# How has Natural Horsemanship affected your life?



## Palomine (Oct 30, 2010)

Of opposite thoughts. Every horse that I have seen handled with nh, has been a nut case. And as a result I think it is smoke and mirrors.

Good horsemen and women were doing it well before it became a fad with all of its tricks and gadgets.


----------



## KodasSlvrWings (Feb 5, 2014)

I have to disagree with Palomine. My mare was a complete nut case. High anxiety, couldn't lift a finger around her head, forget trying to lead her and she was traditionally broke my a reputable trainer in my area. I restarted her with natural horsemanship and now she's "normal", respectful, and enjoys her work. Same goes for a mustang that I had to completely restart after being ruined by a "cowboy" in Mew Mexico with his traditional methods. What was a sweet and in your pocket kind of horse turned into an extremely aggressive horse that I almost had to turn away. 
I really think it depends on the horse. Some methods work better for some but not for others. That's why when I get a new horse to work with I spend a day or two observing and getting a feel for the horse. Then I can base an idea of what is going to work with that particular horse and go from there. 
Now I do agree with Palomine on the fad of the nh these days. Natural horsemanship isn't about all the gizmos and gadgets that people have made it out to be. A special halter that has natural horsemanship stamped on it that cost you $80 isn't going to do diddly squat!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

NH taught me to tune into my horse on a deeper level but it's the NH Carolyn Resnick teaches not the others. I started my horse at liberty and challenged him at liberty. It was months before I haltered him because it had to be done with mutual respect.


----------



## KodasSlvrWings (Feb 5, 2014)

^^^ this. I free lunge in an open arena with my mare. I can run and have her trot right next me me through an obstacle course with no halter or rope. I can complete a full jumping course completely tackless. Its not about the tricks and fancy natural horsemanship equipment. It's about the respect and trust between both horse and rider.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Working with horses taught me to sit back and observe. If you're listening, an argument can't get started.


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

What Saddlebag and KodasSilverWings said. The past few months of discovering liberty training have changed my life, and like the both of you I have followed along the lines of Carolyn Resnick and Frederic Pignon. However I take from many many trainers, not just one, and then adjust to the individual horse.

Like you said NokotaHeaven, I have also gone from thinking of the horse as a sort of machine with feelings, to listening and connecting on a deeper level. It's also been helpful now that I have my horses at home and have been able to embark on this journey without the interruption and judgement from nosy barn busybodies. :wink:

I have also seen a huge change for the better in my horse. Especially in temperament.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

well, the person I've been learning from would gag to hear me call her training "natural horsemanship", but the thing that makes it different is that she always focusses on how the horse goes, and where the horse's mind is. That idea, "where is my horse's thought?" is the most fundamental core of all her work, and has changed the way I look at a horse. I see his "thought" as the biggest part of him that a human can mold. it's the biggest challenge to be able to know where his thought is, and to become able to bring his thought to you, then to send it where you want to, with as little pressure as necessary. there is EVER room for improvement there, thus the fascination that lasts.

and I should add, that in comparison to her, I am like a giant , clumsy oaf, stomping about, or flailing or naggin. or so it seems to me often.

but, like today, when I can feel my horse's thought wander to that trail that goes home, and can get his thought back with a shift in my inward energy , a lift of the rein, and a mental projection to that far off tree, and then send it ahead of him , down the trail I want to travel, and I feel his thought leave the homeward shortcut and join me , then I feel a sense of, . . "Yes! that's what I am searching for!".


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Tiny, incredible feeling isn't it to get that connection. My horse was so spooky, white-eyed afraid of people, that I too had to learn to get the mental connection. It's been an incredible journey that will never end.


----------



## BugZapper89 (Jun 30, 2014)

Palomine said:


> Of opposite thoughts. Every horse that I have seen handled with nh, has been a nut case. And as a result I think it is smoke and mirrors.
> 
> Good horsemen and women were doing it well before it became a fad with all of its tricks and gadgets.




I have to agree and often their owners are not far from the nut jar either. For these reasons, both myself and any other reputable trainer I know automatic charge double for any services to those type of horses and owners. It helps pay for the added excedrin and aleve needed. There are several trainers that will not even waste their time on them as they consider them just plain ruined for the show pen.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Similarly, I would not look to buy a horse whose whole training and riding experience has been as a show horse .


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Anything we do with horses is not natural. Natural they would be wild and free.

As a child I was the rider who would rode anything and everything loved the naughty ones. Way back then there was no such thing as 'back problems' or 'ulcers' problems were ridden out. Neurotic (for want of a better word) horses had their feed adjusted, worked and worked hard. They soon settled and went as well as the others.

The British traditional way was never rough, lungeing, long reining, backing and riding away was always done with the attitude of having the horse work with you rather than being forced.

What I learned riding a diverse amount of problem horses and ponies was that some were just plain disobedient, needed a big stick and firm riding. Others that were equally disobedient needed understanding and riding in a totally different way. They taught me to listen rather than command.

My mother has a saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat!" and she was correct, if one method is not working then try something different. 

I have not learned anything different from any of the self professed natural trainers. 
It was all there before any of them were twinkles in their father's eyes.


----------



## Woodhaven (Jan 21, 2014)

If NH improves the horses' lives, that is a good thing. Years ago I went to a Pat Parelli Clinic, was interested in what it would be. Liked some of the stuff, didn't approve of some things they did as I thought they were unsafe but on the whole enjoyed the Clinic, came home and told my sister about what I saw at the clinic, and she said " well that's nothing new, we've been doing all that for years," perhaps not in as formal pattern as the NH trainers . The principle has always been there but more people are becoming aware of it through these new trainers and if it helps horses and their owners/riders that's good.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

NH hasn't done much for me because most of my favorite books on riding were written before 1960. 

Back in the day, horses were tools used by people to get a job done. There were always folks who like horses and others who did not. Those who hated horses still had to use them, and they didn't care about how they used them. The ones who cared always knew what is now called NH.

One well known horse breaker from the 1800s said he always preferred to gentle a horse, but that most folks 'didn't want a $40 finish on a $20 horse"! I read a book on a Civil War general famous for both his temper and his violence. He literally was known to beat his staff officers unconscious. However, he had a horse who was shot 9 times in a battle. When he tried to swap the horse out, the horse got loose and followed him around the battlefield, refusing to leave his rider. After the war, he kept several of his favorite horses in retirement. He was a mean to humans, but he obviously did something right with horses.

I can think of several books written between 1920 and 1960 that discussed how to work with the horse and not just on it. I can't recall ever seeing one that said to 'bond with your horse', but many pointed out that a good rider would gain his horse's trust and confidence.

I think some of the NH folks I've seen on YouTube make things seem harder with horses than they really are. "Horse sense" used to be an expression meaning someone who can see past the surface and make judgments based on reality, not image. My 3 horses plus the one I sold are all like that. You can put on a show, but in the end they look to see if you are consistent, fair, proportionate, etc. If you genuinely care about them, they seem to respond to the caring more so than the individual training steps. If you understand to train them before demanding anything, and to train in small steps with a logical progression, if you are proportionate and fair in discipline and genuinely care, you can do fine with a horse - without carrots sticks, or worrying if the horse is a left brain introvert with WYZ on top, or round penning a horse forever.

I think all the principles of NH have been around and used for hundreds and thousands of years. The marketing has not, but the principles have. I've always liked this picture from World War ONE, so around 1917. Try telling me this cavalryman and his horse knew nothing about bonding...


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

the horse shot nine times and follows his owner . . . . 
An abused wife often follows her abuser and will not part from him for anything.

just sayin'.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I doubt the horse who was shot believed his rider was shooting him. He probably knew he felt pain and his rider was the one he trusted to make the bad things go away. A horse isn't capable of reasoning at a level that would associate gunfire with pain unless he had experienced it enough times to connect the dots.

However, one of the horses the guy kept spent the rest of his life attacking anyone who wore dark blue, so apparently that horse eventually connected people in dark blue with bad things happening.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I wish there was a time machine!

An old family friend, Geordie, was a true Horse Whisperer. 

He had no need of round pens halters or ropes. He could do things to a horse in moments that all the NH horse people would take weeks to achieve. 

When you have seen someone like him get a feral mare, with a foal at foot, lie down and allow him to rode her cantering in large circles and then follow him when he drove off, you would never call any of these trainers natural.


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

bsms said:


> I doubt the horse who was shot believed his rider was shooting him. He probably knew he felt pain and his rider was the one he trusted to make the bad things go away. A horse isn't capable of reasoning at a level that would associate gunfire with pain unless he had experienced it enough times to connect the dots.
> 
> However, one of the horses the guy kept spent the rest of his life attacking anyone who wore dark blue, so apparently that horse eventually connected people in dark blue with bad things happening.


If you don't mind me asking, what are some of the books called? I would like to look them up


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

My good trail horse got his start in life with an obese woman. Her idea of garnering respect involved cruelty. Horses always pinned their ears around her. When my boy came to live here he was 5. I decided to lunge him to get a sense of him and as soon as I barely raised the whip, he reared and bucked showing great displeasure. He stopped the moment I dropped the whip. Because of how he'd been treated it turned into a 2 yr process convincing him he'd be better treated here. One day I had him on the lead and a fellow stopped by with his obese wife. She approached to touch his shoulder. He reared so high I was airborne. He was in fight mode. I told her to get in the car while I got him settled down. He never got over how the first woman treated him so I made certain he was never around anyone built like her. It had been 6 yrs yet he remembered.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Saddlebag said:


> My good trail horse got his start in life with an obese woman. Her idea of garnering respect involved cruelty. Horses always pinned their ears around her. When my boy came to live here he was 5. I decided to lunge him to get a sense of him and as soon as I barely raised the whip, he reared and bucked showing great displeasure. He stopped the moment I dropped the whip. Because of how he'd been treated it turned into a 2 yr process convincing him he'd be better treated here. One day I had him on the lead and a fellow stopped by with his obese wife. She approached to touch his shoulder. He reared so high I was airborne. He was in fight mode. I told her to get in the car while I got him settled down. He never got over how the first woman treated him so I made certain he was never around anyone built like her. It had been 6 yrs yet he remembered.


Interesting your analogy on this. 

To me it says that your horse does not totally trust you - if he did then he would not have behaved as he did because he would have known you would protect him.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^ Those bits of info came from a biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest. I have it somewhere but I don't see it offhand. He was a hard man, but more complex than many give him credit for being. ("_A Union infantryman fired a musket ball into Forrest's spine with a point-blank musket shot, nearly knocking him out of the saddle. Forrest grabbed an unsuspecting Union soldier, hauled him onto his horse to use as a shield, dumped the man once he had broken clear and was out of range, then galloped back to his incredulous troopers. A surgeon removed the musket ball a week later, without anesthesia, which was unavailable._" - Wiki)

Books like "Horse Control - The Young Horse" by Tom Roberts (1974), Riding and Schooling the Western Performance Horse by G.F. Corley (1982), Riding and Jumping by William Steinkraus (1969), Riding and Schooling Horses by Harry Chamberlin (1934) and Common Sense Horsemanship by VS Littauer (1951) include discussions on the need to be fair with the horse, and to ride with understanding, not just dominance. Chamberlin's book has a good discussion on discipline, although his 1934 version includes being harsh with the spurs to dominate at times. IIRC, the final US Cavalry Manual, largely written by Chamberlin in the 40s, deletes the heavy use of spurs. 

A fictional book that was one of my favorites as a kid is "Frog, The Horse that Knew No Master" by Col SP Meek (1933): "_...Frog was a real horse. He was my first mount during those days in 1919 and 1920...I think I have painted his portrait truthfully, although the haze of the years may have made the picture more rosy than it really was..._" Although it was fiction, the introduction lists the chapters based on actual behavior by the real horse. If it had a theme, it would be that an understanding rider can get vastly more out of a good horse than one who is content to dominate.

Long before Pat Parelli coined the term "Natural Horsemanship", as I think Parelli admits, there were riders who viewed their horses as individuals who could be coaxed to higher levels of performance. The three horses out in my corral right now are each very different in personality. I doubt anyone could take Mia for a ride and not be aware before the end that she is a 'person', and that you need to work with her to get the most from her.

