her be anywhere near what Einstein was.
Like him, she has natural very good movement, but it has taken a lot of time for me to make her anywhere as steady as Einstein ever was, teaching her to control her spooks, and to focus. She is a very hard horse to get shown, being very 'looky'
I never even knew what I had, when I trained Einstein. I was just starting to ride all around horses/western pl. He just naturally drove up from behind, never tired to lope off out of just trotting faster, took very little to have him move collected , and do perfect flying changes on the straight. Everyone was so amazed, that a 16.3hh horse could move like that, and I had a professional trainer, ask me how I started Einstein, when I put him into western riding, at the last moment, in jr horse class, using a bosal, and he won that class, having never been shown in it before. He aced those flying changes at those markers
Hondo, I can understand the love and connection that you have with horse Hondo. While I have had a great partnership with many horses, over the years, none will ever come close to what I had with Einstein, and why he lays buried here, with his resting place marked by rock slabs we bring back everytime we pass that mountain on our hauling, where those slabs abound
I am blessed to have had that one great horse above all others in my life, even though I have loved many horses, he keeps a place in my heart that no other horse, even Smilie, will ever enter
As a final tribute to Einstein, real name 'Cody Chrome', even my husband, who is not a horse person, insisted also that Einstein be buried here, and shed tears along with me, when Einstein was sent to that proverbial greener pasture. Oh, how I wish that pasture exists!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Al Dunning once said, giving a clinic, he was explaining a training principle, and said, 'this is not the only way to teach it, it is just the way I do it, and has worked really well for me' I believe Larry Trocha said something very similar, in his video on teaching the stop


A good position for all to take.

I know that Trocha knows more about horses and training than I will ever know, but that said, I do not have the ability to throw a rope at Hondo to scare him or by any other method.

The person that rode Hondo a couple of years was working with a horse. A rope was twirled at his hind quarters. He stepped over. "See that? He knows if he didn't I'd hit him".

Sometime later alone with Hondo I twirled the lead at his haunch. Sure enough he shied away.

If I do that now, he looks at me as if to say, "Whatcha doin? Playing helicopter?

If I actually strike him with the end of the lead I would caption his expression as, "That felt good. A little higher and more forward for the next".

In neither case does he show any concern for my actions what-so-ever. It's taken a while to get there and I'm afraid if I started throwing a rope at him to scare him ground would be lost.

But it works for Trocha. But I still gotta wonder if he and others use the same methods for their personal horse as they do in an arena for an audience.

I'm thinking, just thinking mind you, that his personal methods might take so much time that his audience would be yawning and heading for the nearest burger stand or coffee shop.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

It's true that there's a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' stuff that goes on at these things Hondo.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Smilie said:


> ...I don't graze horse along roads to get them used to traffic, but I will have the horse at first face any vehicle coming up behind them, ask for their face, and counterflex them, so should they spook, only direction they can go in, is into the ditch...
> 
> ...and then, yes, you need trust and body control, plus forward...


Here is my problem with that: We don't control the body. Ever. We don't control the feet. Ever. We can only influence the mind of the horse, and the mind of the horse controls the feet.

Had you counterflexed Mia and assumed the only direction she could go is into a ditch, you MIGHT have ended in the ditch. Or in front of the car. That is because MIA controlled her feet and body. Always. And she knew it.

Maybe your horses do not. As you say, you breed your own horses for attitude. Besides, many horses will respond as you say. Period.

But not all horses. With a horse like Mia, you learn you do NOT control the body or the feet. With tack and training, you can influence the mind that controls the body and feet. Influence. Not control.

I gather some horses are not like Mia. Frankly, after reading here for 5 years, I gather a LOT of horses are nothing like Mia! But horses like her exist, and more horses are willing to think, if allowed.

I just got a book by Tom Moates, talking about Harry Whitney. I bought it in response to this thread:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-training/harry-whitney-619937/

I've read a couple of pages. On page 1, Moates quotes Whitney:

"*Hanging between two reins is a thought*."

On page 6 Moates writes, "*The very foundation of the best work with horses begins when we lead them by guiding their thoughts, not when we drive their bodies*."

