# Traditional vs. Natural Horsemanship: Which is Better?



## weema (May 4, 2014)

Flying over the plains, the horse’s nostrils flared, sweat running down the man’s face; the Lone Ranger and Silver chase down the bandit. A typical scene from the beloved western classic where brave, young John Reid rescues the wild stallion Silver, trains him to act when he simply thinks a command and then they fight together for justice. The thoughts in my mind are not of whether or not the Lone Ranger will catch the bandit or why the bad guy deserves to be punished, but rather did Reid make Silver so loyal that he would brave peril in order to help Reid or was Silver simply obedient because of fear? Did Reid dig his spurs into Silver’s ribs every time he disobeyed Reid? Did he whip Silver senseless until the poor animal’s spirit was broken and started to listen in defeat? Or did they form a bond, a sort of alliance and mutual understanding between the horse and rider? 
The first question every horse person approaches me with is “which method do you prefer, traditional or natural horsemanship?” I have witnessed both. The traditional way where the trainer jerks the reins, causing the bit (metal piece in a horse’s mouth that is used for control) to yank on the horse’s mouth versus a partnership where both horse and rider communicate and respect each other. If you ask me, there is no doubt that natural horsemanship is more efficient and less detrimental to the horse’s and even rider’s wellbeing. A traditional horseman uses whips and spurs to get the horses to move, and harsh bits to force a horse to slow down. Natural horsemen prefer to use less harmful bits or none at all, plus voice commands, like “whoa” for stop or “easy” to slow down. This is so they do not cause any unnecessary physical or mental harm to the horse while still teaching the horse to obey to commands. 
However, there are still many people who believe that the only way to get a horse to do what you want is to “break their spirit”. They believe that a horse can only learn with negative reinforcement and that treating a horse with respect is a sign of weakness and is pointless. One method that many traditional trainers use is called the Rollkur posture or hyperflexion. Rollkur involves positioning the horse’s head and neck into a tight, round position where the horse's muzzle is almost touching its chest. The goal is to make a horse more flexible and keep its head down. A study was done on horses that were hyperflexed and those that weren’t. They were tested for flexibility and how scared they were approaching objects. A hyperflexed horse has a hard time seeing since its face is tucked into its chest. The results were that horses showed more signs of stress, discomfort, conflict and frustration when ridden with the traditional Rollkur method than when ridden with a more natural head position. (Duncan) Flexibility and giving the horse a crested neck can be achieved through the natural motion of giving pressure and taking it away when the horse lowers their head. Horses respond better to authority and rewards through relieving their discomfort rather than constant pain or a reward system with treats. [Sankey _et al_. 2010]
The ever growing fad of natural horsemanship has taken off in the last 30 years and has gotten many horse owners to think twice about digging spurs into their horse to make them move or smacking their back ends when frustrated. Many are now choosing to find a way to communicate with their horse and build a partnership rather than owning a slave who does not enjoy their company. Those who swear by the natural horsemen Monty Roberts and Pat Parelli’s methods know the incredibly warm feeling when a horse wants to work with you rather than just obey you to avoid being punished. “To know that your horse is free to move away from you at any time, but doesn’t, is one of the nicest feelings in the world’, commented Karen, a livery yard manager studying the Parelli program.” (Birke) 
A horse is more apt to be less spooked and more loyal to those who use calm voices and who release the pressure on the horse’s mouth when their horse bends rather than brutal force. Since horses are flight animals, they react instinctively to brutality with running away. Research shows that horses like routine and don’t easily forget something that has happened to them, good or bad. (Birke) Therefore remaining calm and in a routine will lessen the trauma on the horse. However if you use negative reinforcement on a horse, they will remember for a long time afterwards and will probably not be willing to work with you anymore.
Another study was done in the UK between riding horses that were trained traditionally versus with natural horsemanship. Fourteen untrained horses, between 3 and 5 years old were randomly placed to either be trained with the traditional method and the other half with natural horsemanship. Each trainer was only allowed to work with their horse 30 minutes per day. The horses were then scored based on technical performance by judges who didn’t know by which method the horse was trained. In the end, the horses trained by natural horsemanship had lower heart rates and higher evaluation scores for the first test, proving that natural horsemanship is more efficient. (Fowler)
Many cowboys bridge the gap between conventional training and natural horsemanship. Lynda Birke writes in her essay that “Despite the stereotypes, cowboys—Miller and Lamb argue—had to be gentle with horses, to see the world through their eyes.” Even though the common misconception is that cowboys use spurs and harsh bits, they do know that horses never forget when someone who mistreats them. The Lone Ranger knew this and found a balance between using certain devices from each training method to find the right equilibrium of control and freedom. A horse needs to recognize that you are the leader and that there is no benefit from shying away from you. To make sure a horse is willing to work with you, those who believe in natural horsemanship use what is called a join up. You begin a join up by “driving the horse away, giving the horse the option to flee. Through body language, the trainer will ask, ‘Will you pay me the respect due to a herd leader and join and follow me?’ Horses respond to these actions with communication signals. The exchange concludes with the trainer adopting passive body language as an invitation to create a partnership.” (Join up International) I have done several join up’s while training horses and every time, once they join me in the middle of the pen, they behaved beautifully under saddle.
The next time you watch _The Lone Ranger_ think about how Reid trained Silver and note that the more respect you show a horse, the more they will respect you and are willing to follow your instructions. The Lone Ranger didn’t beat Silver into being obedient, he treated him with respect and therefore Silver was loyal to Reid. Although the traditional method will result in a well-trained horse, there won’t necessarily be a bond between you and your horse. Natural horsemanship doesn’t only get a horse trained, but it also “oﬀers [people] the chance to ‘learn to speak the horse’s language’” (Birke, 2007). This is the key difference between a horse who simply works for you versus a horse who actually wants to work with you and maybe even fight crime.