To the extent that NH means working with the horse's nature and personality, I admire it. I think it often gets lost in the fog or merchandise and salesmanship, though. :evil:


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> ..."Frog, The Horse that Knew No Master" by Col SP Meek (1933): "_...Frog was a real horse. He was my first mount during those days in 1919 and 1920...I ..._


One of my childhood favorite books, too. My edition had a wonderful colorfully illustrated hardcover. 

My Mother took me to a little bookstore regularly, I had quite a few with similar titles (eg. _Name, a Xxxx Horse_), a series? 

Now I'll be trying to remember the titles of some of the others.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Saddlebag said:


> ...He never got over how the first woman treated him so I made certain he was never around anyone built like her. It had been 6 yrs yet he remembered.


Trooper was spurred severely by some idiot cowboy on a ranch he was loaned to in Colorado just before making the trip down to us. We had hired a trainer to work with him to see how much he knew. When she walked into the round pen, wearing her cowboy hat, Trooper exploded so hard that 3 metal panels - each 12 feet long - went flying. It turned out that it was the cowboy hat he was reacting to! And as you can see from his sides, maybe he had good reason (and the lady who worked with him, sans cowboy hat, is behind him):










We sent him to her place about a mile from here. It took her 4.5 weeks to get him to the point he would allow a cowboy hat to touch him anywhere. It took 2 more days for her to confirm he knew plenty and was ready for trail riding.

But it sure would have been an adventure to have been on him, without retraining, when he next saw a cowboy hat!

BTW - the lady who worked with him would probably be called a NH trainer, although she didn't use any special equipment and has never made a DVD...:wink:


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

When I was a kid my favourite book was Dr. Seuss' Robert The Rose Horse (I still have it). Now it is War Horse by Michael Morpurgo, it reminds me of Black Beauty in how he tells the story through the horse's perspective instead of the people's. I honestly think that at least when it comes to the horsey world, all you really have to do to know the way you're treating an animal is right or wrong, is to remember what your favourite childhood book was, and maybe why it was your favourite childhood book


----------



## Hackamore (Mar 28, 2014)

NH has become a bad word IMO primarily because of all the self proclaimed NH trainers that watched a few RFD TV shows and think they are now overnight equine experts. This has had a positive affect for me because I'll get paid to retrain the horses they screw up & can’t be ridden. 

Don’t get me wrong the core methods that certain famous NH personalities learned from real horseman like the Dorrance brothers or Ray Hunt are tools I rely on each day, but I would never want myself associated with the description of NH.


----------



## jimmyp (Sep 5, 2013)

I had never heard of natural horsemanship, before i joined this forum. Much like someone posted earlier in this thread, we didn't know whether or not saddles fit (within reason) we never had a horse who needed a chiropractor, what we had were some horses that needed a little more work than others. 

Sure we cowboyed a few to put them under saddle but we were never cruel or unfair, some just needed the buck rode out. If we had a horse with specific issues we worked on those issues, Hell we didn't have time for DVDs (if they had been available) we played outside. 

I would say most horsemen with any sense have been using a lot of the same approach as these "NH" trainers.

When I hear "NH" or "building a bond" or 'joining up" I vomit a little in my mouth. If you can't build a bond with your horse through normal interaction, and fair play, no amount of clinics, or DVDs will help you.

Jim


----------



## BugZapper89 (Jun 30, 2014)

Hackamore said:


> NH has become a bad word IMO primarily because of all the self proclaimed NH trainers that watched a few RFD TV shows and think they are now overnight equine experts. This has had a positive affect for me because I'll get paid to retrain the horses they screw up & can’t be ridden.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong the core methods that certain famous NH personalities learned from real horseman like the Dorrance brothers or Ray Hunt are tools I rely on each day, but I would never want myself associated with the description of NH.





The running joke with real trainers, as to the RFD channel, well we call it the "ready for disaster" channel


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I suppose it made me more observant. Here are a few things I've observed. Knotted halters I quit using them when I realized the horse doesn't need one and that the knots create pressure on the boney structures with little flesh to protect the nerves. Slobber straps, well, I'll use the older style thin ones to protect the ends of my reins if the horse drinks when bridlesd. The larger slobber straps were originally used with horse hair reins (mecate) which are very light. Yacht rope mecate puts heavy uneven pressure on the left side of the bit and mouth. The carrot stick, refused to buy one. Nature provided me with an abundance of willow bushes that work very well when the leaves are stripped off. A horse can feel a fly, so why a heavy stick. Treats, yes I've used them. when given at the right time can be a great reward for when the horse is trying.
I guess I got it backwards and started a particular horse at liberty and as his training advanced we began to use a flat nylon halter and then a neck rope. Tonight as I went to feed, the horse worked at liberty was standing at the wrong feed pan. I pointed to his and clicked and he walked to it. Such a gent.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

When I was taking outside horses to ride, I found that those owners who thought "natural horsemanship" really just wanted a well behaved horse, but didn't know how horses thought. They thought some game or piece of equipment was the answer to everything.

A few weren't really interested in learning about horses, they just wanted an easy ride. To a couple of those I sold "been there, done that" types with whatever they had as part of the trade. 

I remember one of the buyers telling me "I can tell he was trained with 'natural horsemanship' because of the way he already knows he can trust me." Naw. Can't take credit. He was born a pocket pet with an easy going personality.

Others were interested in how horses interacted and would climb on my animals and go sit with me and watch the herd. A few of those would say things like "Oh, that one is mean! Look at her!" But they eventually saw how it all worked together to make a cohesive, functioning band of horses. And, they saw what position they might adopt and how to act if they wanted the same with their own, or any, horse. Kind of fun to watch a person develop horse-savvy skills. At first they over do everything! 

It's easier for some people than others. My own youngest can walk into any band and be the leader just by existing. From Wyoming to Michigan to California to Texas. Stallions. Mares. Whatever. Me? I have to work at it a little more. Think a little harder. And, control myself a bit better. But, I get it done. 

I will add that I eventually forbade people, and still do, who identified as having trained their horse through 'natural horsemanship' methods from riding on my place. Don't even unload the poor sucker on my dirt! Too many ill-mannered brutes have been born of poor training in the name of "natural horsemanship!" I don't tolerate it.


----------



## thunderstruck (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't understand all the negativity with NH, or whatever you want to call it, how can teaching your horse respect and to be soft and supple be bad? I have mostly followed Clinton Anderson's techniques and I have had good results, it's black and white, no shades of grey. But I'm open to other techniques, if you don't like NH, what methods do you use?? Is the old school ways of "breaking" a horse better? Whipping a horse into submission? Or as the owner of the last horse I bought told me "you always want to keep them a little scared of you" lol. So educate me folks what's the better way???


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

First, the concepts used in NH training have been incorporated in good training programs through the ages, just never marketed with a label applied to it
It is the marketing and spin off product marketing that is so annoying.


Also, why the idea that if you don't apply the label NH to yourself, you don't have a connection with your horse, or use kind training methods?

I read articles by many NH trianers, and some have every good points, but those points are neither new, nor did NH trainers invent them-they just built a marketing program around NH, much like the organic label for foods

Then there is this- I was in aline up at The Mane Event. Ahead of me were some serious parelli disciples They were expounding on the evils of bits and the great deal on some Parelli training videos, very enthusiastic about the seven games which one of them had been playing with his horse for two years. I asked the person if they were riding the horse, and got a dumb look. Well, no, was the answer
Then, i spotted this ad in a horse publication.
Want to trade a parelli trained horse for a horse anyone can ride. The horse plays all seven games
CA is one of the better NH trainers, as is Chris Irvine. 

Lastly, I think those colt starting chellenges that so many of the NH trainers take part in, are for audience entertainment, and do nothing for the horse


----------



## paintedpastures (Jun 21, 2011)

Just give me training built on common sense & knowing how to read & interact with a horse Playing games with your horse is to me trying to read & train horse based more on human emotion & thinking....it's no wonder some of these horses take forever to advance :shock:
There is many good horseman/ladies out there that train using humane,non gimmick training aids,know how to read a horse individually & adjust how they approach training accordingly. In end they get a well trained & mannered horse. Some may label them NH trainers & in sense yes they are:wink:,but would not like to be identified as such:-o 

I hate the NH label,many view it as the all wholesome,organic version of horse training :hug: .....need a smilie that "rolls eyes"


----------



## thunderstruck (Jul 25, 2010)

Yeah I could care less about what you call it, I'm on a quest to be a better horseman. I'm open minded to all training methods (humane of course). I'm not even sure CA labels himself as a NH. But I don't see how to many could fault his methods, his products are overpriced but that's about all I can fault him with. As far as Parelli goes, he makes no sense, and is a horrible instructer, I can actually see how he has given NH a bad name. But seeing these post has left me questioning , what is the best way??? I feel lost now :/


----------



## thunderstruck (Jul 25, 2010)

Oh and Smilie to answer your question, I don't have the idea that if you don't use the NH label that your methods are harsh, I'm just asking if you don't use similar principles/concepts such as move away from pressure, give to pressure, respect personal space, getting respect from the ground up, then what do you use? Again I speak mostly of CA methods . Unfortunately I have had no one my whole life to assist me with my knowledge of horses, everything I've learned has been through my own research over the years and getting to be around a few good horsemen.


----------



## Cindyg (Jan 12, 2009)

I had a good experience with it.

My previous horse was too much for me. I was an experienced dressage arena rider and had owned horses before; but had never had a horse at home to handle all by myself.

In searching for help with this horse who was rapidly getting out of control, someone recommended the Parelli program. Where I was at that the time, the program was a perfect fit for me. I changed how I handled that horse. I learned a lot. My confidence increased, and I was much safer.

That horse never did become my soul mate, but we found our way together.

My next horse, my current horse, needed a different approach, so I don't do the NH exercises with him. But natural horsemanship is still a part of me.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

thunderstruck said:


> Is the old school ways of "breaking" a horse better? Whipping a horse into submission? Or as the owner of the last horse I bought told me "you always want to keep them a little scared of you" lol. So educate me folks what's the better way???


Fifty years and many horses later I still say that the one type of horse that I won't trust is the horse that can't trust people I also ride and train the way I do. This does not mean that I'm not open to new ideas. 

I research different methods and adopt certain things that I feel is right for me and don't pay any attention to the rest. Just because a trainer is well known doesn't mean that we can mimic him and get the same results, and just because some trainers methods have a name (NH) doesn't mean it is all the perfect way for us.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

It's not as if plenty of good reliable well trained horses weren't produced before the NH label appeared
There's this misconception that before NH all horses were rounded up and rough broke by bronc riders
Not at all true.


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

thunderstruck said:


> So educate me folks what's the better way???I have mostly followed Clinton Anderson's techniques and I have had good results, it's black and white, no shades of grey.


The thing with horses is there is ALWAYS a shade of grey. There is NO right or wrong way (save for a few topics that are clearly abusive but for coherency we'll avoid those for now) to train a horse. I have NO association with NH. I never will and I don't want to. It's way to political and just a scheme to get people out of their money. A true horse person's a true horse person. My gelding needs a special hand to teach him. He doesn't react well to a strong hand and needs someone who will be firm, but guide him into making a decision for himself. I have another horse in training who likes to be the dictator. He needs a firmer hand and needs someone to 'lay the law' so to speak much like in a herd. Horses are very individualistic learners. Smartest thing I ever learned from horse training was to never expect a horse to learn the same way as another. 



thunderstruck said:


> I don't understand all the negativity with NH, or whatever you want to call it,


The source of my negativity comes from people who have commercialized it and turned it into a Con. I've worked with too many horses who become messed up because an owner attempted 'NH' or some variant and turned the horse into a giant dominance problem. I consider nothing about NH to BE natural. Because people and horse interactions are not exceedingly natural. Like I've said before a good horsemans a good horseman, I put no label on it other than good. I do this because in my opinion good horse training is about learning to read the horse's language and react to it as appropriate for the individual. It's not about playing games or never raising a hand, or not using a bit or not kicking or anything else. It's about being a good, compassionate teacher and someone who understands horses and constantly learns. 



thunderstruck said:


> how can teaching your horse respect and to be soft and supple be bad?


