Traditional methods or "natural horsemanship"?
December 22nd, 2009
I’m curious to see what people generally prefer: traditional horse training methods or new "natural horsemanship"? And why do you prefer it? Are you open to new ways of thinking or do you consider the information currently available to be sufficient?
I’m thrilled with the response to this question so far. I believe good horsemanship is about common sense and shouldn’t be labelled "traditional" or "natural". While I try to keep things natural, many "natural" methods are traditional. Natural horsemanship has been around for centuries. It’s great to see that people are open minded and think about the methods being used. Do any of you think their is a benefit to learning about current marketed natural horsemanship (Parelli, Lyons, Roberts, etc)?
I thank everyone for their awesome answers! I didn’t expect such a mature response and sure didn’t expect the general consenus to be so very similar.
All the answers were soo good.
Thanks so much, guys!!!
The techniques known as ‘natural horsemanship‘, ‘intelligent horsemanship’, and ‘horse whispering’ are considered a modern approach, but their roots go back many hundreds of years. It is only because we can now access, and share, much information that certain individuals have made business oportunities (and fortunes) by giving them a title.
Such techniques can be very useful in emphasising certain aspects of communication with horses, for example the use of body language and encouraging owners to question their ethics when training their horses. On the other hand, as with other methods (e.g. the classical school), when it becomes fashionable and popular, it can become another unquestioned dogma. The result is that one traditional dogma is replaced with another, which may be equally inadequate for improving how we teach or have to do with horses.
There is no right or wrong method, so long as it influenced by using informed and reasoned descisions, and takes the horses best interests in to account.
‘Thinking horsepersonship’ is what I follow! It is forever being adjusted as I learn more, and takes in to account the personality of the horse I am working with at the time. Anyone who believes that their method is the only valid one, and needs no further questioning, is of no use to the horse, and has no right to consider themselves a horseman (or person), whatever the title.
EDIT: It heartens me to read all the above answers, and to know I am in good company with regard to individuals who think for themselves, rather than just stick to one method like it’s a religion!
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I grew up with "traditional" methods of horse training / riding (not abusive at all, just very traditional) and only recently started doing some natural horsemanship (some parelli, some other styles) with my new 3yo horse. My 30 year old traditionally trained horse thinks I’m nuts. She’s like "stop shaking the rope I KNOW what "back up" means" LOL. With my new colt I think "back up" and move the rope slightly and he backs right up happily and waits to see what we are going to do next. He and I have a different dynamic to our relationship that I really like.
I think a good mix of both with common sense and understanding of the horse is key. As I learned more about natural horsemanship techniques I realized that some of this stuff I had been intuitively doing all along.
I am open to new training methods, watch / read / go to clinics with a variety of trainers and then use what works for me from each. I don’t like the "ONLY parelli / roberts / etc works" thinking.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I do what works.
I think theres a fine line between traditional and NH, I think some just finally named it and claimed it and got the money from it, while the old timers, knew they were right all along.
I think its sick and wrong how the NH’ers have labeled anything other than Parelli cruel training. They, themselves are hindering them from being open minded to other things that might stop the bratty horses that I have seen far too often from some NH’ers that had no concept of discipline.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I tend to agree with the Stomping Mule – people have been using ‘natural horsemanship’ for centuries. Some have just started naming it. Whether you use traditional methods or supposed natural horsemanship, you can abuse your horse. I find that most of the popular trainers are popular because people buy horses above their abilities, or more green than they can handle, then wondering why they are so ‘bad’.
Natural horsemanship is about horse psychology, understanding herd dynamics, personalities and what makes horses tick. It is not a trademark of any trainer and many trainers’ theories can be combined effectively.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
natural horsemanship has been around for hundreds of years.someone slapped a label on something that good trainers have known for a long time.if you watch a horse in pasture or corraled you can see subtle cues on how to "see thru the horses eyes"so you know how to "talk" with that horse. a lot of people associate traditional horse training with the way cowboys had to train horses for cattle drives,it wasnt pretty but it allowed the cowboy to get a saddle and bridle on a green horse and train it to turn and stop,the refinement came as on the job training and when you spend a couple of months with your horse every day all day(and sometimes all night)you develope a relationship with that horse.but since we dont rely on them for daily transportation anymore we use what i call "ranch horse training"where time is something we can use to not only our advantage but to the horses advantage so that the training absorbs at a rate that is not over stressing an already skittish animal..trust and willingness to learn all come AFTER a horses natural curiosity and how you react to them asking the questions..YOU have to give before a horse will give back..an old saying is "respect is earned,,not given"and this works both ways..
References :
4th generation cowboy/rancher
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
The techniques known as ‘natural horsemanship’, ‘intelligent horsemanship’, and ‘horse whispering’ are considered a modern approach, but their roots go back many hundreds of years. It is only because we can now access, and share, much information that certain individuals have made business oportunities (and fortunes) by giving them a title.
Such techniques can be very useful in emphasising certain aspects of communication with horses, for example the use of body language and encouraging owners to question their ethics when training their horses. On the other hand, as with other methods (e.g. the classical school), when it becomes fashionable and popular, it can become another unquestioned dogma. The result is that one traditional dogma is replaced with another, which may be equally inadequate for improving how we teach or have to do with horses.
There is no right or wrong method, so long as it influenced by using informed and reasoned descisions, and takes the horses best interests in to account.
‘Thinking horsepersonship’ is what I follow! It is forever being adjusted as I learn more, and takes in to account the personality of the horse I am working with at the time. Anyone who believes that their method is the only valid one, and needs no further questioning, is of no use to the horse, and has no right to consider themselves a horseman (or person), whatever the title.