Work cited:
Birke, Lynda. “Talking about Horses: Control and Freedom in the World of
*Horsemanship*’”. Society & Animals. Jun 1, 2008, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p107-126. 20p. _Academic Search Premier_ EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2014. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=c7c0587a-f527-466f-acda-984de0132a6c%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4210 
Rozempolska-Rucińska; Iwona;Trojan, Maciej; Kosik, Elżbieta; Próchniak, Tomasz;
Górecka-Bruzda, Aleksandra. “_How "*natural*" training methods can affect equine mental state? _A critical approach -- a review”. Animal Science Papers & Reports. 2013, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p185-194. 10p. 1 July 2013. _Academic Search Premier_ EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2014. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=c7c0587a-f527-466f-acda-984de0132a6c%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4210.


----------



## weema (May 4, 2014)

The rest of my work cited
James Heatly Duncan, Anna Kate Shoveller, Katrina Merkies, Linda Jane Keeling, Suzanne Theresa Millman. *“Impact of riding in a coercively obtained Rollkur posture on welfare and fear of performance horses”.*


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Your assessment is too simplistic. A horse is 8x-10x larger than a human, about the difference between a cat and a small adult woman. When they bite or kick each other it's nothing, but it's dangerous for us. Therefore we train them to submit to us and to be gentle FOR us.
No good horse trainer in the history of the world was successful as a brute. Nobody who wants their horse to be their BFF is going to have a good relationship with their horse, either. New horse owners often believe that All "traditional" training was abusive, and you are continuing the myth, and then they get injured. Then, the horse gets sold and often ends up in a worse place bc of this.
Good training is good training, period.
You can live your whole life and keep learning how to train a horse.
If you really love your horse you will train him or pay to have him trained to be able to ridden and used by not-so-great riders, and then, he has a better than even chance for a long life.
I do not believe that any forum members here want to abuse their horses through training, and most of us incorporate some form of "Natural Horsemanship" training, so you are not persuading anybody here to change their wicked ways.
I use some training methods that I learned before NH came on the scene, read as much from translated Xenophon and certainly read Alois Podjowsky's books and George Morris--anybody that I thought was a good, solid horse trainer, and old training IS good training or people like Dennis Reis wouldn't use it in their own versions of "Natural Horsemanship".
Please re think and re edit.
Oh, and Welcome to the Forum! We welcome intelligent discussions. I wish you well. =D


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_I have done several join up’s while training horses and every time, once they join me in the middle of the pen, they behaved beautifully under saddle._"

In my highly limited experience, I've seen no correlation. Nor have I seen any correlation between 'bond' and 'obedience'. But then, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Mia to morph into a crime-fighting horse.

