Must thank Laurey Hoyt for her comments on "natural horsemanship." (see comments) While I think she has some good points about horsemanship, I don't see how she defends calling it "natural" when there is still nothing natural to it.
Horsemanship is the ability to elicit a specific response to a specific request. Knowing and using the horse's instincts to accomplish that isn't natural, it's just knowledge applied to purpose.
Several things to consider...humans (predators) aren't horses (prey). There's nothing natual about a predator using prey for enjoyment, work, or companionship. It's an unnatural relationship that humans find enjoyable and horses are trapped in. (Good horsemanship tries to make the situation as pleasant as possible for the horse, but it's never the horse's idea of nirvana.)
It's also interesting how "natural horsemanship" practitioners don't seem to take part in competition's which require the horse and rider to respond to a requirement in a specific way. If "natural horsemanship" was truly different and better, you'd think "natural horsemanship trainers" would be proving their claims by simply winning any and all types of horsemanship competitions.
One reader comments in Bowl of Mush that there are a lot of bad trainers out there that have been licensed (in Canada). Of course the comment is correct...there are bad veterinarians, teachers, bad engineers, bad anything and everything that has to be licensed...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to raise our horsemanship levels by requiring some educational standard.
One thing is for sure...if great trainers are out there that are not "licensed" they'd still be great trainers and better off businesswise if they were "licensed."
Finally, Shawn wanted to know about the damage to the horse's knee (torn cartilage) The point being that there are great risks of infection when injecting horse's joints to keep them showing, and that maybe it's abusive to try to keep them going. There is no question Shawn is correct about the risks. The question of using drugs to keep horses going may be a moral issue not just for horsemen, but for veterinarians as well.
When is medicine right and when is it wrong? As long as it is acceptable in competition is will be used.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Part of what bugs me about the term
ReplyDelete"Natural" horsemanship is the feeling that people have that what is natural is always better. Natural vitamins, natural household cleaners, natural this and natural that, where will it end. Again, what is natural about a man riding a horse, preditor/prey stuff? Although, here is another way of looking at it-are we, as humans, any less a part of this earth than other mammals. We are as much a part of nature as the beaver-then why shouldn't our dams and bridges built by us out of things that we use (concrete) be any less natural than a dam built by a beaver?? If we are a part of nature, then what we do must also be natural. So whatever training methods are used must, by definition, be natural. That simply takes the word "natural" and makes it meaningless-which it is. My definition of natural horsemanship has always been: "A painfull elaboration of the obvious."
As long as so many are so impressed by so little, their will always be another clinic, tour, or on-line club.
One reason I am not disputing your opinion on the use of the word "natural" is because from your point of view, I agree with you 100%. There is nothing natural about a predator animal riding a prey animal. I was just trying to point out other ways to think of the use of the word. Learning the horse's body language to communicate with horses is learning "his" natural language. Natural can be seen as learning to not use or the oppposite of artificial aids such as bits, spurs, martingales, tie-downs, draw reins, ect., or anything that causes force intstead of willingness. I agree the word natural can be overused in today's society. One example would be herbal medicine. Where do people think many drugs come from? It's still a chemical acting on the body and in most cases, not a chemical that is natural to the body. However, rather than defend the name of a particular concept or method of horsemanship, I am defending the actual method behind the name. I have utilized the methods of Parelli, Clinton Anderson, Dennis Reis, and studied Classical Dressage under many reputable trainers and it's the combinations of these that have built my own style and way of doing things. Parelli is really the only original trainer that emphasizes the word "natural". I think too much is being read into the word itself rather than looking at the whole method. We can think of natural in the case of horsemanship, as something we will strive for, natural balance, natural communication, natural aids, etc. We many never actually reach a true natural relationship, because it can't be, as you have made clear. But, let's get as close as we possibly can. It's kind of like striving for perfect horsemanship. You can keep trying, but you will never be perfect. I just don't see anything wrong with Parelli's view on the use of the word natural. We could go on and tear apart Clinton Anderson's "No Worries" slogan. You show me anyone who has never had a bit of worry about mounting a green horse for the first time and I'll show you a good liar. Dennis Reis' slogan, "No Dust" Tours, could be looked at as yeah, right, I don't care how good you are, you're going to create some dust. So, you know it's okay to say, "the name natural just is not a good choice", but don't write off the method behind it. I just don't want people to not consider the method because they don't like the name. It has changed the lives of 1000's of people and made better lives for many horses.