Having only made it 7 pages so far, it seems they are saying what I've said before - because it was what Mia taught me: *We can only influence the mind that controls the feet.* Our brains are not hooked up to the horse's central nervous system. There is another person there, whose mind IS connected to the central nervous system of the horse, and that is the horse. "Hanging between two reins is a thought." We are not alone when we ride. Or are we? If we are, should we be?

Seems to me a lot of riders ride alone. On a horse.

I would agree that John Lyons, Clinton Anderson and Larry Trocha work primarily in the area of body control - that a good rider controls the body and feet of the horse. Perhaps because my first horse was Mia, I've always had to reject that concept because my horse had too much mind & too much personality to give me "body control".

We could ride together, but I could never ride on her. For 7 years, she told me "_I like doing things with you, but I will not be ignored! We'll do it together, or not at all._"

Most of the riding and training books I've seen and read argue for this paraphrase of a dressage book (one I actually like in some ways): '_Make the horse do the work. The rider is the mind. The horse is the muscle._' I'll give the writer of that dressage book huge credit for being honest. I think in their hearts, Pat Parelli and Clinton Anderson and John Lyons and Larry Trocha (who I also really like, BTW) believe the same thing - 'The rider is the mind. The horse is the muscle.'

That is what breaking a horse means - you break down its will so you can substitute your own. It is undoubtedly effective. It can work on the vast majority of horses because if it doesn't, we get rid of the horse! We breed horses with an emphasis on being capable of being "broken". It is in essence what the Marines tried to do with my oldest daughter at Parris Island - break her down so they could build her up in their own image: USMC.

But is there another way?:think:​


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Oh, how I wish that pasture exists!


Religion and politics do not belong on a forum such as this. That said, The Pope says that pasture does in fact exist.

Pleas pardon my departure.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Bsms, I'm on about my 4th or 5th trip through Animals In Translation for my mornings readings. This book may be the one I've been looking for. I think I like this guy.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Well, breaking a horse, goes back to when a horse actually had his will broken
I like to think we train horses now.
Breaking went back to when horses ran on the range until about 5 years old, caught only for gelding, and then 'broken' by the rough stock rider, made useful for the average cowbody asp. Having that horse buck each morning, even after he graduated to the saddle string was not unusual
He was 'broke', by snubbing him up, blind folding him, maybe tying a leg up, the saddled, with a bronc rider climbing on, and bucking that horse out. The horse would no nothing of giving to pressure. He was bucked to a standstill, then moved out. That was breaking a horse, and the tradition of bronc riding at rodeos today.
I think very few if any training programs use this template today, thus 'breaking ' a horse, is really an archaic term
Many of the clinics, videos, like those of Larry trocha, focus on problem horses, with a 'fix' needing to be demonstrated in a short time frame
If you were to follow one of his colt training programs, taking an unbroke horse right to where he is a competitive reiner would require over a year's worth of video. So yes, you get a snap shot in time, by any of these videos, as more is not possible, unless you wish to see an hours worth of training, five days a week, for at least a year


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Religion and politics do not belong on a forum such as this. That said, The Pope says that pasture does in fact exist.
> 
> Pleas pardon my departure.


 really??? Then why do we have homeopathy, animal interpenetration of things, using a human mindset, and other beliefs, that lack credibility with me. It is an open forum, and if I wish to have some hope that this is not the end all, then I have a right to express that.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> He was bucked to a standstill, then moved out. That was breaking a horse, and the tradition of bronc riding at rodeos today.


I think I know what you mean with reference to above but I don't think you said what you mean.

Rodeo broncs are not ridden to a stand still. If they were, they'd be ruined as a rodeo bronc and good ones are hard to come by as I understand.

They are intentionally dismounted (by pickup rider) before they are bucked out so as to stay a strong bucker.

Yep, I have a friend who at times changed horses at noon and said it was unusual for one not to buck. Heck, if they didn't buck they were sent to a trail string for the city folk to ride


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I don't think many break horses as roughly as they used to do:










However, I think many of the training programs/DVDs/books still focus on replacing the horse's will with ours rather than getting the horse to want to do what we want him to do.