"HiHo, Mia, Awayyyy!!!!" would be followed shortly by "Whoa, Mia! I said, WHOOOAAAAAA!!!!!!!!" She can do "away"....it is the whole "Whoa" thing we struggle with. :wink:


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

I couldn't figure out how to get the multi quote to work so I bolded what I intended to quote. 

*The traditional way where the trainer jerks the reins, causing the bit (metal piece in a horse’s mouth that is used for control) to yank on the horse’s mouth versus a partnership where both horse and rider communicate and respect each other.*

Here's my problem 'traditional methods' do not entail what you've stated. Bad training does. I've seen just as many Natural Horsemanship trainers yank on the bits as traditional trainers. Maybe it was terminology but traditional does not mean what you described it as. BAD TRAINING AND RIDING DOES!! I use traditional methods and I respect my horses just as much as a natural horsemanship rider does. Me using a more older method does not mean I lack or have respect, being a good horse person does. 

You have your bad apples in ALL aspects of training. And not every training method works for every horse. I use mostly traditional elements of horse training and supplement more 'natural horsemanship' methods if needed. I have never had a horse be sore, broken spirited or lack personality. Even with my supposed 'harsher' methods I do know the warm feeling have having a willing mount like what you described. 

I'm not going to turn this into a novel because it might simply be a terminology error and no harm was meant by it but let me just reiterate. One method is not any better than the other if done correctly, and training aids and equipment is only cruel with a careless and harsh handed rider. 

As for the science report I couldn't read the link (it was broken) but there are lots of other factors that play into this that I would want to see. I did a research paper on NH vs. 'traditional' and several of the academic reports were skewed because not all of the horses had been handled the same way before the study, and have very poorly documented biological rates before training began.


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

^Just realized, I wasn't trying to come off as snarky or anything, just pointing out terminology (I was guilty of it too when I did my research paper lol) welcome to the forum! 

And yes, I think we all use NH elements in our training.... I've just always referred to mine as 'common sense'! :lol:


----------



## M123M (Apr 2, 2014)

I would love to read what you wrote but it is formatted in such a way as to be very difficult to read. Can you possibly break it up some and post in a normal font?


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

You do realize that "The Lone Ranger" was an actor and did not train the horse?... In addition, there were two different horses. "Silver#1" was bought already trained, very gentle and obedient. "Silver#2" was trained by Glenn Randall.

Wild Fire's Lone Ranger Pics with Silver

You are talking about working with horses as if some magic bond is attainable. While there are horse-people relationships that are very close and the horse would do anything for them, it is not a result of the "come be my friend" mentality. Before a horse can be your friend, you must first be their leader. The trust comes in when you take the "lead mare" role and the horse trusts you that you are not going to let that giant truck coming down the road eat it. As the lead mare, you decide when a situation is safe or not. The horse looks to you for confidence and guidance.

So how is the "lead mare" role achieved? Horses in a herd are constantly vying for a higher position. A higher position is gained typically through spats and fights often involving hooves and teeth. A horse with a high position in the herd has an air of authority about them. We, as humans, must be confident in handling the horses to give off that air of authority. When a horse joins up, it is not because he "desires" to be your friend. It is because he is acknowledging you as the herd leader, for you have been driving him out of the herd (the center of the round pen). He wants to be inside of the herd, where it is safe, and he can only do that once he has submitted to you. He understands that the center of the round pen means that he gets to be safe and doesn't have to work by running in endless circles.

"Buck" is an excellent movie, I recommend that you watch it. There is a lady on there who brought in an aggressive stud. She "just wanted to be his friend" and did not understand why he was coming after her with a killer intent. He was coming after her because he did not view her as the herd leader, but a threat, though she had not been "abusive" or whipped him, etc. Besides that, there was a lot of mishandling involved in the case.