There seems to be a stigma against forms OTHER than NH. As I've said before I do not practice natural horsemanship. I never say I practice NH. I can say that my horses are soft, supple, yield all parts of their body to me and go wherever I direct them even if they're scared to death. Why? How can they possibly do this if I don't use NH? Is it because I've 'beat them into submission'? No. It's because I've spent years (or at least hours) getting to know that individual animal and spending time among the horses to learn how to read them. I strive to make all my horses as supple and soft as they can be and achieve all this with my 'rudimentary' and 'abusive' means obviously. 



thunderstruck said:


> if you don't like NH, what methods do you use?? Is the old school ways of "breaking" a horse better? Whipping a horse into submission?


My methods are to do what the horse can and leave it at that. I will not beat a horse to achieve something, nor will I expect a horse to do anything more that it can mentally and physically. Yes, I've bucked out horses before. Yes I've used a stud chain or spurs or a curb bit in training if needed. I've not ever done so without warrant and extreme consideration though. Since I've been pretty adamant that I'm not into NH and am instead of an old breed let me leave you this parting thought: My gelding is 18 years old. He was a rescue from someone who was the true epitome of a bad trainer. He was beaten half to death and then rehabilitated by me and my current trainer (who is, as I am, one with an 'older' mentality). He will never be a trail mount, or a show mount. He will never be 100% okay under saddle or trustworthy. However, I love him for him. I've never expected him to BE those things. I've expected him to have manners, do the best he can and to never be mean. When he was nine, and the NH fad at it's pinnacle, I found what I thought to be a good home with a trainer who practiced it. I went back during the trial month to see how everything was going and he was a wreck mentally. She had thrown him into all these 'games' and 'exercises' in an attempt to "Fix him". While I was (am) not against a trainer having a go at making him 'better' I was disturbed by the fact that here a horse was clearly broken down mentally and she couldn't SEE it all for the sake of blind belief in her method. I packed him up and took him home same day. He's never been in a better frame of mind since us 'neanderthals' have had him. 


I just wish this stigma against training that isn't NH would dissapate, just as much as I wish stigma against 'good NH' would dissipate. I love my horses to death. I try to be an open and responsible trainer and do what's right by the horse. I've bucked horses out, put bits in their mouths, smacked them, used spurs, and crops, have done amounts of liberty and ground work, and have altered my training plan to suit the individual. As I am braking out into the horse training world one of the things my mentors have all said to me is "find a gimmick". "A good gimmick like NH, or certifications will sell. People will believe you are the end all be all of horse training even if you're awful at it. Why? Because its got 'natural' in the name." They had a point. 

Good training is good training. I don't think it needs a label to sell it.


----------



## AceyGrace (Jan 21, 2014)

I was first taught NH when I was a teenager working on a ranch and didn't really know any better. I thought it was amazing and was fascinated.

A good few years later and I really don't know what the fuss is all about. I don't think it's any different to what most horsepeople do (and have been doing for an age) like many others have said on this thread, and I agree it can be used as a huge moneymaking scheme.

The basic principles of horsemanship are identical whether you mask them with a label of 'kindness' or not. I have seen some famous NH trainers treat horses in a way that I would never treat mine.


----------



## thunderstruck (Jul 25, 2010)

I think everyone is missing what im trying to say, I am by no means saying that in order to practice good horsemanship you have to label yourself a NH trainer, what im trying to say is that the foundation of good horse training pretty much all has the same principles and concepts, many that the very principles that NH is based on (or so the ones ive seen). You don't have to call it natural horsemanhip, call it anything you like, but a lot of the principles are the same. And again, I don't like Parelli at all, I think a lot of the negativity stems from him, but what about Ray Hunt? Buck ? who are repsected legends, the principles and concepts are the same. another trainer whos courses ive purchased is Larry Trocha, I don't think he calls him self a NH, but again there is some variations, but the basically the same principles. As far as some of the other stuff mentioned, not using a bit, or spurs, or even having to discipline a horse, ive never seen any of the trainers ive watched avocate not doing any of these things.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Not all horse trainers are from the Western riding world!!!


----------



## AceyGrace (Jan 21, 2014)

A few people have mentioned quite a few different NH practitioners and expressed preferences. Can someone explain some of these differences and why they seem preferable to you as an individual?

I genuinely don't know very much about NH and I don't care to ever use it but I am always interested in learning about other methods/theories so that I can think about them for myself. 

As far as I can see all of these trainers are advocating the same thing :s I'd love to know a bit more about their differences?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> ...There's this misconception that before NH all horses were rounded up and rough broke by bronc riders
> Not at all true.


This remains one of my favorite pictures of a British soldier with his horse not far from the front lines during World War 1 - well before people discussed 'natural horsemanship':








​ 
James Fillis wrote a bit about the need to understand horses and "equine tact" - communicating with them and getting results by understanding the horse as an individual - back in 1890. I think that pre-dates Linda Parelli's discovery of horsenalities...:twisted:


----------



## thunderstruck (Jul 25, 2010)

who said anything about western riding, I ride gaited horses .


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hackamore said:


> NH has become a bad word IMO primarily because of all the self proclaimed NH trainers that watched a few RFD TV shows and think they are now overnight equine experts. This has had a positive affect for me because I'll get paid to retrain the horses they screw up & can’t be ridden.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong the core methods that certain famous NH personalities learned from real horseman like the Dorrance brothers or Ray Hunt are tools I rely on each day, but I would never want myself associated with the description of NH.


Agree with this
Th entire point I have tried to make for ages.
The entire idea of many NH followers, that those who stuck the label NH onto their name, then used it as a marketing tool, have discovered an entirely new training concept, and that any training outside of that label is abusive , with no relationship developed with the horse, nor any training used , on the basis that a prey herd species is being dealt with,if missing that label
Good traditional trainers have always used the core principles, expounded by those considered the 'fathers of NH- true horsemen,like Ray hunt, Tom Dorrance, Buck B.

Ask any NH follower to list their favorite trainer, and they are oblivious to any of the great trainers out there that don't have NH stuck to their name


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

read the book, Reckless Pride of the marines
That horse had the run of the camp, carried ammo by herself over the battlefields to the front, shared camp grub with the marines and was considered truly one of them, made Sergeant 

Reckless also liked the taste of chocolate bars, hard candy, shredded wheat, peanut butter sandwiches and mashed potatoes. She drank beer and cola, and sometimes a little whiskey or bourbon. "Of course, too much of that stuff isn't good for horses," said Latham.
During the first few nights with the Marines, Reckless was tied in her bunker. This didn't last long as she was soon given free rein to roam around. She visited the Marines in their tents and even spent some restless nights with them. They would just move their sleeping bags to one side or the other and make room for their new friend. On very cold nights, Sgt Latham would invite her into his tent to sleep standing up next to the stove. Sometimes she'd even lie down and stretch out.
The days were filled with Sgt Latham putting his new recruit through recruit training. He taught her how to get in and out of a jeep trailer. Reckless had to be quite nimble since the trailer was only 36" by 72." "She'd jump in the trailer and go in catty-cornered, and I'd tie her down," recalled the retired Marine.
Latham taught Reckless how to take cover while on the front lines. When tapped on the front leg, she would know to hit the deck or get down. The training proved invaluable on many occasions. Latham also trained Reckless to head toward a bunker when incoming rounds hit behind the lines. "We'd get incoming there too, and they'd [the enemy] lay it on you. If Reckless was back in the back, she'd go to a bunker. All I had to do was yell, "Incoming, incoming!' and she'd go."


Here is the entire story


https://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/sgt-reckless-combat-veteran


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

thunderstruck said:


> Oh and Smilie to answer your question, I don't have the idea that if you don't use the NH label that your methods are harsh, I'm just asking if you don't use similar principles/concepts such as move away from pressure, give to pressure, respect personal space, getting respect from the ground up, then what do you use? Again I speak mostly of CA methods . Unfortunately I have had no one my whole life to assist me with my knowledge of horses, everything I've learned has been through my own research over the years and getting to be around a few good horsemen.


What I said was, that NH trainers have invented nothing new, far as the basis that good training is built on, but rather just labeled it, in order to market themselves.
If you read my post, you will see that I said good traditional training methods have also used those concepts as part of their program


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

All of those 'principles/concepts' were used by traditional trainers in Europe, the UK and this country long before anyone ever used the term NH
bsms posted that great pic of the army horse - those horses had to be probably more responsive, willing and in tune with their riders to willingly go into the thick of the fighting the way they did than any other horse we'll ever see


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I was actually going to try and find this link, and see it was posted on the horse talk forum.
The tongue in cheek NH owner, is not what I see most of the well known NH trainers advocate, but I certainly have seen spin off NH trainers that do.
I have afriend now that is convinced all bits are evil, only treeless saddles should be used, and takes lessons from someone who brain washes all of her students into this mind set.
So, while there are people here that use the extreme example of what they consider 'traditional training, much as used in the good old range daYS, NH has this extreme picture projected by those that completely missed the second part of Tom Dorrance's message 'be as gentle with a horse as possible, BUT also as firm as needed, to make that horse a good citizen
I certainly have seen the spoiled horses that come from this adaptation, horses that need to re-trained or shipped, as they have become dangerous
Again, good training is good training. Bad training is bad training. Examples of both types exist, no matter the label applied

The 10 Different Types of Horse Owners - Horse Collaborative


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Most of what has been boiled down into the NH label came from the methods of the horsemen of the Iberian Peninsula in Europe. 

Many of those methods were integrated into the Royal Stables and riding schools of both Germany and France, but less often used by the common folk, until recent times. 

In America, they were brought here by the Spaniards (Vaqueros, V=B in pronunciation, so you got Bakeros = Buckaroos) who came to work cattle for the wealthy Spanish ranchers who once inhabited the South West. The methods were adapted for the practical use of horseman to do their jobs (albeit with a bit of showmanship as well). 

Many Native Americans also were involved on the ranches, some of their native approach to the spirit of animals can be seen in the evolution as well. 

Once here, the methods continued to be adapted, influenced by different groups, until you had some regional differences between the California methods (Buckaroos) and the Texas methods (Cowboys). 

The Vaqueros were short on words and long on meaning. Very little can be found in the way of "instructions" for the methods. It was something that was passed down from the older to the younger. It was a way of thinking about training, not necessarily hard set, cast in stone procedures. Very much like horsemanship in general. 

In its original form it was not intended to be a DIY method of training, it was something learned with an experienced support system in place at the nu-bee's beck and call. How many people today can call their trainer out for 5 minutes just to help them correct their round pen position without forking over another $50? A lucky few have a knowledgeable friend or neighbor willing to fill in. So people go to another source be it forums like this, internet videos, books, training gurus....as our culture becomes more and more urbanized, in thought as well as living style, it will be increasingly impossible to stop people from owning horses that really aren't well prepared to do so. All you can do is try to help them learn, as ugly of a process as that may be. 

Every tool or philosophy that has ever been, can be used for good or for bad by tweaking a thing here or removing something there.

The training methods of the Vaquero was very much centered around "manana", tomorrow. That is contrary to the American culture of today; now, ASAP, time is money. 

NH as marketed has eliminated "Manana" from the process, wowing crowds with the wild horse that is broke to ride in an hour or two and attracting exactly the people that should NOT be using natural horsemanship, those looking for a quick fix to all of their horse's problems without a support system in place to provide hands on guidence. (it is just as often the rider's problem that needs fixing, but I digress).

It really is a shame that something that CAN enhance horsemanship if understood and used effectively has left a bad taste in many a horse's mouth.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

"Natural Horsemanship", like others have already said, is nothing new nor is it really "natural" but just like food marketing techniques "natural" makes PEOPLE feel better about the food their eating or what they are doing to their horses.

The concepts are not new but they(meaning CC, PP, MR, etc.) found a way to sell it the baby boomer horse owning crowd. It gives a black and white instruction booklet/system to follow for those with no previous horse experience and have no idea to actually read a horse. Unfortunately, it is not black and white, if it was horses would have a motor rather than a brain and heart. There are too many factors involved not every horse is the same and not every situation is the same. They basically tried to dumb down horsemanship to create overly dull and bored horses that someone that can not hurt themselves with and made a pile of money doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I use very similar methods(basic good common sense) but I try my best to read the horse and situation and not over-drill to the point of bored and over desensitized horses. 