Around my own horses, I'm honestly a mixture. I lose my temper at times. And if a horse gives me the middle hoof salute, so to speak - and my horses do at times - well, I don't like dominating a horse but I also don't like being dominated by one! That really wasn't much of a problem with Mia. Apart from her fears, she was a very willing horse. It isn't much of a problem with Bandit. Trooper and I have never been friends. Given how he was spurred by a guy, maybe I ought to feel sympathy. But darn it! After 7 years of good treatment by me, and a couple hundred rides where I was good to him, his "_Oh darn...do I have to be around him again_" attitude ****es me off. Maybe it is a moral flaw. Maybe I need to tell my pastor and ask him to pray for me. But I also think I've been good to Trooper over the years and don't deserve to be treated like a psycho in cowboy boots.

I guess some horses you click with right away (Mia and I, Trooper and my youngest daughter). Some you bond with over time - Bandit and I? And some...well, I don't think I"m ever going to like Trooper. Respect him and be glad he works well with my daughter? Yeah. Like him? I've tried, but I don't think it will happen.

I wish I could say I knew "The Way" - but each day is a new day, and each horse is different. And sometimes I lose my temper, and maybe sometimes I have a right to be ****ed.

HER horse. Sure as heck isn't mine!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

This is a big time off-topic post but I'm just busting.

About 1 year 4 months ago I began taking (herd bound) Hondo on daily walks along trails where a dish of pellets had been stashed. We always left to return to the herd before he quite had time to finish the pellets. This is history as there is no problem leading him away from the herd now.

My distant goal now is to get him to accept my compound (camp) as being as safe as the herd.

I bring him in daily and always (almost) return him to the herd (when I find them).

Today he said the horses were South of my compound which is the South end of the 1 1/2 miles of river bottom where they graze.

He whinnied and led the way but we only found cows. He became less and less insistent about telling me where the herd was until he "seemed" to say, "Where do you think they are?"

So we returned to a field of bermuda near my compound. I was needing (and wanting) to go to the nearest convenience store 30 miles away for milk and Mike's. I decided to turn him loose right there and let him go on his own to the other end of the 1 1/2 miles.

Rotten horse just started grazing. I stayed with him for about 30 minutes when I finally decided he was just being mean to me. So I got in my truck and left with Meka.

When I got to Yarnell I checked my smart phone to see where he was, if he'd made it to the other end yet. He was still near my compound. I figured the rest of the herd had come that way and all were together.

Two hours later when I got back he was still there grazing peacefully. No herd.

Now Hondo will normally take off trotting in search of the herd on the occasions where I do not return him. BUT HE WAS STILL THERE!

So he is now peacefully munching alfalfa hay and bermuda pellets in a hand made slow feeder and doing another sleep over with me at said Cowcamp Compound.

He will slip I'm sure but the direction is steady progress toward being able to do 2 week or longer excursions with only Meka and I.

Thanks to those who are still reading


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> I don't think many break horses as roughly as they used to do:


It's my understanding in some parts of the "underdeveloped" world the older methods are still used.

And old hard core cowboys in Arizona? Yep, some still do. I know of one in particular.

I've mentioned Cody. He was broken by a CTJ meeting. Cody has sad sad eyes.

I gotta add: Some of those old time cowboys had lives every bit as hard as their horses.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

bsms said:


> Here is my problem with that: We don't control the body. Ever. We don't control the feet. Ever. We can only influence the mind of the horse, and the mind of the horse controls the feet.
> 
> Had you counterflexed Mia and assumed the only direction she could go is into a ditch, you MIGHT have ended in the ditch. Or in front of the car. That is because MIA controlled her feet and body. Always. And she knew it.
> 
> ...


 I have never liked the word "break" in connection with horses. It started when I was very young thinking that something that was NOT broken was more useful than something "broken". Maybe I was on to something? '
"Training" on the other hand sits much better with me regardless if it applied to people or animals.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Textan49 said:


> '
> "Training" on the other hand sits much better with me regardless if it applied to people or animals.


I agree. And I like the term teaching even better. And I like the idea of "helping to learn" even better. Learning is the action of the student (people or animals) and the term helps keeps the focus on the student rather than the teacher who proposes to teach. If the student is not learning, the teacher is not teaching.