Whips and spurs are not evil-it is people who misuse them. They have their own place in training. My mare I could get her to join up and follow me around like a puppy dog, then get on her back and she refused to go faster than a jog and bucked when you insisted (this was a few years ago). Once I learned how to properly handle her, I had a willing horse beneath me. This required the use of a dressage whip and more than once really "laying it on the line". A swat is not going to hurt the horse.

I would go on but my head is killing me and I need to make lunch :wink:


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Herd leaders don't ask, they demand, and woe to the lower herd member who doesn't obey. So your 'peaceful kingdom of love and respect' doesn't exist in herd hierarchy. It's all about who can command the lead and keep it, often with force and pain. 

We are not horses and horses may not have human intellect, but they understand hierarchy and respecting leadership. They need to see us as trusted leaders, not BFFs. 

I'm not saying we need to cause them unremitting pain, but correction is necessary when dealing with an animal who has a mind of its own. Consistency and fairness are what horses want, and what they need in order to respect someone as a leader. 

No tool is inherently cruel, it's the hand that wields it that makes it a form of communication or one of torture.


----------



## weema (May 4, 2014)

I wasn't trying to say that anyone on this forum beat their horses or that traditional horsemanship is horrible. I just wanted to point out the extremes to both sides. I personally think that "traditional" and "natural" horsemanship should be used together in balance. Maybe in reading my essay people got lost, but I specifically used the Rollkur method as an example that many high end dressage trainers use, which is in fact not pleasant or healthy for the horse.
I too use whips, but not to the extent that some trainers use them. They are an aid for me, not a weapon. I apologize if I offended anyone who uses traditional methods, that was not my intention. I simply wanted to see what other people thought and how people can try to put these two methods together in order to be kind to your horse but still be the boss.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Really? Because everything you referred to basically stated, 'NH good, traditional training bad and cruel'. 

Did you not actually read what you posted? That's the only way you could believe that everything you quoted WASN'T a slam on traditional training methods. 

NH and traditional methods in their truest forms are one and the same; it's called 'common sense training'.


----------



## Palomine (Oct 30, 2010)

Agree with format and font needs to be changed.

A good trainer was incorporating good horsemanship into their training well before the NH smoke and mirrors began. They always have.

And no trainer worth their salt, yanked on the bit with their hands. No rider does either.

As for "join up", it does not work with all horses, and much of the time it is overdone, and overused to the point that the horse shuts down out of exhaustion too, which is as bad as beating one into doing something.

I've seen enough of the NH fad, and you called that one right, it is a fad and it is getting people hurt daily, to know it is rubbish. The majority of the ones who fall for it hook, line and sinker, are new to horses, and have no idea how to work with them, much less how to read them, and as a result the horses are spoiled, dangerous and out of control, as well as being an idiot.

Running around a pasture playing with a horse, teaching them to play games and thinking they are just a big dog and treating them like one, is foolish beyond belief.

Horses understand all too well who is running the show, and if the human has come away from their NH clinics with nothing but "love and respect and trust your horsey and he will love, and respect and trust you too" they are heading for disaster.

And the above? Is exactly what everyone I have run into that does NH is like too. And their horses are idiots.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Let me give an example of how the 'horse needs a leader' thing can break down.

Mia likes me, as much as she likes any human. Mia believes humans do good things for horses. She trusts humans. In her training, she did the join up thing, but it didn't work because what she really figured out was, "_If I act like a puppy dog, they will leave me alone_". That had nothing to do with leadership or respect, but happily she believes humans do good things.

Now, in the saddle, and we get in an awkward spot in the desert. What happens? She looks to me. So far, so good.

However, I'm a human. I remember the past, and my past includes getting hurt because of her stupid reactions. It still hurts me 5+ years later. I also remember that when she runs, she cannot judge her turns well and sometimes falls at full speed without a rider, and I remember that she has no concept of what cactus, or stepping off a 4 foot ledge while going backwards would do to us both. Being a linear, logical, remembering human, I get nervous - and it is justified because of wrong reactions Mia has had in the past.