I honestly think that the money spent on books, videos, gadgets could be spent on time with a good coach/trainer who can stand there and tell you when your doing it wrong or correctly, advice that is helpful in that moment in time. I think the videos and books can offer different ideas and supplement a good program with a trainer but I don't think it is the best way to learn by yourself especially for the beginner horse owner.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

COWCHICK77 said:


> "Natural Horsemanship", like others have already said, is nothing new nor is it really "natural" but just like food marketing techniques "natural" makes PEOPLE feel better about the food their eating or what they are doing to their horses.
> 
> The concepts are not new but they(meaning CC, PP, MR, etc.) found a way to sell it the baby boomer horse owning crowd. It gives a black and white instruction booklet/system to follow for those with no previous horse experience and have no idea to actually read a horse. Unfortunately, it is not black and white, if it was horses would have a motor rather than a brain and heart. There are too many factors involved not every horse is the same and not every situation is the same. They basically tried to dumb down horsemanship to create overly dull and bored horses that someone that can not hurt themselves with and made a pile of money doing it.
> Don't get me wrong, I use very similar methods(basic good common sense) but I try my best to read the horse and situation and not over-drill to the point of bored and over desensitized horses.
> ...


Big ditto to above!

Point being, there is no cookie cutter approach to horse training, nor a short cut to developing feel and horse sense. All the DVDs , carrot sticks, special halters .won't get you there
NH trainers give the subliminal message that indeed, by following their methods, anyone can train a horse
Not saying that their basic principles aren't sound in many cases, but they are often mis construed by people with little horse experience, who would be much better off working with a good horseman 
Much of parelli's stuff is showmanship, which has no place in teaching basic horse safety. Then people taking one of his colt clinics think the horse is broke after a weekend, and ride off into the sunset with that colt, using a halter. Only one returns in time for supper!
Love the Parelli ads that used to appear.
One showed a horse resisting trailer loading, with the caption "without Parelli.
Next, showed a horse loading willingly, with the caption, 'with Parelli

See the subliminal advertizing???
My horses load just fine, without Parelli.
What traditional trainer, like Bob Avila, would bother putting out an ad like that? The are too busy turning out good horses, that go on to being non pro and youth horses- in other words, putting their money where their mouth is!
At least CA does put his training up in reining competition. What has Parelli done, and a host of other NH trainers?


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I agree Smilie.

There was a thread on here a couple of years ago about Parelli and one of hhis followers posted a video of him in an arena with a 4+ horses loose while he was riding one working the others. The poster was enthralled by what was happening and was using it as evidence that he was wonderful.
Well hate to break the rose colored glasses, it's called basic stockmanship. If you can read a cow or horse it doesn't take much to work one and look like you have magically controlled it without a form of restraint like a halter and lead rope. People who work cattle do it everyday


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

people may poo-poo the current trend of NH, but one thing is that at least it has people asking themselves, "what about the horse?"

what is he feeling, thinking, understanding?

that's a good thing. it means they recognize the hrose is not just a vehicle to something, a machine that might or might not perform better if you buy an attachment and plug it in /on him, like he was a car or something.

as the world gets "smaller" we humans want to have more connectiveness with our animal cousins. those who work horses , on ranches and such, may poo poo this, but ultimately, it's a good thing for the horse, and for the human, too.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> people may poo-poo the current trend of NH, but one thing is that at least it has people asking themselves, "what about the horse?"
> 
> what is he feeling, thinking, understanding?
> 
> ...


 I wouldn't say it's poo-poo'ed just not anthropomorphizing like some people interpret NH methods. It seems to me there has been this big onslaught of that thinking since the big name NHT came about. I can't efficiently get a job done on a horse or train him to make him a better without knowing how he thinks or operates and take those factors into consideration when trying to better a horse. The better the horse, the easier my job is 
My previous posts weren't meant to trash NH, I was saying that the "magic" they put into the show and what they are selling is basic stockmanship/horsemanship and the method isn't always black and white like set of instructions you get when you buy a set of furniture from IKEA.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

all true, but in order to engage everyday people, maybe things that would be obvious to you, such as the way to move horses or cattle based on their natural responses to pressure, has to be presented in a different light. 

I dunno. I think much of it is all ballyhoo, too. But, the overall effect has been to get more an more people to "seek", and this can bring them further into horses than they ever would have gone had they just wanted to ride.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

COWCHICK77 said:


> I wouldn't say it's poo-poo'ed just not anthropomorphizing like some people interpret NH methods. It seems to me there has been this big onslaught of that thinking since the big name NHT came about. *I can't efficiently get a job done on a horse or train him to make him a better without knowing how he thinks or operates and take those factors into consideration when trying to better a horse. The better the horse, the easier my job is
> *My previous posts weren't meant to trash NH, I was saying that the "magic" they put into the show and what they are selling is basic stockmanship/horsemanship and the method isn't always black and white like set of instructions you get when you buy a set of furniture from IKEA.


 Sorry about that mess..LOL, I guess I should proof read before posting. Yikes!



tinyliny said:


> all true, but in order to engage everyday people, maybe things that would be obvious to you, such as the way to move horses or cattle based on their natural responses to pressure, has to be presented in a different light.
> 
> I dunno. I think much of it is all ballyhoo, too. But, the overall effect has been to get more an more people to "seek", and this can bring them further into horses than they ever would have gone had they just wanted to ride.


 I see what you're saying and I agree, I think it is great for people that get it. But I really dislike the extreme side(like any fad) that comes from it and the movement it has started.(the first time horse owning, extremist bitless, treeless or non-riding horse owners that feel the need to push it on others) I find that people who ride with a quality trainer/coach get more of a reality check about horse ownership and training.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

But plenty of people did care about the horse long before NH became a 'thing'. 
You could hardly spend all your time around them if it was your job and not know what made them 'tick


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Jaydee, 

You are right that people who spend _all_ of their time around them can't help but figure out what makes them tick. But very few people these days spend more than a few hours a week with their horses. 

I, like the OP, used to see horses as a tool. Catch 'em, Saddle 'em, Ride 'em, put them back. During the riding part, they were dang well going to do what I asked. I grew up surrounded by farmers who approached horses with the same kind of detachment as they did their cattle and pigs. It was all I ever knew. 

It wasn't until as an adult I had my horses at home and followed the advice of my trainer to just sit with them and watch, that I really began to understand another side of riding. You can call that NH, Vaquero Methods or just horsemanship, but it was a missing piece of the puzzle for a lot of people, myself included. 

For years, I could get a horse to do what I wanted, when I wanted it, but after a while, it felt like an empty conquest rather than a partnership. I thought it was just my mushy woman side showing and squelched it as emotional foolishness (my tough old bird farmer-grandfather would have been proud). Sometimes it is a matter of not knowing what you don't know. 

So I agree with Tiny in that if it gets at least some people to stop, take a breath and discover a new side of things to develop horsemanship not just riding skills, that NH does help many. 

I agree also with you, that the methods are not new (though perhaps forgotten) and in the hands of a DIY beginner without someone experienced there to guide them, it can be misinterpreted and create a poorly behaved animal.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Maybe my background of riding in the UK from a small child, riding schools, pony club etc makes me see things differently
I do know and have known plenty of people there that treat a horse like a machine in as much as they have little regard for it as a 'pet' or if its of no use to them any more but they still understand them and why they do things the way they do
Maybe if people spent more time around good horsemen and women doing actual hands on stuff before they embarked on breaking horses from scratch and even owning a horse there'd be less need for all these sellers of NH methods


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Foxhunter, it wasn't about my gelding not trusting me, it was about revenge. He was a horse that if you hurt him, he'll hurt you. I saw it in action, not with me, but some idiots who seemed to think horses didn't feel pain. He never kicked but instead used his teeth. Once he'd grabbed the person it was a done issue. He wouldn't repeat it with the same person.


----------



## OoLaurenoO (Sep 23, 2014)

I sometimes worry horse training is going the way of dog training. 'Positive only' as in you can never say no. I think horse training or really all training is built on trust, respect, and being able to communicate clearly. It doesn't matter if you are a horse, a dog, a person or child. That is why I worry about natural horsemanship. I feel like it's just a fancy name for a type of training all good trainers use but slowly starting to push out the other points of training which is equally important. I think boundaries, rules and consequences are important when you are training anything what not to do.


----------



## AceyGrace (Jan 21, 2014)

OoLaurenoO said:


> I sometimes worry horse training is going the way of dog training. 'Positive only' as in you can never say no. I think horse training or really all training is built on trust, respect, and being able to communicate clearly. It doesn't matter if you are a horse, a dog, a person or child. That is why I worry about natural horsemanship. I feel like it's just a fancy name for a type of training all good trainers use but slowly starting to push out the other points of training which is equally important. I think boundaries, rules and consequences are important when you are training anything what not to do.


I can assure you that 'positive only' trainers do not think highly of natural horsemanship at all!  

The principles of pressure release, dominance and 'respect' are identical across traditional and natural horsemanship and there is nothing 'positive' about either in terms of how the horse is learning (Just to clarify... not saying NH is a negative concept/approach. But there is no positive reinforcement occurring in either approach) So there is no chance that NH will encourage "positive only training" in the horse world... unfortunately


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

The one thing all these NH trainers have in common is confidence. They have not an iota of doubt that they will achieve what they are aiming for and it passes through to the horse. 

The other thing is timing, correcting something just as it starts is easier than trying to correct as it happens.

The third thing is an inner 'knowing' of whether the horse is reacting because it is frightened, in pain or just misbehaving because it can. 

Some horses are easy, others not so. Some react to something violently others just don't bother. 

They are all different.

When I had horses come in for breaking or remedial, I charged a fair price, owners wanted to see results. If this meant say, with a nappy horse, giving it a darn good wallop when it baulked then I would. I didn't have the time and the owners didn't have the money for me to mess around playing games or taking weeks to achieve something that a good whack sorted in a couple of sessions.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

A lot of issues with horses when under saddle is from lack of work. An old cowboy expression was "wet saddle blankets will soon take the stupid out of a horse". By this, horses learn to conserve their energy and don't waste it with bucking and shying. I watched a prestigious endurance race and not one horse bucked or spooked, yet all are in prime physical condition and yes, when they are unsaddled their backs are sopping wet.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I agree with Saddlebag. To many horses are over fed hard food and not worked enough. 

Horses that are unfit and coming into work, as with the Foxhunters or the Steeplechasers that have had best part of the summer out at grass, come in and start to get silly about a month or so into their fitness programme. 
They know better than to whip around at a spook but you know that they want to having see a gremlin under a dock leaf! 

As they get fitter so they now that energy is needed to do the work that is ahead of them. 

If a horse out on exercise is messing around as I head for home then I will take it on further or find a steep hill to work it up, when they are breathing heavily they don't have the puff to mess around.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

A little bit of NH knowledge applied by a novice is like a monkey with a razor.
Just like when you learn to play an instrument, you have to put in the daily grind, learn the scales, learn the fingering and practice with a metronome and train your ear for pitch. Then, you have the skills to alter the tempo, handle a cadenza as the composer meant it to be played, and understand style.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Saddlebag said:


> Foxhunter, it wasn't about my gelding not trusting me, it was about revenge. He was a horse that if you hurt him, he'll hurt you. I saw it in action, not with me, but some idiots who seemed to think horses didn't feel pain. He never kicked but instead used his teeth. Once he'd grabbed the person it was a done issue. He wouldn't repeat it with the same person.


 Hah! Hopefully the person saw their error and your horse didn't have to repeat the lesson


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

Corporal said:


> A little bit of NH knowledge applied by a novice is like a monkey with a razor.