ReplyDeleteLaurey Hoyt
Laurey: just one comment...Parelli says allow your horse to follow along behind you...what he teaches as the natural way. That is what I would teach as poor horsemanship and dangerous...it is not the natural way, it is a foolish way. don blazer
ReplyDeleteLaurey said: ""the name natural just is not a good choice", but don't write off the method behind it. I just don't want people to not consider the method because they don't like the name."
ReplyDeleteI agree totaly-Don't write off the method just because of the name, It was the ridiculous methods that made me dislike the name! Thanks for helping me clear that up.
On the last 2 comments that were posted, no arguments there. Don, I agree with you. I am not saying I agree with everything in any one method which is why I stated my experiences include the combinatin of several methods. Everyone is different and every horse is different. Some other things I disagree with on the Parelli method are no use of helmets. Also, I think way too much time is spent on one little thing and it takes forever to train a horse that way. I don't think this method is good for someone who already coddles their horse too much. I do think it is good for someone who is the abusive type. I will tell you their program branches out in way too many directions making it confusing where to start and what branch to follow. Their program is also way to much for my pocketbook for the information learned. I do utilize the games because they do provide easy steps for a horse and owner to follow, but I add some Clinton Anderson in there, who is not a coddler, but a let's get it done and make our point kind of trainer. I started my foals with his (Clinton's) methods which produced incredible halter babies. On the last comment. No problem by me, I am not trying to advocate Parelli at all. I already stated my dislikes. I'm just glad there are lots of learning opportunities for people and horses out there.
ReplyDeleteLaurey Hoyt
Laurey, I think we actually agree on more things than we disagree on, and I think Don might also think so. I think we all want to use methods that are easy on the horse and cause no harm. I really don't think their is much "bronco busting" going on any more. I also am glad that there are lots of learning opportunities out there. I just wish that some entertainer didn't come up with a bunch of slogans and fancy names for common things and try to convince people that he invented it and it is his method, and you should pay a bunch of money for something. There are many, many trainers out there doing the same thing, day after day, without a TV show to sell the snake oil. I think I would like to say to all of them "cut the crap and just train the horse"!
ReplyDeleteIt seems there is getting to be quite a lot of backlash to the "Natural Horsemanship" movement. I totally agree that there is nothing natural about a human riding and controling a horse, and I still like the term "Natural Horsemanship". The fact that humans can learn to use the horses own methods of communicating, primarily negative reinforcement (apply a stimulus, release when given the proper response)gives the term some validity, but that is not where it's value lies. It's value is that it has captured the imagination of thousands of horse owners who were getting nowhere with their horsemanship and caused them to stop and think about what they are doing. The presentation is quite clear for how to use the principals making it possible for people to gain some proficiency without years of experience (some may say this is dangerous, possibly, but not nearly so much so as novices proceeding without a plan). All of the cliniciations use some form of the 7 games, again easily understood by the humans and when accomplished the safety factor has increased by a huge margin, as has the persons horsemanship, while staying on the ground.
ReplyDeleteClinton Anderson says it best when he says "I used to be a horse trainer, now I am a people trainer". These guys are making a lot of money at this, so what? That is just good ol American entrapauner ship, find a need and fill it. Their success proves there is a need.
Some of these guys do compete, Clinton is a top reinging horse trainer, others persue other specialties and top trainers/riders in virtually all disciplines are tweaking their techniques to incorporate more direct use of these techniques.
Is any of this really new? No, however is better presented, with specific exercises to teach the human how to use them, the horse is already really good at it. After seening some of the RFD shows and realizing the basis is all about the release I went back and reread some of my favorites, Podjhosky, Monty Foreman, Al Dunning, Mary Twelveponies to see if this was there. Sort of, but more in the form of check and release, check and release, rather than waite for it - instant release.
For my personal test I taught the 7 games to my 29 year old gelding I had been riding for 27 years and took what was already the best horse I knew of to a large step further in responsiveness, I wish I had known this 30 years ago.
I'm sure this debate will continue forever, horse training has provided lively debate for centuries, isn't likely to stop now, but one fact is undeniable, nothing has ever reached so many people so quickly, with even non horseman studying the movement and techniques, and that to me is the real importance, like the term or not.
Some valid points, but not the one about "natural horsemanship" getting to more people faster than previous information and training techniques...it's not natural horsemanship that has gotten the word out...for that you can thank technology..blogs, facebook, e-mail, dvds, cell phones and computers...to credit natural horsemanship for "spreading the word" is just another way it is getting credit for something it certainly isn't.
ReplyDelete