Training vs teaching. Could be a whole 'nuther topic.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I think I know what you mean with reference to above but I don't think you said what you mean.
> 
> Rodeo broncs are not ridden to a stand still. If they were, they'd be ruined as a rodeo bronc and good ones are hard to come by as I understand.
> 
> ...


 Hondo, don't be so literal!
I meant rodeo reflects the old range cowboy tradition of getting on an unbroke horse and just riding that buck, versus any preparation for riding.
Of course, rodeo doe not take that bucking horse to the point where he stops bucking, quite the contrary, as a good bucking horse is worth money, thus a time of 8 seconds is used. I;m also quite sure that those range colts were not encouraged to buck, using a flank strap!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Training is more than teaching, and this is an area where Smilie and I may agree. As much as I dislike the term "body control", there is a sense in which it is entirely possible and completely positive...so I guess I should have avoided words like "never, ever"......riding is more of "it depends"...

Training includes creating a habit pattern that is so strong that the horse will obey a cue even when its brain has melted down.

For example, I pull the the left and the horse turns to the left. That is a cue that needs to be taught. Pulling the horse's face left does NOT mean "turn left" to an untaught horse. But if you teach the cue and insist on the horse obeying that cue, not once, not one hundred, but THOUSANDS of times, then it becomes an incredibly strong habit.

And the horse, even when it is afraid and its mind is melting in fear, will turn left when you pull left. Been there, done that with Mia while my oldest daughter was shouting out "Her eyes are rolling like a slot machine!" But she would still turn...

It took a curb bit to stop her in her tracks when she was nervous (but not 'blown-mind scared'). Once she realized standing her ground meant the bad thing went away from her, she got much better. And after a few thousand good stops in a curb, she'd stop just as well in a snaffle. Even when scared.

I hate the term "body control" because I've usually seen it applied to teaching something in an arena so they will do it on the trail. But the folks talking about body control rarely add that 100 times is not enough. 1,000 times is not enough for some horses. It might take 5,000 good stops on a strong willed horse before the horse will stop in response to a cue even when its mind is blown.

In fairness to Smilie, I think that is what she is talking about. If so, I agree with her. I just cannot imagine doing all that work in an arena, and I think some horses need far more successful repetition than others.

If I could go back in time 7 years, and start with Mia all over, I'd spend far more time walking her on a lead line in the desert. I did quite a bit. We got up to some 4 miles walks. But in retrospect, Mia needed those 4 mile walks by the hundreds. Might have helped my waistline as well!

Then, in our little arena, I would plan on doing thousands of turns and thousands of stops with her. I find stopping annoying and unpleasant, so I didn't do as many. Some horses may only need a hundred stops to make it instinctive. Mia needed thousands. I didn't give those to her. My fault.

But if you have a horse you can turn left, turn right, or stop - no matter how scared, because the training has created a habit pattern that holds without thought - then you have a MUCH safer horse to go ride.

I'm trying to do that foundation work with Bandit now. I'm bored with riding in the neighborhood. But his feet need more time to toughen, and I think his mind can use the practice too. When I have a 7' tall cholla cactus next to me, it is NOT time for training. Smilie can worry about rolling off a cliff. I worry about these - thigh high is bad enough, but they grow face high too:








​ 
When you are following a path between these, it is not the time for training. And with a nervous horse, it really isn't the time to rely totally on the horse's calm mind. The training required needs the habit of obedience to a given cue to be so strong that the nervous horse will obey it even when it sees a rattlesnake.

Training combines teaching with creating an unbreakable habit of obedience to certain cues. Then a good rider can rely on his horse, trust his horse's senses and instincts, but still have an override if things go really bad. As much as I want to work with my horse, I don't want to find myself riding a horse on autopilot.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I agree. And I like the term teaching even better. And I like the idea of "helping to learn" even better. Learning is the action of the student (people or animals) and the term helps keeps the focus on the student rather than the teacher who proposes to teach. If the student is not learning, the teacher is not teaching.
> 
> Training vs teaching. Could be a whole 'nuther topic.