EDIT: It heartens me to read all the above answers, and to know I am in good company with regard to individuals who think for themselves, rather than just stick to one method like it’s a religion!
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
So, what are "traditional" methods…"unnatural horsemanship?"
Hey, if you want to play games with your horse and use a carrot stick or whatever, go right ahead.
If Parelli, Lyons, Anderson and the rest did not get some good results, they would not have the fame that they do…my problem isn’t necessarily with their methods, but rather this idea that completing their course will make "anyone" a trainer, and that is complete bullshit.
How many of you know somebody who has a horse that they just don’t click with…they bought over their head, the horse is not suited to the discipline…whatever reason. Take it to the seminar and voila, the horse loads…for him. The horse behaves…for him. What I’d like to see if the first 5 rides after the person gets home. I have seen several people with a "problem horse" that does wonderfully for another rider.
There is no magic "fix all" method when you’re dealing with horses, and that is the perception most of the "unnatural" horse folk have with NH…this seeming idea that there is.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
They’re both interchangable if you know what you’re doing.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I’ve done both and traditional works better for me.
I did the natural for quite a while and then I realized my horses weren’t learning anything but how to be super calm… they couldn’t spin… slide… rollback… rate track… but you could walk across the court of the LA Lakers vs. the 97 Chicago Bulls and not spook… I personally prefer the slightly spooky horse that handles like an f22 raptor over the bombproof one that handles like a WWI tank.
The main reason I prefer them is because traditional horses tend to be softer and more sensitive to a rider whilst natural trained horses aren’t so sensitive and tend to not have life right out on the surface.
I’ve never looked into Lyons, but what I know of the other two I’m not impressed with, especially not Parelli.
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
You’ve got some great answers so far. I would definitely echo john and cnsdubie. To add my own thoughts to this good topic:
I grew up as one of seven kids on a cattle ranch in the midwest. My dad had started ranching and bought a few horses to work the cattle with. He trained them himself by putting a curb bit in their mouths and climbing on. (I cringe just to type the words!) His method worked, since the result was that he was able to drive and handle his cattle with the two riding horses he had trained. But it wasn’t the best way…he didn’t have a lot of time or interest for doing what was best for the horse. Horses were a tool used to accomplish a task. And I think that’s where your term "traditional methods" is defined.
That was before we were old enough to ride….I was the third of three horse crazy girls (never mind the oldest brother, his attitude towards horses was a carbon-copy of dad’s) and we basically revolutionized horse training on the ranch. My oldest sister was the leader of it, and at age eleven she was learning everything she could about training and handling a horse correctly. As a teenager, she attended a Ray Hunt clinic, and the neighbor down the road from us was a horse trainer who had spent a lot of time with Tom Dorrance. I remember many an argument at the supper table about "those stupid snaffle bits you’re using" and things we should/shouldn’t do with our horses.
After the first few horses on Dad’s ranch, he left the colt starting to us kids. He wanted a horse to be able to go out and cut out a sick yearling steer and put it in the pen for doctoring. If a horse couldn’t accomplish that, he didn’t have time for it. So we girls rode all the colts, starting them in a round pen gentle, working with them, learning with them as we both grew up. Dad always bred good Quarter Horses, and before long we had excellent, solidly-broke cow horses on the ranch. Visitors came often to ride, and we could throw anyone up in the saddle and go out riding the hills.
I think the old ways of thinking of a horse as a tool or an unfeeling and unthinking object are fading, but there are still a lot of uncaring or uneducated horse owners out there.
But on an encouraging note: We spent Christmas at my parents’ ranch (they moved and now ranch in Idaho)……my youngest sister is still training colts for my Dad and they’re still raising good Quarter Horses. I took a look at the bridle racks in their barn, and was hard pressed to find a curb. Dad rides with hackamores only, and my sister uses snaffles on colts and shanked snaffles (hinged mouthpiece, leverage bit) on the older broke horses.
So times are changing, and its great to see. I’ve stated my opinion on Parelli/Anderson/etc many times, and I get a lot of thumbs down for not liking them. If you want to read my full opinion on trainers and which ones I like/dislike, you can read my answer to a previous question here (I’m the first answer):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080212183042AAJEWgg&r=w&pa=AptqD2bwHTHc7uKFZqk2upw09q3R.BmDqofw2bslOI5KLJabscdKTPvTI3wZxlGi7KP3XOH1Nl1q5w–&paid=voted
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Thank you for posting this kind of question and also thank you for all who has answered, who seems to know very well what they are talking about. It was very useful for me since I’m a beginner so just wanted to say thanks to all
References :
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I grew up with watching and using traditional training methods, but I am not close minded to new ways. My grandfather told me, a person that refuses to learn new things is a person distend for failure.
Not all methods work on every horse, some brake easy and others need some work. You need to learn to communicate with the animal (listening is part of communication)
The number one tool in training an animal is knowledge
References :
Grandad
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I think the terms can be misleading – if you watch the parellis ‘from zero to hero’ about how he got into horses it shows that a lot of what he learnt and we now term ‘natural horsemanship’ he learnt from older riders who had been using those methods for years.
My personal preference is to read lots and use the bits that I feel fits my horse. If it works and doesn’t hurt or distress the horse in any way then use it.
The big revelation in the last 20 years or so, the emergence of ‘natural horsemanship’, is simply that there are some good horsemen that are good at getting out and promoting this sort of training methods and horse are becoming more pets than a work animal.
References :