 I agree, but isn't it the same with any method of training? "I saw my trainer do. . .", "In the video I watched it said. . . .", "My friend who is experienced told me. . . .", so they do it with bad results. I saw a girl apply a one rein stop incorrectly resulting in the horse getting totally rattled and going down in the arena. The horse wasn't injured but the girl did get banged up a bit. She later said she was only trying to do what she saw her trainer do


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Textan49 said:


> I agree, but isn't it the same with any method of training? "I saw my trainer do. . .", "In the video I watched it said. . . .", "My friend who is experienced told me. . . .", so they do it with bad results. I saw a girl apply a one rein stop incorrectly resulting in the horse getting totally rattled and going down in the arena. The horse wasn't injured but the girl did get banged up a bit. She later said she was only trying to do what she saw her trainer do


True, that could be said for horse training in general but in my opinion, the difference is that NH is marketed for the beginner, that it is easy "if you just follow these steps!"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jessabel (Mar 19, 2009)

I've never had a good experience with NH. That's how my horse was trained before I got him and I spent years breaking him of all the obnoxious habits. Every once in a while he'll still turn and face me when I halt him on the lunge line. :-x

I went to a Parelli clinic one time and it was all just a bunch of circus tricks and sales pitch. But our stuff and you'll be a horse guru by next week.


----------



## EpicApple (Oct 19, 2014)

The term Natural Horsemanship is so subjective now in days... 
I will say this, I don't like the _parelli_ type of horsemanship and anything that comes close to it. I dislike the type of horsemanship that promotes giving the horses human emotions. The one that has as an ultimate goal to form this magical lets be Bff's bond; and that takes advantage of the ignorance of many. 

I like the type of Natural Horsemanship that is rational and logical horsemanship. The type that makes the horse actually think and understand without the use of pain; Also the Natural Horsemanship that improves and promotes good riding. Not just spending an eternity on the ground. 


I had many opportunities to go to NH clinics, but I didn't like any of the trainers based on the fact that they didn't have much of a riding career or success in that realm. As a rider it was important to find someone who I could relate when it came to showing, riding and training because that is what I mostly do. Not someone who will frown at the fact that I use a bit on every single horse I own. 

Now there was this trainer who came to a nearby city. His clinic was mainly NH with some "cow sense" incorporated to it. He had done a lot of shows, but also had been a pupil of a very well known trainer in Texas. I drove 3 hours with two horses to spend 3 days in an intensive clinic. I must say that this has been an absolute eye opener and I truly loved it. 

My horses already knew how to do the "join up" because I knew about it thanks to a book that I purchased for 2$, too bad it didn't come with a carrot stick. Instead we focused on other things that improved my horses training. 

I showed up with my Lusitano stallion. He had just been handed to me a week before the clinic and he was an unruly nut case. 

We worked on his manners. Whenever he lost focus on the rider and got distracted by mares, the trainer would make him work. Turns, circles, and lots of transitions. He didn't give him time to think at all. Then he would let him stand and relax, but as soon as he did anything related to the mares he would be sent back to work. 

No pain ever inflicted. Just a lot of pressure and release at the right moment until the horse got the memo "if I do this I will have to work twice as much, but if I don't they will leave me alone...mhhhhh....!" He soon associated mares with work and pressure and started ignoring them pretty ladies. At the end of the clinic we had a bunch of mares in heat near the round pen and he was a saint. 

Now I apply this type of ground work to all of my stallions. It's done wonders and they are all very "civil" even if they are covering mares in a weekly basis. I would rather make my horse move around in short circles and make him go forward than to hit them or use any type of pain to send a message.

I also use this on horses who will bite, won't pick up feet, spook at silly things etc. 

Bad behavior= more work/pressure

We also had cows to make the clinic more fun. My horse was chasing after them and turning them while being ridden without a bridle.

He loved it, I learned a bunch and I got the quietest stallion as a result. Whatever "Natural Horsemanship" is I loved the one I learned about.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

one of the problems with NH is that is has been revolutioniazed by use of YouTube, and it makes folks think that ALL they have to do is watch a video.

while I think a person can learn a LOT from a video, and Im not dissing them, if you con't understand WHY you do what you do, then you DO become the monkey with a razor; slashing away and thinking you've got it down.

this is why I have found learning from a real human being invaluable. she has explained WHY she does something, WHAT she is looking for, WHEN to give a release and it means that I am not just following a set of steps, but am learning to think for myself.

to be honest, though PP sets things out in steps, some of his followers DO learn what and why these steps are what they are, and learn how to put them into a purposeful use . but, the majority of followers don't . thus, the bad reputation.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

^^ just to drive the point home... NOTHING can replace the feed back of a LIVE trainer standing there in the moment, no book, video, YouTube guru, dvd set, etc. It seems to be something so underestimated by many people across all disciplines!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

SlideStop said:


> NOTHING can replace the feed back of a LIVE trainer standing there in the moment, no book, video, YouTube guru, dvd set, etc.


I would agree that the ideal situation would be to learn how to train from a good trainer. It would also be ideal to have an unlimited amount of money. I find it ironic that many on this forum go on and on about how clinicians are sucking money out of people, and then turn around and present the alternative of hiring a trainer.

I paid $200 to have some work done with my horse when he was a yearling -- basic groundwork so he could be handled and loaded in a trailer. Then I spent another $600 to get him started under saddle when he was four. Both trainers did an outstanding job. Neither had time to spend with me at that bargain price. Neither is still training in my area.

While both trainers did an excellent job on my horse, neither one did anything for me. And I needed as much help as my horse. I have spent the last 16 years reading, attending tour events and clinics, watching DVDs, watching video online, and looking at resources like this forum. And in all the books and DVDs and admission fees I've paid for in those 16 years, I STILL haven't spent anywhere near the $800 I spent on trainers.

I can't imagine what it would have cost me to have paid a trainer to learn what I've learned. So what I'd like to know is what would you consider a reasonable amount to spend to have a trainer teach you horsemanship?


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Joel Reiter said:


> I would agree that the ideal situation would be to learn how to train from a good trainer. It would also be ideal to have an unlimited amount of money. *I find it ironic that many on this forum go on and on about how clinicians are sucking money out of people, and then turn around and present the alternative of hiring a trainer.
> *
> I paid $200 to have some work done with my horse when he was a yearling -- basic groundwork so he could be handled and loaded in a trailer. Then I spent another $600 to get him started under saddle when he was four. Both trainers did an outstanding job. Neither had time to spend with me at that bargain price. Neither is still training in my area.
> 
> ...



In my opinion, it isn't about the money itself spent, it is what you get for the money.

As I said once already in this thread, I would rather have someone standing there telling me what I need to do in that moment to improve the response I get from the horse. Trainers ride with other trainers to get that same help from each other, so why wouldn't others want to do that for themselves and their horses?
The videos and books are a supplement but I don't think it should completely replace one on one training. In my opinion, it's like learning to pilot a helicopter just by watching YouTube.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

COWCHICK77 said:


> In my opinion, it isn't about the money itself spent, it is what you get for the money. Trainers ride with other trainers to get that same help from each other, so why wouldn't others want to do that for themselves and their horses?
> The videos and books are like learning to pilot a helicopter just by watching YouTube.


LOL. That's a great analogy, and I don't disagree. Man people who excel at something hired coaches to get help them advance, whether they are speakers, athletes, entrepreneurs, or whatever.

I don't have that kind of money. I certainly would use a trainer if I knew one that was good and I could afford it.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I like to think of NH as training by invitation. Actually, NH means training in a way that is natural to the horse, not the human. Humans are ego driven, horses are not so we learn to ditch the ego and train in a way the horse understands. The best trainers have done it that way for centuries.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Joel Reiter said:


> I would agree that the ideal situation would be to learn how to train from a good trainer. It would also be ideal to have an unlimited amount of money. I find it ironic that many on this forum go on and on about how clinicians are sucking money out of people, and then turn around and present the alternative of hiring a trainer.
> 
> I paid $200 to have some work done with my horse when he was a yearling -- basic groundwork so he could be handled and loaded in a trailer. Then I spent another $600 to get him started under saddle when he was four. Both trainers did an outstanding job. Neither had time to spend with me at that bargain price. Neither is still training in my area.
> 
> ...



well, we all do what we can. it's a matter of what is more important to you, I guess. but, it is true that not everyone has the money to spend on getting themselves trained. some of us need that more than others, and spending money on having our horses trained, without ourselves learning to be better leaders, is pointless and literally a waster of money. putting training on a horse does not quarantee it will stay there if the rider is not with the "program".

one day, if you find a trainer that you want to emulate, yoiu will not minde so much the money. it's always a limit, but sometimes an hour with a trainer, hands on, is worth two of viewing videos.

one can learn a LOT from videos, though. I do not dis them.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

Of course a lot of it is going to depended on the riders ability and the horses training ability. A green ride with a green horse should PLAN on related costs for LIVE training. On the other hand, I lesson a couple times a year on my mare. I know her, I know how to tune her up. Now, on the other hand, if I had a green horse I'd plan on taking at least two lesson a month with her. 

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE learning from watching lessons or clinics! Even YouTube has some great videos!! But, at the end of the day, videos, watching clinics, and advice from an online forum simply CANNOT replace LIVE feed back! Someone standing at the edge of the arena saying "next time you need to release pressure quicker" or "did you see your horse do that? Reward him!"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lostastirrup (Jan 6, 2015)

I'm sure it's not true but something about having the instructor standing in the ring hollering at you has magical powers. I am a relatively cheap rider and capitalize on books and videos however whenever I get the opportunity to ride with a good upper level instructor I do. The only time I ever cancelled a lesson is when I had a fever of 103 and felt seasick aboard the 17hh maniac I ride- I still rode him but couldn't manage more than WTC. The difference I think is in the parts of the brain we engage while learning from an instructor and watching a video. Videos is just audio and visual learning- being in the saddle is those as well as tactile and muscle memory...It's what makes it click and having someone there to reinforce what you are feeling instinctively makes it such an effective teaching aid

So....back to Nat H: I have viewed some of Parelli's things- I cringed at the Game of Contact- mostly because Linda parelli seems to have no idea that the horse moves from behind and no matter how much you move your hands or how many treats you put behind your bit it's not going to cut it if you want any sort of throughness. I also looked at Clinton Anderson's stuff for a mare I ride that tends to be a bit of a witch. I set it aside promptly because I did not like the focus on disengaging the hind-end in Dressage all maneuvers stem from engagement of the haunches so Down-Under would have been poor practice for us- instead we got a book on classical in hand work and that seems to be sufficient for my needs. 

Okay. Ramble over- the point is that Horsemanship and Natural Horsemanship really ought not to be separate categories. Everyone who trains horses and trains them well does so in such a way that is most natural to them, their situation and what they need out of the horse. To say that NH as defined by the DVD and halter salesmen is the only humane way to train a horse is silly- a true horseman like a good teacher trains in such a way that the horse learns effectively- not forcing it to conform to a rat-race of games and gimmics and can become useful and effective in their particular field.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

lostastirrup said:


> Horsemanship and Natural Horsemanship really ought not to be separate categories. To say that NH as defined by the DVD and halter salesmen is the only humane way to train a horse is silly.


The first book I ever read on horse training was _Handling Horses_ by British Lt. Colonel P. D. Stewart. It was published in 1948. I came across the book in February on a visit back to the farm, and reread it. I didn't find any contradiction between what the WWI cavalry officer advocated and what Clinton Anderson teaches today.

It appears to me that much of the bitterness between advocates of classical and natural horsemanship comes from willful ignorance, borne of resentment. The way some of the extremists in the UK talk, the horse was invented in England, and apparently some NH advocates don't believe a horse was ever humanely treated before Tom Dorrance, and Xenophon be hanged.

Lewis and Clark marveled at how Native American trained horses could run stride for stride alongside a bison, over the roughest terrain, until their riders could pump enough arrows into the beast to kill it. George Armstrong Custer, whatever other faults he had notwithstanding, was one of the finest horseman to ever come out of West Point. While trying to duplicate the Native American feat he accidentally shot one of his own horses out from under himself. Somehow the earliest Americans became superb horsemen without any help from the academy.

Some regard the French equestrian Antoine de Pluvinel the greatest horseman who ever lived. Near his death in 1620 he wrote, "If possible, one must be sparing with punishment and lavish with caresses, as I have already said, and I will say it again, in order to make the horse obey and go out of pleasure rather than discomfort.”