 Terminology, in the Horse World is not exactly a dictionary exercise, with those in the 'know', through experience, knowing what is truly meant by any terminology

For instance, tariners know, when for convenience sake, they refer to a curb with a broken mouth piece as a shanked snaffle, that the bit is in reality a curb. You won't find a professional showing up for a snaffle bit class, with a broken mouth curb bit, but I have seen beginners do so

When professionals, or anyone riding in a snaffle/hackamore class, they know that the word hackamore, means bosal, not a MECHanical hackamore

I never used the term 'break ' in regards to a young horse. He was started, and anything after that is training
Whether you use teach or training, people are still going to use their own proven system, and using training versus teaching is not going to change anything, nor does it mean squat. 

English people often refer to starting a horse as backing them. In fact, that had me a bit confused once! Someone called about a young horse I had for sale, and asked if the horse had been backed. 
Sure, I replied, and also ridden foreward!

First clinic I took, the instructor said to take aright diagonal, and I did, going across the arena!

I sold two horses to someone with an English background, and they asked me if they came with head collars. I said that I sold my horses with halters!

A horse said to be cowy, is bred to work cattle, and wants to work them. It is not a mule or horse that acts like a guard dog, and attacks cattle

In other words, instead of focusing on dictionary nuisances, better to just concentrate as to what application certain words have, to those in the horse community, and to understand principles of good horse training, handling and riding


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I just saw this on a journal thread, posted yesterday:"_Earlier in the article that I quoted from was Grandin's description of fear pathways in the brain (originally in Animals in Translation). She says there are two pathways, one 'slow' that involves the cortex, and one 'fast' that leapfrogs the cortex. We are talking twelve milliseconds of difference between slow and fast. Slow is more accurate, as the cortex analyses the scary stimulus to make sure it really is scary; fast is not accurate as no analysis is involved._"

http://www.horseforum.com/member-journals/macarena-flamenca-2015-a-536297/page6/#post8001505​In a sense, we want to train certain cues to use an alternative pathway, one that "leapfrogs the cortex". If a "be scared" impulse can bypass the cortex, mightn't a very habitual cue?

If we can, then we can get obedience to certain cues without relying on the horse's conscious willingness. Just as it can instinctively explode forward without analysis, I want 3 cues - 3 is all I ask - to become so strongly ingrained that the horse complies without any analysis, without thought or desire. It just does. It does because it has done it thousands of times.

In flying jets, we had boldface items in the emergency procedures checklist. We had to memorize the boldface. We were tested on 100% accuracy. Weekly at first, and later monthly. Missing a comma meant a fail. The reason was this: When your plane enters a spin, there isn't time to read a checklist. In fact, there may not be time for analysis. You need to just do the right thing, immediately, in the right order. Or die.

One doesn't want ALL riding to be like that. But for "left / right / stop", being able to do it regardless of the horse's fear is a huge advantage.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

bSMS, I have taken hikes in the desert, when we have gone to La Vegas, as we only stay on the strip for a day. I agree that I sure would not wish to land on a cactus, nor have my legs run into them, but having a fear of snakes, that would be my biggest concern! 
I also don't ride endlessly in arenas, esp on horses that will only be trail ridden
The last green horse that I plan on riding in this lifetime, is a 7 year old gelding that got started late in life, due to my knee replacements, and my son's need to start over again, far as getting a place, because his relationship at the time, went south. Yes, I will admit that with double knee replacements, I will no longer put those first 30 days on a horse, but I am very fussy as to who does!
Thus, my son finally got time to 'start' Cuba. I only rode him a few times in my out door arena and then took him on some trail rides. He is still in a snaffle
I was first going to sell him, as I have enough horses to ride, and thus feel I can't really do them all justice. BUT, Carmen, who is an excellent trial horse, does have some flaws, conformation wise, which could eventually have some impact. No withers, thus I have to ride her with a tighter saddle than the rest of my horses, plus she has one club foot, which is fine, as long as it is maintained, including shoing, if asked to go on rocky or hard ground
Cuba has a build that is known as a 'saddle back' short back, great whither, plus good bone and excellent feet
Thus, he will remain my 'spare', and there is also the fact, should we go on a pack trip again, something we have not done for several years, we need a third horse. Yes, I don't take my show horses on trips where they need to be leg picketed, and make no apologies for that!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms said:


> Here is my problem with that: We don't control the body. Ever. We don't control the feet. Ever. We can only influence the mind of the horse, and the mind of the horse controls the feet.


