# Natural horsemanship Vs. Traditional training?



## PunksTank (Jul 8, 2012)

My whole life I have been obsessed with learning about horses and how horses learn. I've recently been reading and learning about a number of Natural Horsemanship trainers, like Clinton Anderson and Pat Parelli (and many others). But most of my life in my riding lessons I rode what I would consider 'traditional' riding style.
My question is: What's the big difference? 
In both I find horses are trained to give to pressure, respect their handler/rider and they seem to be ridden mostly the same way. 
I know there are a number of different tools used is that the only difference, Which tools you train them with? I guess I really don't see any defining line between what's considered natural and what's considered traditional?
Personally I mix and match every training style I've ever learned and apply different aspects of each depending on the horse and the skill I'm trying to teach.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

mix and match is the way to go. 
I don't think there is a hard defining line either. The "Godfathers"of natural horsemanship, Ray Hunt and Tom Dorrance, both started out with traditional methods. But, they started to to cue into easier ways to get a horse to do things, and started working toward making that even easier and easier.

I think if there is a differnce, it;s that in NH you are looking to make it the horse's idea to do something. 
For example, I can lead the horse into a stall with my hand so close to the bit that he really has little choice. It works perfectly well. There is not a problem here.
But, if I want my horse involved, I want him looking to me for direction, but yet he as being asked to do something. um m m ... So, I point him toward the stall , let him look at it, I get him to think about that stall and then tell him, go on in and he is already thinking into that stall and he chooses to walk in there.

I think that's why NH folks use that kind of trailer loading . they send the horse into the trailer, rather than walk in with it, holding the line close to the head. Once the horse is thinking into the trailer, you have to do darn near nothin' to get him to coplete that thought. And since the horse made the decision to get himself in, he is more likely to be emotionally ok with being it there than if he was somewhat pulled in by a tight lead (though we all know that a horse that does't want to go in will not go in no matter how tight or strong the lead.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

What's the difference? Depends on which 'NH' or 'traditional' trainers & specifics you're talking about IMO. A good trainer is a good trainer, regardless of lables IMO & there are lots of weird ideas & antics on both sides.

I think *ideally* 'NH' is about working *with* the horse & his natural behaviour & ways of thinking, to create a partnership, rather than just working 'on' them & just making them do stuff. But 'NH' is a bit of a marketing ploy to a large degree, aimed at people with 'fluffier' ideas.


----------



## Army wife (Apr 29, 2012)

Like it was said, a good trainer, is a good trainer...period. I think that in order to succeed with horses, you have to think like a horse. Whether you call yourself NH or not, you have to understand why horses do the things they do. I personally have seen some things in NH that seem unnecessary to me, but that's just me  I think they all have their place and purpose. All horses are different. Some conform to people better then others, who need people to conform more to them for effective communication. What works for you and your horse is all that really matters.


----------



## trampis67 (Nov 14, 2010)

I became a serious student of Natural Horsemanship over 12 years ago. Since then I have studied everybody you can name, bought every book and video I could get a bit of useful info from ( I've spent between 10-12 thousand on study material alone), I lost count of the number of horses I worked with for free, just for the experience. I have come a ways since then, but I didn't start really advancing until I also started studying world champion trainers and getting more educated in "Form to Function". What I have found is that if it's done right, Natural Horsemanship and "Normal" Horsemanship shouldn't be at odds with each other, but should compliment each other and develop a calm, soft , responsive, respectful horse. I believe that if the "method" isn't working on a horse, it's most likely the way it is being applied rather than the method it'self. I don't believe any one "method" is going to work for anybody. I agree with what Pat Parelli advised in his book " Find yourself a whole corral full of knowledgeable horsemen." NRHAREINER pretty much nailed the essence of what Natural Horsemanship is.That's the most accurate way to describe the principals and concepts.


----------



## corymbia (Jul 6, 2011)

All horse training methods that work, work for the same reason. As already mentioned they work on pressure release or negative reinforcement. They also work because of a related learning mechanism- classical conditioning which is simply the horse learning an association between an intitially irrelevent cue (such as a voice command or seat cue) and a consequence- usually a pressure cue (like a whip or leg/rein cue).