When I read or hear someone criticizing a style of training that is not his personal favorite, it often eventually emerges that the speaker doesn't know what he's talking about. I think we could use a little more humility.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I think some people try too hard to interpret and imitate what they believe to be 'herd behaviour' and end up getting it totally wrong and digging themselves into a hole that's so deep they lose sight of common sense horse training
You see some of them spending months and months and then more months that often run into years in a round pen and although it might be able to do all sorts of groundwork liberty tricks they still can't get on the horse and ride it


----------



## savvystables (Mar 21, 2015)

*Done with Parelli*

I started my Parelli journey in 1999. I was an avid student going to Pagosa all the time and having fun - then Parelli made instructor requirements that were obtainable for me, so I went for it 2009/2010. At the time I was 57, and I had concerns about my ability to advance like Parelli required instructors to do, but Pat Parelli himself told us "we could stay a "one star" forever. 

I attended a two week course in 2005, a six-week course in 2007, and a four week course in 2008, which qualified me to apply for a $200 fee

I sent in my 30 minute video showing them everything they wanted to see.. I took the "one star" instructor course in Colorado in August of 2009, while there Parelli enticed me to take the two star course even before I had my year in as a one star instructor. I took the two star instructors course in Florida, February 2010. My expenses for both was approximately $20,000.00 plus weeks of training. 

Parelli informed us in August of 2010 at the Instructors Conference they were changing the requirements and we needed to pass Level 4 On Line, Liberty, and Freestyle by September 1st, 2011. When the day came in September I remember the loss of dignity I felt when my star rating was removed from "Parelli Connect", my name removed from the Instructor list on the Parelli website, my Savvy Club membership cancelled, my Instructor discount for purchases revoked, and my license to teach suspended; all because I couldn't meet the new requirements of level 4 OL, Liberty, and F/S in one year. What happened to putting "the relationship first"

This not only happened to me - it happened to many many one and two star instructors.

I asked for a refund and they said no - then I paid an attorney to write them a letter and they responded with the most ridiculous offer - when I contacted the COO like some suggested... their rude lawyer told me to "cease and desist" or else!

Dignity: the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

If you had a dispute with Parelli and weren't compensated please file a complaint Colorado District Attorney.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

so, how has this changed you?


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

First time I've been on the forum pretty much since I started this thread last August. So I'm quite surprised to see one of my threads as a top thread lol!


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

savvystables said:


> Parelli informed us in August of 2010 at the Instructors Conference they were changing the requirements and we needed to pass Level 4 On Line, Liberty, and Freestyle by September 1st, 2011.


I still want to know what the requirements were to "pass Level 4 On Line, Liberty, and Freestyle".


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

Joel Reiter said:


> I still want to know what the requirements were to "pass Level 4 On Line, Liberty, and Freestyle".


It's kind of a mote point. As of 2011 PP has moved to a level 6 now.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Savvystables explained the requirements in her original thread.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

NH has had no influence on me, except just as a another source of of horse info, as nothing NH teaches is anything new.
Good traditional trainers have always used principals expounded on, by NH trainers, just never got on the band wagon, and applied that subliminal selling message of 'natural'
Their appeal is largely towards those that have not had a chance to develop 'horse sense;, by growing up with horses, thus look to an ABC approach to training a horse, plus they have been indoctrinated to view 'traditional training as harsh, without any empathy towards the horse
While a lot of NH concepts are solid, far as using the innate nature of horses, as a form of communication, and in establishing respect and leadership, the chance for incorrect application by people not really attuned to horses, through life experience, is huge
Round pen work has now even become a verb-'round penning.
So many people over flex a horse, esp laterally, at a standstill, again mis applying NH concepts (or maybe not, in all cases), so that they actually help teach a horse to rubber neck
There is also the subliminal message often, that bittless and tree less is optimal, and that you never use negative re enforcement

I decided to raise horses, some 35 years ago. 
It was pretty clear to me, that in order to have demand for my breeding program, at least two things were necessary, besides pedigrees. There are many people out there that think they only need to breed some popular bloodlines, and people will come flocking to their doors to buy those prospects.
Not so. You have to prove your horses in some sort of competition against their peers, or you have to at least have them going well under saddle
It does not take much intelligence to then realize that either you have money from another source, to pour into having your horses professionally shown, and trained, or, you learn to do it yourself
The latter option was the only one for me-my horses had to pay for themselves.
Thus, I had to learn how to train them and get them shown. That required taking clinics whenever possible, setting the goal to compete in various events, never crying ;politics when well known trainers won, but rather evaluating as to why they won.Like any business, that works in the black, without outside funds, you either learn to be good at the job, or quit
That is the best motivator that I know of, far as causing you to seek help from the right sources to reach that goal. Thus, while I read NH trianing etc, in various publications, my mentors remained those that actually had proven themselves in the various events, and who I knew turned out horses that made great non pro and youth horses, that lasted both mentally and physically
I truly believe, that under a good judge, if you have a great go, and that well known trainer only has an average go that day, you will be rewarded
Anyone that has trained a lot of horses, will tell you that the horses they trained after the first 10 or more, were better trained than those first ones
It takes riding and training lots of horses to develop feel, and the main problem that I see with NH, is that they seem to send the message , that if you follow the steps in their program, or call it 7 games or whatever, you will have a well trained horse
We also rode many of the horses that I started, out on tough mountain trails, then sold them to customers that have given us great feedback
The point being, unless you test the training methods by actual competition, or just riding that horse out, it is all 'smoke and mirrors and marketing, not much different then stamping 'organic' on foods
Organic foods have not proven to be any more nutritious than non organic
There is also the fact, that while organic foods proclaim themselves to be free of pesticides, that is not really true. They use organic pesticides, some which are way more toxic then any chemical pesticide and more harmful to the environment
sORRY, if I seem to be rambling, by the organic subliminal ,message is the best comparison that I could find, far as the image/perception that the word NH training conveys to many


----------



## MaximasMommy (Sep 21, 2013)

It changed my life because a woman passionate about natural horsemanship took on my now horse as a project, and rehabbed him into a trail horse. Then she sold him to me, and my trainer completely retrained him from there. Now we do the original natural horsemanship, classical horsemanship  Thank you Xenophon !


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Thanks for a typically thoughtful post, Smilie. My biggest problem with the term natural horsemanship is that it means three different things, and I see people putting all three together without realizing it.


While Tom Dorrance is often named as the father of natural horsemanship, I think it was really Dr. David Miller who coined the phrase, and it was trademarked by Pat Parelli, who's first book has that name.
The term gets applied to all the trainers who do clinics and sell DVDs, even though none of them claim to be doing natural horsemanship.
The whole barefoot, bit free, bareback crowd that gets into essential oils and herbs and acupuncture and various forms of mental telepathy with horses -- what I call hippie horsemanship -- is often associated with 1 and 2, but give them a bad name because they only apply the parts that appeal to them



Smilie said:


> Their appeal is largely towards those that have not had a chance to develop 'horse sense;, by growing up with horses, thus look to an ABC approach to training a horse


OK, but haven't Parelli and Clinton Anderson performed a service by providing a step by step approach? I mean, if the only way you knew how to load a horse before was butt ropes and beatings, and now your horse will walk into a trailer, isn't that worth while? If your horse was so spooky you were afraid to ride him and now you can take him anywhere, doesn't that validate the canned approach?



Smilie said:


> they have been indoctrinated to view 'traditional training as harsh, without any empathy towards the horse


Growing up in Eastern Washington in the 50's, the traditional training I saw was snub the horse to a post, climb on and buck him out. There was no empathy for the horse, and no concern for safety of the rider.



Smilie said:


> the chance for incorrect application by people not really attuned to horses, through life experience, is huge


It's true that incompetent people apply techniques in an incompetent manner. But that says more about the people doing it than the method itself.



Smilie said:


> There is also the subliminal message often, that bitless and tree less is optimal, and that you never use negative re enforcement


I don't think that's a subliminal message, I think it's hippie horsemanship, and most of it is contradicts what Clinton Anderson, etc. teach. Parelli, with all his liberty work and circus tricks like jumping bareback over picnic tables, does attract these people, but that's not what he teaches.



Smilie said:


> the organic subliminal ,message is the best comparison that I could find, far as the image/perception that the word NH training conveys to many


You're probably going to get it from the organic crowd, but yeah, hippie horsemanship and hippie health are related, both looking for some kind of magic that isn't there. But again, that's definition 3, not 1 or 2.

I think the canned programs are very helpful to most people, and so far I haven't met anyone who became less competent by studying any of them.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hi Joel

It is un fortunate that esp in the heritage in the old west, included the type of training you mentioned. (not going into Vaquero training), but the training used to bring mainly un touched 5 year old range horses in, and make them useful, asp
I don't use those old west and even just traditional old training programs in general, from the past, where those horses had to be made serviceable by any means,, soon as possble, whether that be pulling a carriage, working in a rental stable, coal mines, going off to war, etc, but rather modern good traditional training programs , that have evolved right along NH, as horses became recreational, versus tools, and also became mainly owned by people that want horses in their life, versus needing that horse as a 'tool'
Of course, amongst those people in the past, where everyone needed a horse, either for transportation or to work the fields, or as a war horse, always existed ;true horsemen, who advocated compassionate horse training through the ages
As for a system, like the 7 games of P.P not so sure if that type of mentality really teaches a person to train a horse
I've seen ads, similar the the following wording:

"Want to trade a Parelli trained horse,(fill in age gender breed), that plays all 7 games, for a well broke horse anyone can ride"

Tom Dorrance himself touched the core problem that many who embrace NH miss, in his statement that I have often posted, just off the top of my head,so wording might be slightly off :

"be as gentle with a horse as possible, BUT also as firm as needed, to make that horse a good citizen'

"Good citizens', are more likely to get a good home and be in demand, over a horse that has learned to be dis respectful, should you not be able to keep that horse for his entire life, simply by not being there anymore!

Yes, I know, NH training, applied correctly , does not produce that spoiled horse, yet at the same time, I have seen more spoiled horses produced by people that follow NH then anywhere else

Another thing that is missed, some of those NH techniques use some harsh type of training basics, but only hide that fact, For instance, the Parelli 'Be nice halter', is nothing more than another form of the nerve line

CA himself endorses a shock collar for horses

Any yes, I do fear being flamed by the organic crowd, but what the heck, I am also in the head lights of advocates for homeopathy!


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

Joel Reiter said:


> While Tom Dorrance is often named as the father of natural horsemanship, I think it was really Dr. David Miller who coined the phrase, and it was trademarked by Pat Parelli, who's first book has that name.


Yes, Tom and his brother Bill are considered, here in the United States, as the fathers of "Natural Horsemanship".

The term _Natural Horsemanship_ may be associated with one or more persons of late. But it is not a coined phrase. Natural horsemanship is common language.

Generally, you can not trademark or register only one or two words of common language, like _natural_ and _horsemanship_. It has to be three words like the registered trademark "*Parelli Natural Horsemanship*".

A trademark search was done and confirmed. Hence, *HF*'s use of the topic heading *Natural Horsemanship*.

Do not mistake *design* as a registered/trademark as being the same as just the _words_ like stated above. One could (again if the United States Patent and Trademark Office authorizes) by using a special design (generally non trademarked font) in an artistic script use the words, _natural_ and _horsmanship_. This would then be for the specific use of a company’s name or image on as printed on or bond to an asset or product.

IMPO, seeing that Parelli Natural Horsemanship Inc. has 9 trademarks going back to 01 NOV 91; #74217826, the U.S. P & T Office turned down any application for just _Natural Horsemanship_.


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

P.S. I was to slow in correcting the spell checks change. It is *Parelli Natural HorseManShip, Inc.*, with the "*M*" and "*S*" being capitalized.

Again, this would be different then just a trademark of "*Horsemanship*"


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

gee50 said:


> It is *Parelli Natural HorseManShip, Inc.*, with the "*M*" and "*S*" being capitalized.


Thanks for the clarification. You are absolutely correct.