YES!!!!
The horse has to process everything through it's mind, even 'instinct' is a response of the brain that we forget is there but still kicks in very fast when it thinks it has too
It doesn't matter how well trained the horse is to all your cues if panic sets in that will over ride it all and the horse will only listen to what that 'survival instinct' is telling it to do.
If the horse isn't going to listen to the normal everyday 'whoa' and 'stand' its unlikely to listen to anything at all
The calmer you can keep a horse in a scary situation the better the chance you have of keeping control of its mind
A horse that's 'hot' and 'buzzy' is still capable of listening to you. Top dressage riders like a 'hot' horse because its easier to get elevation from a horse that's got lots of natural impulsion and high energy levels. You just have to be able to always keep them on the right side of exploding.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Back when Mia was a PITA, in the first moment of fear I could get her to turn in spite of the fear. So we wouldn't go anywhere...just do repeated 180 deg turns until she started to calm.

If I didn't get that cue in immediately, and she bolted in blind panic, then she was too far gone for any of my cues to have much effect. Then it was largely hang on and wait for her mind to return.

But with enough repetition, she pretty much got to where I could turn her or stop her before the bolt fully settled in. If it was immediate, it was as though the cue bypassed her fear and told her body "turn now". But if her fear-soaked mind took control of the body and said "Run"...it was all over.

Certainly for hotter and more intelligent horses, I think the key is to remember the horse is there, and we try to influence the horse's thought. The "instinctive cue" comes in when the horse's mind hasn't fully settled on a plan, and we substitute ours before the bolt becomes the horse's choice of action.

Does that make sense. or am I rambling? Age is a terrible thing sometimes...


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

No, it kinda makes sense. I spook is expected and natural, when something suddenly appears, and it is what happens after the spook that matters.
Even on a very reactive horse with a big motor, which Charlie is, you can with time modify both the degree of that spook, and certainly any follow up to that spook, such as an attempted bolt or spin.
I don't even know how to completely define all that I use, as it just becomes instinctive over time, and reading that particular horse and situation
I do know, that in the end, wet saddle blankets, body control, trust and exposure, all have a [part


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

K is a very 'hot' horse (not a spooky one though) and doesn't take a lot to get her over excited but out on the trails she's very good because she's so focused on what's around her that she thinks less about bubbling over. In the manege we find doing exercises like shoulder/quarters in and leg yields, half pass and lots of changes of direction gets her mind back with you because she has to think about what she's doing instead of just 'go go go'


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Posted this on another thread, but it pertains to the thinking out loud that I've done here:

_Earlier, my "light bulb" moment was thinking that a highly habitual cue might bypass the conscious thinking part of the brain. That sounds good. But I've been thinking about it some more. When the horse has totally blown its brain, it doesn't work. Once the horse has decided "It is time for a Full Bore Fear Bolt" and gets about two strides into it...you are along for the ride until the horse starts thinking again. So the super habitual cue doesn't bypass the brain.

But done immediately, maybe it becomes an alternative for the brain to pick: "Try this!" If Mia was just about to launch into a bolt, she'd respond to turn cues. Eventually, if she was just about to launch into a bolt, she'd respond to The Two Rein Stop (maybe I can patent it?). But maybe it works because of what a lady who trains OTTB said to do - when they are about to explode, GIVE THEM something to do. In desperation, let them latch on to YOUR idea instead of needing to come up with their own (Run Away!).

That would explain why it works, but only when the horse is still trying to make up its mind about what to do. Because once the horse has committed to its own plan of action in response to severe fear, the rider's idea becomes too little, too late.

_Teaching a learned cue to the point of extreme habit would still be good. The less the brain is thinking, the more important it is for any cue you give to be almost instinctive. But when I've tried stopping a bolt, it really only works during that first half-second while the horse is trying to figure out what to do. Once Mia committed to running, and got about two strides into it, we were going to run away until her brain started working again. That is why calling her name softly worked best DURING a Full Bore Fear Bolt. When an ear flicked back, she was thinking again and ready to listen to ideas from her rider.