Looked at logically there is almost nothing that's inherently natural about most NH methods. Horses don't use bits, bridles, halters, saddles etc on each other. The most common way they sort out differences isn't by aggression but by avoidance- avoiding each other. Avoidance is often very subtle and its easy to miss the signs and only see the agression and think that's the main way horses solve their disputes. They certainly don't chase each other round and round and round, unless in play and they rarely voluntarily get in close to, approach or closely follow horses that are higher up the pecking order than them. 

While many NH methods represent a massive improvement on the brutality of some of the "old" ways, they are no more inherrently humane or effective than the good conventional methods which don't call themselves natural. 

Any training method or technique that uses a minimum of force, fear or fatigue to train the horse to reliably respond to cues will work because of negative reinforcement and classical conditioning, irrespective of the label that's given to it.


----------



## PunksTank (Jul 8, 2012)

I have truly, often felt similar - what makes Natural Horsemanship so 'natural'? Considering the number of tools you need to use on a horse to make them do things. But I think I'm beginning to see the difference, NH is about making a horse want to do things, Traditional is about making them do it. But this being said I don't think then that I fully understand Traditional training, what are some methods that differ? Obviously the tools are different but lets say two trainers are training a horse to lunge (I'll use that example because I've just been working on this with my horse). What approaches would each trainer use?

I did, what I guess I would consider NH but I don't know - I stood about 6 feet from her and drove her out like as if I were round penning her - but only on a rope. She figured it out pretty quick. But what would have been some 'traditional' ways to teach something like that? What would be the difference?

If it's easier to explain the difference using a different skill feel free - I just learn better by example. 

This is so interesting - thanks for the thoughtful responses


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

loosie said:


> But 'NH' is a bit of a marketing ploy to a large degree, aimed at people with 'fluffier' ideas.


Yes. 

IMHO the target audience for some of the methods is those folks who think a horse is simply a large dog.


----------



## PunksTank (Jul 8, 2012)

mls said:


> Yes.
> 
> IMHO the target audience for some of the methods is those folks who think a horse is simply a large dog.



I get the 'marketing ploy' as so many of their tools are completely useless, or no different than tools already used. But if you look just at the methods is there a difference between NH and traditional?


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

PunksTank said:


> I get the 'marketing ploy' as so many of their tools are completely useless, or no different than tools already used. But if you look just at the methods is there a difference between NH and traditional?


I don't truly think so. Used to be 'natural' was without mechanical aids. But now with the carrot sticks, 'special' halters, etc - I see more gimmicks than draw reins or a tie down . . .


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

all i know is i trained my horse using 'natural horsemanship' methods and she is great. the people at my barn who used 'traditional' methods [including my mom] have horses who walk all over them, or wont stand tied, or they are afraid of, or they tip toe around. 

there are idiots and gimmicks on both sides.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

a person using more traditional methods to teach a horse to lunge might have two people, one to stand in the center and one to take the horse by the halter (again , close to the halter ), take it out on the circle and as the center person uses the whip pointing toward the horse's hind area, the outside person leads the horse around the circle so that the horse gets the idea of what needs to be done.
It can be a very calm way to go about this, and in my opinion, for a horse lunging for the very frst time, perhaps the best way.

in NH , the trainer applies pressue on the horse, while using the line to tell the horse where to go. the horse does not know what he can do to release himself from the pressure. He tries backing up. Nope! the line does not loosen, in fact it tightens and the human continues to apply pressure. horse tries going left, even thought the rope is pulling right. Nope, no release there. He eventually tries going right, and instantly the pressure comes off. He may have gone through a lot of "wrong" choices, and he may get pretty upset, if he's the kind of horse that does not know how to deel with even mild pressure. But, he will eventually FIND the right choice. Having found it on his own, he will remember it better.
Also, a glimpse of how this horse handles pressure has been seen. For a baby, I would think the traditional manner a better choice. But for a horse that knows what lunging, or at least following the rope, should be but is resistant and used to having his own way, then the NH way may have more lasting changes.


----------



## Elana (Jan 28, 2011)

This discussion reminds me of a lot of the dog training discussions I read.. and they drive me nuts. LOL

Here is the thing.. you have an animal to train that does not understand English. You need to use to least amount of pressure to communicate with that animal what you want and the timing of an instantaneous release of pressure when the response starts to be the one you want. 

I do not look at NH as anything special and I do not look at Traditional training as cruel. I also do not believe in all kinds of equipment and bits to train the horse. Eventually, when the horse competes at high level of a particular discipline, you may need equipment (like a tie down on a barrel racing horse or a special bit on a Grand Prix jumper) but NOT when you are training and laying a foundation. 