Mia, however, lives in the present. So when I get nervous, what does she think? What does a subordinate horse do if the leader gets scared? Yep...get really scared. She doesn't think, "_He's scared because I sometimes back into cactus_", or "_He's scared because he has seen me fall at a gallop with nothing on my back and in level terrain_".

Nope! She lives in the present, so she assumes my fear (tension, concern, worry) is caused by what has her worried, and so she starts to spin up. That makes me more nervous, not less, and it is up to me to stop the spiral before an explosion results - because Mia doesn't understand and cannot. She is a horse.

The problem has nothing to do with trust. If anything, she is trusting me to stay focused on the present, when my mind and memories include the past. I've concluded this is why she has been known to bolt at any sign I'm thinking of a dismount: she figures I'm dismounting to run away, so she'd better run away too!

The counterbalance of all this is TRAINING: Repeated obedience to stimuli so ingrained that the horse will do it even when scared. It means she needs to have listened to my leg so many thousands of times that she will move correctly in response even when I'm tense. I was joking about stopping earlier. She stops fairly well now...but it has taken uncounted stops. And even now, she thinks a stop signal with a curb means stop, and one with seat or snaffle means "_Have you considered slowing down?_" :?

That is why I argue we ride the training, not the bond. That is why I am wary of NH that focuses on relationship instead of repeated correct performance. When the horse hits the fan, I want a horse who obeys cues, not one who asks, "_How does my rider feel today?_" - because at that moment, being human, I may not be feeling all that great!


----------



## Incitatus32 (Jan 5, 2013)

weema said:


> I apologize if I offended anyone who uses traditional methods, that was not my intention. I simply wanted to see what other people thought and how people can try to put these two methods together in order to be kind to your horse but still be the boss.


No offense taken by me haha I know that often what we write can be interpreted numerous ways and often how we didn't mean it to sound. 

For me personally there is no difference between NH and good horsemanship. To me NH is treating the horse like a horse, giving it time to learn and use its brain and only using force when necessary. 

For example: 

I have a spooky gelding who I do dressage with. When he seems something scary and we try to work past it I start out by allowing him to see it, and don't push the issue when he wants to back off and take a breather from it. Then I ask again, this time I demand more time. If he starts to back away I put a bit more pressure on him to stay by it. By doing so he knows that as a leader I will not put him in danger, but I'm giving him time to investigate and form conclusions before I push him to the next step. 

Another example would be working a horse that tries to take you into the barn. I get rough with them when they misbehave at first to show them that I will not take their crap and show I'm the leader. Then when we have established the hierarchy I allow them to make their mistakes so that I can correct them appropriately. 

I might not have explained it correctly lol.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Weema,

next time you want to discuss this topic, please don't just cut and paste a "story" in microtext. I don't have the time or energy to work my way through that ! 
folks here are pretty no nonsense, and we are busy and don't have the energy to scrutinize a giant block of text with a font the size of a gnat's eyebrow.


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

There is nothing we do that is 'natural' to the horse, so I don't refer to any type of horsemanship as natural horsemanship. There is good horsemanship and bad horsemanship. I aspire towards the former.


----------



## jackboy (Jul 8, 2012)

All I aim for in training is an obedient horse I'm not concerned with if they want to do it or not.


----------



## mobilenaturaltrainer (Nov 28, 2013)

Really? Because everything you referred to basically stated, 'NH good, traditional training bad and cruel'....I agree with Speed Racer...