It also reinforces my earlier statement that we never control the horse, and can only influence the mind.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

BSMS, 

Search “long term potentiation” (another one of those fancy pants psychology terms) it will explain several of your questions. It can happen all over the brain, including the parts of the amygdala.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

We are still just figuring out how the human brain works, so it is sort of presumptive to make conclusions as to how the horse's brain works, although Parelli came up with 'horsenality', a concept many people buy into
Humans have had half of the brain removed, due to disease, and then have the other half of that brain hemisphere pick up the functions formally looked after by that missing half
What creates psychopath, is just now being brain mapped
It is very unrealistic to think we can tranfer human brain activity, in relationship to various parts of the brain to a horse
Psychology is an in- exact science, compared on many other fields of medical research

The following, from an actual scientific article that covers research done, far as horse intellegence, brain functioning. Sorry, Grandin did not do nay of this work

Read more: Understanding horse intelligence - Features - Horsetalk.co.nz 



​In comparison with the cognition work with other animals, little research into advanced equine learning has been completed, which is astounding considering the importance of horses to humans./

http://horsetalk.co.nz/2012/10/11/understanding-horse-intelligence/#axzz3lsNcmyXV


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I think a horse that's having one of those 'nobody at home' moments can still respond to some stimuli
I had a hunter (ex show jumper) that I bought back from a teenager who hadn't heeded advice that he could be strong but as long as you always kept him in contact he'd stay with you. He'd been a very reliable safe hunting horse so I was glad to have him with us again
When I first began riding him again he bolted with him on a forest trail and just kept going with no sign of tiring, there was a barrier ahead to stop gypsies pulling off the road and parking their caravans and all I could think was he's going way too fast to jump that safely and if he does manage it we're on a very busy road so we're 'doomed' - yet something in his 'hunter brain' must have kicked in and he slowed down of his own free will and came to a nice steady halt way before we got to the barrier


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Terminology, in the Horse World is not exactly a dictionary exercise, with those in the 'know', through experience, knowing what is truly meant by any terminology
> 
> For instance, tariners know, when for convenience sake, they refer to a curb with a broken mouth piece as a shanked snaffle, that the bit is in reality a curb. You won't find a professional showing up for a snaffle bit class, with a broken mouth curb bit, but I have seen beginners do so
> 
> ...


Oh Smilie quit being so literal.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

FWIW, what is known about animal brains has not been transferred from what has been learned about human brains but rather by individual study including brain scans of the animal studied rather than some presumptive notion as some believe.

A hypothesis may be formed as to what an animal brain will do based on a human brain as a guide to formulating research, but that is the almost the opposite of presumption and instead simply a basis for inquiry.

What is referred to as the scientific method of inquiry is specifically all about NOT being presumptive.

On another note, just got back from another two days at my forward camp where I was searching for more of a historical pack trail. I made a major find based on the last clue given to me by a man that died a year ago. He was brought in as a baby by his mother on the back of a mule to the homestead she had filed years earlier over part of the trail. About six or seven miles of it which is about half. I've ridden that part but nobody knew where the part I found this morning was. I was excited and still am!

I digress..........


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

There have been studies, science based,and there have been anecdotal type of conclusions made
So far, I have found Evidence Based Horsemanship, about as good as any, as it has the partnership of a neuro scientist and a renowned horseman, whose mentors includes Hay Hunt and Tom Dorrance, and who makes a living starting many horses in the Vaquero tradition
When a horse is born, brainstem pathways begin to mature and develop first
Automatic behaviors and motor patterns of the immature brain are mostly under the control of the brainstem at this point, advanced brain center connections are not yet formed at this point ( explains dummy foal to me, and why my vet told me that if they survived, new pathways are formed in a few days. Saw it happen, from a dummy foal that could not walk, lat down, or get up for 3 days. I had to both lift her up to nurse and then take her feet away, and make her lie down. Only shuffled in a circle with her feet, until about the third day)

Next, the cerebellum will mature and develop connections to nerve development
Anyway, just a little part of an article in western horse, by authors of Evidence based Horsemanship
Explanations also why horses living in the open, like mustangs, are better learners, because they have more dentric fields, due to that exposure to learning opportunities through trail and error