I never heard of Natural Horsemanship until the last few years.. I just trained the horse. I worked alone and started all my horses serious work under tack on a lunge line. I never had any second person to help.. 

Early riding was in a small area with a side pull or a rawhide core bosal and mecate.. and eventually I graduated the horse to a sweat iron loose ring or thick mouth egg butt snaffle.. and from that graduated to a nice molded low port curb (I have a really NICE curb for western riding that I will never part with.. even tho I have not had a horse in 10 years.. LOL). If we were going for dressage I would graduate to an eggbutt SS pelham and then on up to a full bridle. I used a drop noseband or flash noseband to support that snaffle bit on a young horse... 

I wore spurs so that I could be very clear with my aids if needed and I used a long dressage whip to clarify and back up a firm leg cue (rarely needed it). 

I never worried about bonding with the horse. 

I have, over the years, been amazed by the cruel methods used, writen about and supported by so called trainers to train horses (same for dogs). The equipment I mention above could ALL be used in a cruel manner.. but it need not be. 

Maybe I am the dummy here.. but somehow I got the horses trained with little fuss, muss or evil behavior like rearing and bucking. We just quietly went to work and did not try to build Rome in a day.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

tinyliny said:


> a person using more traditional methods to teach a horse to lunge might have two people, one to stand in the center and one to take the horse by the halter (again , close to the halter ), take it out on the circle and as the center person uses the whip pointing toward the horse's hind area, the outside person leads the horse around the circle so that the horse gets the idea of what needs to be done.
> It can be a very calm way to go about this, and in my opinion, for a horse lunging for the very frst time, perhaps the best way.
> 
> in NH , the trainer applies pressue on the horse, while using the line to tell the horse where to go. the horse does not know what he can do to release himself from the pressure. He tries backing up. Nope! the line does not loosen, in fact it tightens and the human continues to apply pressure. horse tries going left, even thought the rope is pulling right. Nope, no release there. He eventually tries going right, and instantly the pressure comes off. He may have gone through a lot of "wrong" choices, and he may get pretty upset, if he's the kind of horse that does not know how to deel with even mild pressure. But, he will eventually FIND the right choice. Having found it on his own, he will remember it better.
> Also, a glimpse of how this horse handles pressure has been seen. For a baby, I would think the traditional manner a better choice. But for a horse that knows what lunging, or at least following the rope, should be but is resistant and used to having his own way, then the NH way may have more lasting changes.


idk, i dont think the NH way is harder at all. if you teach your horse to move away from pressure, it should be very easy to teach them to walk around you in a small circle. once they are comfortable with that then you can make the circle bigger and bigger. i think the horse had a better understanding if its just you and them from the get go. either way, i think it should be a calm experience. i always view my training [like CA] to make the right thing easy. not really sure what im trying to say lol just my opinion.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

To me good training is good trainnig. NH is nothing more then a name that has been given to a way of thinking them 95% of all good trainers subscrib too.

I can name a lot of top good well proven trainers out there who do not put a name to what they do but are no different then those who like to put fancy names to waht they are doing and change you for every little peice of info they will give. Fact is that is it no different then any other trainer out there. They are just better at marketing it.


----------



## longshot (May 30, 2012)

Here is the difference from a guy's perspective. The old ways (traditional, normal, cowboy, etc) simply revolve around a man's inclination to use tools/force. If a bolt won't move we get a bigger wrench, put a pipe on the handle, or beat it with a hammer. We have little patience for things that don't do what we figure they ought to so we get torches, chisels and other brute force approaches to "git er done" when the real answer is to spray it down really good with wd40 and wait. 

Same approach with horse training.. we just got bigger tools, more force, more leverage and forced horses to comply. If you have ever seen old bits and harnesses and other "horse training" gear you see the severity of some of it. It was common practice 100 years ago to rope and throw a horse to shoe it if it wouldn't stand still.
Problem is that you had to do that everytime because the horse was terrified.. people like Hunt, Dorrance, Roberts, and others began to learn from horses how horses learn. That is the difference to me. 

Normal= training a horse the way we think it should be
Natural= training a horse in a way that it understands

Both work, and some of the old ideas are still valid. I use natural techniques, but in some instances the best conveyor of knowledge is still fear or pain and I will use those where and when necessary, but for the most part I just spray the horse down really well with WD40 and wait..lol


----------