My main point was that I don't know of anyone besides Parelli that actually claims to be doing natural horsemanship.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie said:


> ...the past, where those horses had to be made serviceable by any means, soon as possble, whether that be pulling a carriage, working in a rental stable, coal mines, going off to war...


Yes, those were the bad old days. I have read that in 1880, the city of New York removed on average 41 dead horses from the streets per day.

Of course, from Xenophon in 400 BC and French equestrian Antoine de Pluvinel in 1620, we know there have always been people who both advocated and succeeded in training horses to the highest level using humane techniques.



Smilie said:


> "Want to trade a Parelli trained horse,(fill in age gender breed), that plays all 7 games, for a well broke horse anyone can ride"


LOL! That is truly funny. Any idiot can teach a horse to do the seven games in a day. That's the easiest part of Parelli and about 5% of level one. People do the easy part and stop because people are naturally lazy.



Smilie said:


> I have seen more spoiled horses produced by people that follow NH then anywhere else


I wouldn't argue with that, only that they would be even worse without NH. I would say most people have good intentions but never actually put in the time. As Clinton Anderson says, it takes long rides and wet saddle-blankets to get a horse broke.



Smilie said:


> CA himself endorses a shock collar for horses


Interesting. I've been following CA for ten years and I've never heard him say that. I'm guessing it must not be a technique he uses often.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Here you go, Joel, concerning CA endorsing the use of a shock collar
I came across that fact, actually, as it was discussed on another board, and then I saw an actual ad, I believe in Western Horseman, with CA and that collar, in a sales ad

Shock Collar for Horses Approved by Clinton Anderson Â« PetsQNA.com – Pet Questions and Answers


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Talking about traditional training 'back in the old days', I wouldn't say all of it was bad or there was no empathy for the horse. I realize I am stating the obvious but the horse was thought of completely different than we do now. Horses were(and still are in my opinion) livestock . A means of getting a job done. Now days horses are considered a luxury and pets for the most part.

My dad grew up on ranches in northern Nevada and California(late 40's and the 50's). My grandfather raised his own horses, mostly mustangs that he culled and introduced new blood into. Dad claims there were hardly any wrecks or bronc rides watching the guys start the colts, pretty uneventful. It was done much like you would expect, sacking out with a burlap sack or a rain slicker, introducing the saddle and hackamore, etc... The only semi-wild part was halter breaking them. 
My dad also spent a lot of time with his great uncles who cowboyed all over the Great Basin and he never remembers them mistreating or having no empathy for their horses. 
I am not saying that everyone loved horses back then like most horse owners do now. But I think there is a misconception just like there is about the NH horse crowd being a bunch of nutters. I am guilty of thinking the same so I guess the talk about training back then is a reminder to me not to lump everyone into the same category.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

COWCHICK77 said:


> Talking about traditional training 'back in the old days', I wouldn't say all of it was bad or there was no empathy for the horse. I realize I am stating the obvious but the horse was thought of completely different than we do now. Horses were(and still are in my opinion) livestock . A means of getting a job done. Now days horses are considered a luxury and pets for the most part.
> 
> My dad grew up on ranches in northern Nevada and California(late 40's and the 50's). My grandfather raised his own horses, mostly mustangs that he culled and introduced new blood into. Dad claims there were hardly any wrecks or bronc rides watching the guys start the colts, pretty uneventful. It was done much like you would expect, sacking out with a burlap sack or a rain slicker, introducing the saddle and hackamore, etc... The only semi-wild part was halter breaking them.
> My dad also spent a lot of time with his great uncles who cowboyed all over the Great Basin and he never remembers them mistreating or having no empathy for their horses.
> I am not saying that everyone loved horses back then like most horse owners do now. But I think there is a misconception just like there is about the NH horse crowd being a bunch of nutters. I am guilty of thinking the same so I guess the talk about training back then is a reminder to me not to lump everyone into the same category.


That has always been my experience and the experiences relayed to me by very old timers. 

Of course that didn't get much attention 'then,' and doesn't get much attention now.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie said:


> I saw an actual ad, I believe in Western Horseman, with CA and that collar, in a sales ad


Smilie, you're right! It surprises me, not because I don't think CA would do such a thing, but because I've sat through multiple 3-day Outback Tours and many, many episodes of his TV show and never heard him mention shock collars. I found this in a Horse and Rider Q&A:

*Question:* My friend has a 17-hand American Saddlebred show horse that is a holy terror to other horses in the pasture. She'd like to board him with my pregnant American Quarter Horse mare and Paint yearling filly, but I'm afraid for their safety. Is there anything I can do to lessen this gelding's aggression towards other horses?

*Clinton Anderson:* The more space you can give the horses, the better. Your horses will be safer if they have plenty of room to get away from the gelding. Before you put any horses with him in the pasture, try to get them used to each other over the fence. You also might try the Tri-tronics electric shock collar with which you can make it unpleasant for him when he tries to become aggressive with other horses. Some training with that just might do the trick.

For $1.95 you can buy a DVD that tells how to use it: Tri-Tronics Vicebreaker DVD-FREE SHIPPING

Apparently, Clinton has been using shock collars for at least five years, per the date on this article: The Perfect Horse: Shock collars

Now we can start a new discussion about which is more humane -- letting one horse bite and kick another, or using a shock collar.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Joel Reiter said:


> Smilie, you're right! It surprises me, not because I don't think CA would do such a thing, but because I've sat through multiple 3-day Outback Tours and many, many episodes of his TV show and never heard him mention shock collars. I found this in a Horse and Rider Q&A:
> 
> *Question:* My friend has a 17-hand American Saddlebred show horse that is a holy terror to other horses in the pasture. She'd like to board him with my pregnant American Quarter Horse mare and Paint yearling filly, but I'm afraid for their safety. Is there anything I can do to lessen this gelding's aggression towards other horses?
> 
> ...


 Oh lordy...
I am a firm believer in running horses together in a herd but even I would not run a "gator" with a pregnant mare and yearling. That is just asking for a wreck. Mares with mares, and we don't turn out colts with the cavvy until they are two year olds because the old gators are pretty tough on the little guys. And I wouldn't use a shock collar on a horse for that reason. I have no problem for a safety issue but just for the sake of a horribly mixed herd, no, that can easily be avoided.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't look at the major NH personalities, ( PP and CA) as one being great and the other being awful. To me, both of them are missing the mark, in a way.

OK, I am just a middle aged housewife, and I cannot train any horse. so, where do I get off having any opinion about this? (it's an online forum, so I CAN!)
but, I see both programs developed and successfully marketed, (and make no mistake, CA is just as oily as PP is when it comes to marketing) as equallly missing the mark.

the whole "idea" with so-called "natural horsemanship' is that the trainer/handler uses an understanding of the horse's thought process as a base for all their interactions. ok, but it's not like PP is all wrong and CA is all right.

PP errs in that he has broken the process down into logical steps . well, that seems to help people, but does'nt always help the horse . the people are great at the concept of steps , in order, and in sequence and given catchy names and all. it tends to make the handler more concerned with the steps and the order, rather than the horse itself . sort of a "can't see the forest for the trees thing". the become concerned with the program, but lose sight of the horse.
But, horses don't work that way.

CA is all about dominating the horse, and that seems to be the ticket; if you want a horse that works for you out of fear and nothing more, and if you want to believe that your horse is a potential enemy that you must "shoot first before he shoots you", sort of mental approach, then this program seems to be just the right, and "only" way to do it. but, what about the horse?

both of these are putting horses into terms that are workable for people. But, what about the horses? 

to me, if you want a partner, then you have to consider the horse, and what he is needing and feeling. and yes, you may be able to chase his hind quarters around, but does that mean you have him with you , out of fear, or out of interest? 

is he following you, or fleeing you? or tolerating you ?

it seems to me PP is all about the horse following the owner, but in a sort of sequence of steps with a foundation that is meaningless to the horse, and consequently, often irritating. while CA is all about getting the horse to move here, now!, and had fear as it's basis ( the horse is fleeing the handler).

both are equally as limited, to me. one has the horse 'tolerating' the handler, and the other has the horse 'fleeing" the handler. h m m . . . which is better?


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Tinyliny, I have followed PP and CA. I have also studied Mark Rashid, Stacy Westfall, Richard Winters, Chris Cox, Craig Cameron, John and Josh Lyons, Buck Brannaman, Julie Goodnight, Ken McNabb, Monte Roberts, and Charles Wilhelm. The techniques they use all look pretty similar to me. Many of them have been Road to the Horse winners.

So are you saying NONE of them know how to train a horse? Can you give me an example of a trainer you think is better, and what they do differently?


----------



## walkinthewalk (Jul 23, 2008)

I try to stay out of these types of threads and that is because I have no use whatsoever for any of these so-called "natural" horse trainers.

They may have started out with good intent but they quickly turned into nothing more than marketeers and chest pounders; don't be so naive as to think there isn't some ego involved.

One they're men, two they're in competition with each other.

Tiny's use of the word "Oily" is about as perfect as one can get:lol:

Unlike Tiny, I have been training horses since I was 12. I started under the tutelage of the best --- my grandfather who was a generation ahead of the Dorrance brothers. He was a "natural" horseman.

what makes anyone think "natural horsemanship" is something new and wahzoo? It's been around "since Mobey **** was a minnow". Someone in today's modern worked was smart enough to figure out how to make it into a money making venture.

If you really want to read and learn from someone who deserves to have our hard earned money spent on his teaching, read Mark Rashid's books and attend some of his clinics, if he still has them.

I have some of the best trail horses in the county and also the most polite and well mannered.

I know there are a few more around so, please come in and post that your horses are so well behaved, your vet can walk up to them in a half acre side yard, take their masks off, give them a good physical, draw blood and give a shot, if needed. All while I was limping back to the barn for a halter and lead rope. I had no idea my horses were that good but evidently the vet did.

I work with my horses the way my granddad taught me all those years ago when this "NH" garbage was non-existent. If I were training my horses with fear or tyranny, I hardly think the vet could examine and stick needles in them when I'm not standing there and he didn't have a halter on them.

Also, when my foundered horse got down with tendon issues and ulcers as a result, the facilities female farm vet, got out of the truck, walked up to him, examined him, gave him one shot, said Joker I'm sorry I have to pinch you again, and gave him a second shot. Once again no halter and I was equally as dumbfounded as I was the first time BUT, my old fashioned training must work and it didn't cost me one dime.


----------



## gee50 (Dec 31, 2014)

I have struggled to post a personal comment on “How has Natural Horsemanship affected your life? ” I think *walkinthewalk* says it much better then I could:



walkinthewalk said:


> I try to stay out of these types of threads and that is because I have no use whatsoever for any of these so-called "natural" horse trainers.
> 
> Unlike Tiny, I have been training horses since I was 12. I started under the tutelage of the best --- my grandfather who was a generation ahead of the Dorrance brothers. He was a "natural" horseman.
> 
> What makes anyone think "natural horsemanship" is something new and wahzoo? It's been around "since Mobey **** was a minnow".


Here are some quotes about my Great, great grandfather, Samuel Leroy Glover and his two sons Henry Bion (Bion my Great great uncle) and Percy Dunn (P. D. my Great grandfather). These quotes come from several sources and are attributed to each of the separately. But really these quotes speak to all of them collectively as that all lived and dies together on the farm (actually 5 original homesteads and one lease) about 6 miles North of Westerville, Nebraska. This includes my Grandfather Glen and Father Robert, both born on that farm.

The above farmstead was established 1885, by S.L. Glover and Sons. S.L. was born July 4th 1832 and started farming in Eire, Pennsylvanian about 1850.

Attributed to S. L.
“As a farmer and stock-raiser he made a success second to none in the county of Custer. He was a lover of fine stock and made it his business to raise fine cattle and horses.”

“...who came here with capital and invested in land, purchasing the old Payne ranch, which is one of the well known places of the county.”

Attributed Bion
“Mr. and Mrs. Glover maintain an elegant home on one of the best improved farms in the county – a farm whose improvements would compare well with those of the farms in ant state, in any locality. Here a big farm house, one of which was occupied by Mr. Glover himself and the other by his father during his life time and now by his mother and sisters. Here are big barns, extensive sheds and hog houses, the strongest kind of fences, water systems and every modern convinced, so that the place may well be termed a modern farm. The land holdings are 1,080 acres. The stock consist of Poland-China hogs of large and body type, fashionable Black Angus cattle and draft Percherons. Some cattle and horses are registered in herd and stallion books as aristocratic types.”