Okay, congrats on the trail. There are many old pack trails here in the mountains, many that can still be ridden today


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

jaydee said:


> I think a horse that's having one of those 'nobody at home' moments can still respond to some stimuli
> I had a hunter (ex show jumper) that I bought back from a teenager who hadn't heeded advice that he could be strong but as long as you always kept him in contact he'd stay with you. He'd been a very reliable safe hunting horse so I was glad to have him with us again
> When I first began riding him again he bolted with him on a forest trail and just kept going with no sign of tiring, there was a barrier ahead to stop gypsies pulling off the road and parking their caravans and all I could think was he's going way too fast to jump that safely and if he does manage it we're on a very busy road so we're 'doomed' - yet something in his 'hunter brain' must have kicked in and he slowed down of his own free will and came to a nice steady halt way before we got to the barrier


Some yes, far as 'nobody home;, but also some that completely blank out, and don't care where they go. Their brain is just hooked on flight of fight.
Many of these, not all, have had some serious abuse.

A person I know had such a horse. He was a good trail horse , until be zoned out. He would close his eyes, then just react, going over anything, and with one rider just bailing off in time, as he went over a cliff
A bullet then became the 'final solution


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

This lady has done a boatload of equine specific research and this is her opinion on the subject. 

“Research into equine cognition and perception has
made noteworthy advances, and greater interest is
now being paid to the improvement of training
methodology and management. Nonetheless,
much more still needs to be learned before scientists
and laypersons alike can make unequivocal claims
as to what it is to be a horse. Studies combining
equine learning, perception, and behavior are the
next step in understanding this remarkable animal.” Evelyn B Hanggi

This is a link to about 50 of her horse specific publications, some you can link to for free, others are in paid professional journals.

http://www.equineresearch.org/horse-articles.html# Equine Publications by Evelyn B. Hanggi, M.S., Ph.D.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Oh Smilie quit being so literal.


 Sometimes it is important to be "literal" about terms used. I hate to go off on tangents about certain words (although I certainly have done so) but the use of a term in the wrong way can create the wrong impression. Most of us understand "breaking" and it's variations, as "training" a horse, not a bad thing, but if a man was "completely broken" we would see it as tragic. The problem, IMO is newbies that hear a term from watching a video and apply it as exactly the same as if the horse were a person and often not knowing if the term (applied to horses) is even accurate for the situation. It is upsetting when a beginner has an attitude toward an untrained horse and assumes that it's the same kind of disrespect as a person deliberately stepping in front of you in the check out line. Some horses certainly can have a "screw you" attitude, but how many problems really lie with the beginner's lack of understanding horse behavior and good training concepts?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Most of the problems people have with horses come with the horse
If you know what you're doing and get the breeding right its so much easier to have one from a foal and do everything yourself
I've only had experience of breeding competition horses so they can have some attitude, its what makes them good I sometimes think, but you can train them and channel that attitude for the positive but they aren't essentially ever going to be suitable for novices or nervous people. I think that's what goes badly wrong with a lot of the OTTB's and yet they can be great horses in the right hands.
I can't link to the irreverent exploits of racehorses Wocket Woy and Nobby (stable names) and their real life jockeys but they really do give a whole new slant on how TB's can be handled!!!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Hondo, don't be so literal!


Tex, I was hassling Smilie from a few post back. I agree, literal is a good thing.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Tex, I was hassling Smilie from a few post back. I agree, literal is a good thing.


Ditto, mutual good spirit hassling on my part also, going back to the rodeo horse reference, reflecting old range horse 'breaking, without me putting in the disclaimer fro Hondo, that one certainly does not want to buck a rodeo bronc to the point where you take the buck out of him!
A rodeo bronc's 'career ' is to buck and buck well, while those range broncs were intended to work cattle, thus to stop bucking!
I;m sure Hondo was just getting a dig in at me, as I do live in Alberta, home of the Calgary Stampede, so am 'a' little 'familiar with rodeo and good bucking stock, and also cattle ranching!!!!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> This lady has done a boatload of equine specific research and this is her opinion on the subject.
> 
> “Research into equine cognition and perception has
> made noteworthy advances, and greater interest is
> ...


Now that insight is something I can live with, and agree upon!


----------