Horses are amazing and can learn successfully from any method that is clear and makes sense to them. What is important is that they are prepared to be able to do what is expected. Every now and again a horse is not able to be successful and that is when it is important to have more tools whether it is traditional or so call natural. It is important before choosing any method to really understand it and to really understand horses so that you can recognize when a horse needs something different.
Good trainers don't have a specific method, nor do they follow any one specific person, they try to learn a little bit from every rider they meet and every horse they work with. Normally they are not attached to one trainer and keep an open mind. Over the years they have had opportunities to learn from other great trainers and work with some great horses. They continue to do all that I can to keep themselves at the top of their game. Good trainers with soft hands using traditional methods definitely does not consist of forcing a horse to do everything they want. Good trainers are against forcing horses to do anything, because they have seen it done, some may have tried it and they will tell you one thing; it doesn't work. Yeah, you can force a horse in a trailer, you can force a horse to lower its head, but overall, you've created a much larger problem in the foreseeable future, and it can take much longer to fix that problem than if you had just taken an extra thirty minutes to train the horse to load, or to collect and relax the horse so that his head naturally goes down. 
Good trainers use whatever method works for the horse; the simplest horsemanship method traditional or natural; the most enjoyable route for horse training. There are many well-known trainers that are not specifically known for using traditional or natural methods; Adrienne Lyle, Buck Brannaman, Stacy Westfall, Richard Winters, Eitan Beth-Halathmy, Lester Buckley, Tom & Bill Dorrance. Good trainers regardless of the method they use are not the Bosses they are leaders!


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

I've stayed off of this mess, but I guess I will chime in this one time only. Good training is good training. The better a person understands how a horse thinks, the easier they make it look and the easier it is on the horse.

The idea that you can label training as 'traditional' or 'natural' is completely foolish unless you have firm, solid definitions of each -- and there are none. They mean something different to everyone that uses the terms. Good trainers were around centuries before the term 'natural horsemanship' was coined. Bad trainers use the term every day and can't train a horse for squat.

I have seen people who claimed they used 'natural horsemanship methods' and they had the most spoiled, poorly trained horses I have ever seen. They could not teach a horse to eat grain. I have seen the same thing true of people who said they used traditional methods, but they were so inept in what they did, their horses were neither trained nor easy to ride.

The way a horse behaves for riders it does not know tells me everything I need to know about that horse's trainer. If the horse is quiet, relaxed, shows no fear but is compliant and happy to do everything the new rider asks, it was trained by a good horseman using good training methods. 

*The horses don't lie.

*In my personal experience, the people who are the most hung up on the words, have not been exceptional horsemen (or women) and have not trained much to a very high level. The best horsemen I have seen in my 68 years have used a myriad of different methods, fit the best ones to the horses that fit it and have accomplished horses to show for it that willingly do what they have been trained to do and do it for anyone that knows how to ask.

JMHO Cherie


----------



## jmike (Aug 21, 2013)

i love these types of thread because i like debate

also ... i am not offended in the least -- just writing down what i thought



weema said:


> The traditional way where the trainer jerks the reins, causing the bit (metal piece in a horse’s mouth that is used for control) to yank on the horse’s mouth versus a partnership where both horse and rider communicate and respect each other.




this seems to say that "traditional" training requires the trainer to jerk the reins and yank on the horse's mouth

versus a partnership through communications and respect -- meaning communication/respect and traditional training are mutually exclusive 




weema said:


> A traditional horseman uses whips and spurs to get the horses to move, and harsh bits to force a horse to slow down. Natural horsemen prefer to use less harmful bits or none at all, plus voice commands, like “whoa” for stop or “easy” to slow down.


 
you seem to be indicating that the tools used in one method is not the same as the tools used in another method or that they are used completely differently




weema said:


> They believe that a horse can only learn with negative reinforcement and that treating a horse with respect is a sign of weakness and is pointless.


 
negative reinforcement is the basic foundation of nearly every training method - including natural horsemanship (watch a clint anderson video and count how many times he says "release pressure")

negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant in order to encourage a behaviour or action





weema said:


> *Horses respond better to authority and rewards through relieving their discomfort* rather than constant pain or a reward system with treats.





weema said:


> [Sankey _et al_. 2010]




underline portion is a prime example of negative reinforcement



weema said:


> However if you use negative reinforcement on a horse, they will remember for a long time afterwards and will probably not be willing to work with you anymore.




this is contradictory to your previous statement



weema said:


> The next time you watch _The Lone Ranger_ think about how Reid trained Silver and note that the more respect you show a horse, the more they will respect you and are willing to follow your instructions.