Attributed P.D.
“...He then came to Custer County, on the Payne ranch, which his father bought. Mr. Glover himself bought a homestead right in the same vicinity and on this he lived until 1904, when he moved on his present fine farm , which he has been operating ever since, it's location being in section 12, township 17. He has always been a hard working man and his honest and upright course in all neighborhood affairs has gained him the confidence and esteem of all who know him. He carries on his agricultural operations according to modern methods and his introduced improvements that add to the efficiency of all his farm activities.”

From a conversion with my father Robert about the passing of his mothers .
“I was about 8. I knew she was gone. They came to me in the field. I was sleeping on the back of one of the Percheron.”

All the horses ever on this farmstead less a team pair of Belgians bred by the Amish were born, raised, trained and passed on there. Without a horse, pre WWII, you would die out there. Horses were more than tools. Horses were life. My father probably spent more time on a horse before his 18th birthday than most folks ever spend in lifetime today. The farm had cutting, roping and riding horses (QH and SB), cart horses (Cleveland Bays) and draft horses (Percherons and the team Belgians). What folks now call “Natural Horsemanship”, I just call normal life. No one in my family would ever tie up a horse to break them or run around with a lunge whip look'in-the-fool. Horses were praises above all. Then came the cattle, hogs, wheat, corn, alfalfa, melons, the garden (don't for get the chickens and goats) and your chores. After that children were seen and not heard. If so the rod was not spared. To mistreat a horse meant death. I guess you could say it was God, horses, farm and family.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

walkinthewalk said:


> I have no use whatsoever for any of these so-called "natural" horse trainers.
> 
> If you really want to read and learn from someone who deserves to have our hard earned money spent on his teaching, read Mark Rashid's books and attend some of his clinics, if he still has them.


So you have no use for any of them but you recommend Mark Rashid? I have read four of his books, bought one of his DVDs, and seen several of his live demonstrations. I think he's wonderful.

The only difference I see between what he is doing and what Clinton Anderson is doing is Mark Rashid is very very patient.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Joel Reiter said:


> Tinyliny, I have followed PP and CA. I have also studied Mark Rashid, Stacy Westfall, Richard Winters, Chris Cox, Craig Cameron, John and Josh Lyons, Buck Brannaman, Julie Goodnight, Ken McNabb, Monte Roberts, and Charles Wilhelm. The techniques they use all look pretty similar to me. Many of them have been Road to the Horse winners.
> 
> So are you saying NONE of them know how to train a horse? Can you give me an example of a trainer you think is better, and what they do differently?



I was rambling in the post you read, but I meant that I hear people speak of PP as if he's all wrong, and CA as all right. I disagree. 

where folks feel that PP is too touchy feely, and CA is great because he's really firm, I find CA approach (at least in as much as I see it passed on to students) to have the same shortsightedness and limits, because it focuses on getting the horse to hustle his hind end out of your way, and is based more on too much "push", whereas PP is based on too much "draw". Both trainers teach students to approach horses with an automatic approach, and while it's right some of the time, by approaching with an assumption that the horse will fit into the "program", or that you must do this or that step no matter, you lose the ability to see what horse you have in front of you, today.



I do think they can train horses. they do it all the time.

I just don't think one is all flawed and the other perfect, as many here seem to feel.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Joel Reiter said:


> The only difference I see between what he is doing and what Clinton Anderson is doing is Mark Rashid is very very patient.




I agree. I liked Mark Rashid's approach, though I've not seen him in person.

I think he's a bit different because he is thinking more about the horse, and the human, and tailoring his approach to what he sees, and feels, with each one. yes, that takes patience and observation, something I don't see in CA.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

tinyliny said:


> I just don't think one is all flawed and the other perfect, as many here seem to feel.


Ah, OK, I'll go with you on that. Two fiercely loyal camps, each believing the other is wrong. Yet their techniques are more similar than different.

For the record, if I had to choose one of them train my horse I might lean toward Parelli. But if I was buying a DVD package I would choose Clinton Anderson. I find him easier to understand.


----------



## walkinthewalk (Jul 23, 2008)

Joel Reiter said:


> So you have no use for any of them but you recommend Mark Rashid? I have read four of his books, bought one of his DVDs, and seen several of his live demonstrations. I think he's wonderful.
> 
> The only difference I see between what he is doing and what Clinton Anderson is doing is Mark Rashid is very very patient.


 "In the beginning" (lollol) I don't think Mark Rashid even wanted to write books but somebody convinced him he had too much knowledge to not pass it on to others. 

Somewhere after his first four books, I was surprised and disappointed to see he had joined the ranks of clinicians. Once again, I read a comment that he had been hornswoggled into holding them. It wasn't something he was comfortable with as he did not consider himself a trainer, in the sense the others did. 

At least that's what I once read, somewhere on line and we all know the internet doesn't lie

I don't know if the philosophy I respected in his early writings is still there or, if it has evolved into something more closely resembling the "those people", I don't like.

One constant with him that I will always find attractive ---------- he STILL resembles the actor Sam Elliott:happydance::happydance:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

just doing clinics does not one of "those people" make. plenty of good trainers do clinics. it's not like the mark of the Devil.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I've seen several of these 'NH trainers' at annual Equine Affaire demo's and Mark Rashid was one who impressed me - but it wasn't because he did anything 'new' - it was because I like his quiet approach, not unlike Hempfling in that style 
What you do see in all of the well known ones are individuals who are comfortable around horses because they spend so much time with them - that and confidence which makes them recognizable (to horses) as leaders and the ability to know exactly when to react, when not to react and how to stay safe
You cannot teach those things to people - they come from natural ability and years of being around lots of different horses - which is why so many fail


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

jaydee said:


> I've seen several of these 'NH trainers' at annual Equine Affaire demo's and Mark Rashid was one who impressed me - but it wasn't because he did anything 'new' - it was because I like his quiet approach, not unlike Hempfling in that style
> What you do see in all of the well known ones are individuals who are comfortable around horses because they spend so much time with them - that and confidence which makes them recognizable (to horses) as leaders and the ability to know exactly when to react, when not to react and how to stay safe
> You cannot teach those things to people - they come from natural ability and years of being around lots of different horses - which is why so many fail



Very true

I've watched several of these well known trainers, at such events as The Mane Event, and esp in the colt starting demos/chellenges.
The good ones have spent years developing their skills, working with many horses, able to read those horses, establish their leadership, without ever pushing that horse into the 'stop thinking and just reacting mode'
In other words, they are just good horsemen
Chris Irvine, a well known Canadian trainer, does not even like the word "NH' applied I have watched Chris several times, and like what I have seen.
His book 'horses don't lie' is also a good read
The good ones actually 'walk the talk', training horses, not just trying to give clinics that try to train people to train horses, and just do market spin offs from there


----------



## EpicApple (Oct 19, 2014)

Speaking of which... I have a lot of questions regarding Hempfling and that Nevzorov guy... are they malo or bueno???


----------



## agentsteph (Jun 23, 2015)

I'm going to my first Buck Brannaman clinic next month and I found this site looking for reviews. I really hope my experience goes better than this one. I don't really have any expectations other than keep my mouth shut, watch every move Buck makes and do my best to earn/keep my horse's respect.

Still, after waiting for three years to attend a clinic, this OP has me worried. I do not want to be laughed at I just want to learn.


----------



## kaimanawas (Apr 16, 2015)

Natural Horsemanship made me see who horses really are and it changed the way I work with them


----------



## hollysjubilee (Nov 2, 2012)

I don't know that I can say "Natural Horsemanship" changed my life with horses, but I can say that 27 years of owning, loving, and riding horses preceded my epiphany which happened at a John Lyons' Symposium in New Hampshire. I took a horse to my first clinic (a fear-kicker, native dun Criollo, that I got in trade for a couple of saddles from a fellow 4-H leader who said he was hard to catch and kicked when when she tried to doctor his infected leg. I had no trouble catching him or doctoring him, and on the third day of doctoring him, he laid down for me and let me walk up to him with a halter . . . and I was smitten and traded 2 saddles for him.) I didn't have the funds to actually ride in the clinic myself, but at that time, John's apprentice trainers who were working toward certification had to ride horses at several of his clinics. At that point in my life, I had taken a total of 6 or 7 riding lessons in my entire life (all within the previous year) . . . and the only thing I knew about training was what I learned on my own and from my sometimes interpretations of what I read in WESTERN HORSEMAN magazine. All I knew was that I loved horses and always wanted to be a major part of my life.

John doesn't call his training "Natural Horsemanship," but he does call it "conditioned-response" training. He helped me see a step-by-step, consistent, patient, confident, compassionate, and effective way of training horses that also helped me in my teaching of kids (at home, school, 4-H, lessons, and summer horsemanship camp). I worked at two other Symposiums and clinics within the next 3 years and read as many training books by other trainers as possible: Dorrance, Hunt, Twelveponies, Tellington-Jones, Irwin, Rashid, McSwiney, Sumner, Storl, Hill, and Barbier and for a semester project for college, I wrote a "thesis" comparing the way horses and children learn.

John was the one with whom I had the "light bulb moments," and the horses with whom I worked are the ones who made the knowledge REAL and imbedded it in my soul.

I listened to John today . . . on his original video series, and he was telling the audience: "*Enthusiastic horsemen will have enthusiastic horses*," 
and 
"*Your horse will be as specific as you are*," 
and 
"*The strongest halter I can have is in my horse's mind*," 
and 
"*I am not showing you these things so that you can do them the way I do them," *
and 
"*Until we learn what the horse wants, we'll never be able to communicate with him on his level,* *and that's what we want, isn't it? to communicate with our horses,"* 
and 
"*The horse is the final teacher who gives us the final answer,*" 
and 
"*We need to ride for response, not for position,*" 
and 
*"You don't need to use what I use to teach my horse, and you don't have to DO what I do with my horse. You may want something different from your horse. I'm just teaching you a way that works to train your horse to do what YOU want him to do. You may have different goals for your horse.*"

His rules of training are part of my life: 
"*YOU can't get hurt; your HORSE can't get hurt; your horse needs to be CALMER after the training than he was when you started.*"

All of these things are not things that I had opportunity to learn from an experienced horse savvy parent, a great-grampa, neighbor, or instructor.

What these "pre-packaged," training methods do is make a philosophy and technique available to people like me who want to know and understand more about how to communicate safely and effectively with horses so we can get them to do what we want them to do. I am very thankful for these men and women who are sharing and continually learning and adjusting and demonstrating their knowledge of horses and horse training with people who want to know.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

hollysjubilee said:


> "*Your horse will be as specific as you are*,"


John Lyons was the first good source of information I found when I became a horse owner 15 years ago. His book and some of his videos were in the local library, and I eventually subscribed to his newsletter.

I am often reminded of his statement quoted above. People say, "my horse does this" or "my horse won't do that". Well, whose fault is it? Your horse doesn't know any better, and you don't seem to care, so that's the way it is. If it matters to you, fix it.

Whenever one of my horses does something I don't like, I remember John Lyons explaining to me exactly where the blame lies. And when I want to jump on my 16 hand horse bareback, every time I back up and run at him like a big ape and he stands still for it, I thank John Lyons.


----------



## Ian McDonald (Aug 24, 2011)

EpicApple said:


> Speaking of which... I have a lot of questions regarding Hempfling and that Nevzorov guy... are they malo or bueno???


Bueno. They're both legitimate masters but not for everyone, especially Nevzorov. He only works with a small dedicated group of people and doesn't care what the rest of the horse world thinks or does. 

Klaus is maybe more open to teaching because he offers seminars, but he isn't traveling the clinic circuit like these other guys. Most of the time you'll have to travel to his farm on a tiny Danish island called Lyo to receive the training. 

How'd you happen to get interested in these guys? They're pretty esoteric for most.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

So many people don't know that the word discipline comes from old Greek "to teach", not a form of punishment.


----------