ultimately, i thought that what you wrote was intellectually dishonest and occassionlly contradictory

when comparing different methods, you need to compare method #1 to method #2 ... instead of method #1 with non-specific misinformation about all other methods (not including rollkul in this generlization)

the article had a painfully obvious agenda




weema said:


> I wasn't trying to say that anyone on this forum beat their horses or that traditional horsemanship is horrible.


what you wrote seems to say exactly that -- traditional methods rely on pain to train

there is also a stark difference between a boss and a leader


----------



## Hackamore (Mar 28, 2014)

I think you will find successful trainers will not limit themselves to one technique. As horseman & horsewomen we are students of the horse and the more knowledge and options we have in our tool box the more successful we will be training and solving problems. 
I will use any technique that’s effective and humane no matter what category it’s labeled as.


----------



## walkinthewalk (Jul 23, 2008)

Lots of great replies on here

Here's my personal experience with "natural" horsemanship which has been around since the beginning of time, as others have already mentioned:

I started training my granddad's horses when I was 12 -- that was way back in 1959. The prime time for all the horse series and movies you reference and I watched everyone of them

1. There were no spurs on the property - he didn't believe in them. To this day in my 67th year, I have never owned a pair of spurs and I have re-schooled some pretty rank horses

2. Riding crops only being devices for the high end folks, horses were not hit with a stick. He didn't believe in them, unless it was the stubborn paint horse, Patsy, that would run you under a tree limb in a skinny minute. Funny how that horse would go around a low-hanging limb if we just carried a stick with us

3. If my cousin and I didn't "treat that horse the way we wanted to be treated", we could find ourselves sitting on the porch the rest of the summer looking on while some neighbor kid did the training for our granddad.

4. Last but certainly not least, my granddad must have been a pretty good "natural" horseman as he had a waiting list for his broke to ride and drive children's ponies. None of them were registered but he still managed to get $300 - $400 each back in the early 1960's. 

I watched as many "Hi-yo Silver" shows as the next person of my generation but, never did I think that was the way to ride a horse, much less train one.

How one trains a horse comes from what their inherent "heart condition" and who showed them the ropes in the first place. I was more privileged than most to have a grandfather who possessed a great and gentle ability to convince a horse to do things for him and rarely having to raise a hand to them. 

Were he still alive, he would still be ten times the horseman than I could ever hope for. 

While I respect the place from which the OP wrote, I cringe when I see this topic come up, as the word "natural" has morphed into something that only means today's world of so-called natural horse trainers.

I wonder how well folks would like Pat Parelli's "natural" methods if they'd seen him give his own stallion a good jerking and spurring when he thought nobody was looking and the horse hadn't done one thing to deserve that sort of knocking around. I saw it with my own eyes as I was watching him work the horse from the mezzanine window overlooking another arena during their intermission.

"Natural" horsemanship starts with the heart condition and sense of fair play. The mechanical ability to successfully train a happy & willing horse builds from there.


----------



## Palomine (Oct 30, 2010)

walkinthewalk said:


> Lots of great replies on here
> 
> Here's my personal experience with "natural" horsemanship which has been around since the beginning of time, as others have already mentioned:
> 
> ...



Wonderful story here. And how I would have liked to have known your grandfather. 


As for the pps. Know of someone who was at arena showing horses, he was wandering around before that evening show was to start. lp was in a round pen, far off the beaten track, and he watched her work the stew out of a horse, running it around and around, and riding it. Horse was dripping wet when she got done. She never knew he was there where he was observing this from.

That night, pp's put on demo. Made big deal of telling crowd to be quiet, not move, or use cameras as lp was going to work with wild horse and a dangerous one, never been handled one time. lp would attempt to gentle and ride it that very night.

Everyone holding their breath almost and who comes into ring? The same horse she had been working dogsnot out of that afternoon. And riding too.

Big applause for her wonderful skill in getting horse to let her ride.

And total BS.


----------



## piglet (Oct 2, 2012)

Palomine - was this someone you know personally, or someone who knows someone you know?


----------

