"Why I Don't Do Natural Horsemanship Anymore"

A lot of people don’t realize how rude and pushy their horses are on the ground. Throwing their shoulder into you, using your body as a scratching post, dragging you with a lead rope so they can eat grass are all “normal” behavior to them. Some even encourage bad behavior because they think it’s cute when Dobbin gets impatient or pushy for his treats. Perhaps without a basis for comparison, people don’t realize how well manned and respectful a horse can be. But there’s no mistaking your ass hitting the dirt after being thrown. It sounds like being thrown was the thing that finally made her snap out of it.

If she had been like most of the Parelli followers who don’t even ride their horse, she would still probably be blind to her spoiled horse’s behavior.

When did natural horsemanship become a riding discipline? I’m confused.

[QUOTE=DancingArabian;7789310]
When did natural horsemanship become a riding discipline? I’m confused.[/QUOTE]

They do have NH “demonstrations” and shows, excuse me, competitions, some NH followers think that showing is against NH principles.
It is in some ways becoming a discipline, just not organized as such except by individuals.

The definition of NH when applied is fuzzy, that is keeping it from standardizing.

The more we get to do with horses, the more participants in any way it suits any one of us, the better the horse world will be.

If your ground work does not translate into something useful under saddle, not sure why a person would spend all that time doing the ground work. As time goes on, owners should be doing less ground work and more work under saddle. Some horses are tougher than others, and will never be suitable for a novice rider or even easy for an accomplished rider. That’s just the way it is.

Starting a horse takes special skills. I think riders should realize that just as we use clinicians to better our riding skills we need “colt starters” to put the fundamentals on the green horse.

A colt starter/horse trainer does not have to be a nh’er. I don’t think that Ray Hunt ever referred to himself as anything but a horseman. No special title or tools required.

Natural horsemanship says you can work with the basic natural behaviors and responses of a horse and achieve your goals through a willing partnership.

Now, how that happens is where the fun starts.

[QUOTE=Kwill;7789762]
Natural horsemanship says you can work with the basic natural behaviors and responses of a horse and achieve your goals through a willing partnership.

Now, how that happens is where the fun starts.[/QUOTE]

When NH practitioners say that, those of us that train in traditional ways laugh, because that is what any good horseman already does and did, for centuries.

When they start twirling ropes all over and bopping horses to move AND make that their standard way of handling horses and keep it up as a training method, then traditional training has a bone to pick with them.

In traditional training, you are considered a good horseman when the horse, from the first time you start working with it, just works with you, without needing to resist any you ask of it.
There are no fireworks, the horse is being helped to understand what you want and if taught properly, it seems so simple and the horse so smart.

If you are working with a horse and the horse acts up, it is the trainer’s fault for either doing too much or not enough, because the horse is just reacting to what the trainer is doing.

When you start by having a horse overreact by throwing it’s head up and running around discombobulated, when you have to keep snatching at the lead rope or bit in it’s mouth, when you have to scare the horse to stand off you, when you saddle a horse for the first time and let him take off bucking, unless it is bucking stock for a rodeo, you are already behind the teaching curve if you want to have a sensible riding horse.

Then, if you are giving a clinic and nothing happens, if a colt you start is looking like he was already handled and started as he is doing what you ask so easily, if there are no fireworks for the audience to enjoy, if starting that colt is like watching water boil or paint dry, many clinicians would not have a show.

Ever seen the colt starting Road to the Horse video where Stacy Wesfall won?
Her colt was very reactive and spooky, but you would not notice it, because she took her time to explain to him as they went along to where he was not set off, so she could do more with him, even if he was not broke, than some with a broke horse they don’t watch and listen to carefully and have resisting here and there and so learning to resist not to listen and that you are wanting something off it and learning to cooperate.

Very different than those that flood the colts with a million things until the colt shuts down worn out, mentally and physically and so can be manhandled and a first ride stolen.

Both kinds of start will still give you a colt you have much work to do with later, but why not start the easy way for the horse, where it learns without extra stress of feeling defensive about working with humans?

While I like some that NH practitioners do, there are some very basics they either don’t know about or are ignoring and that I don’t like, for the sake of the horses.

I am not disagreeing with you, Bluey. I trained many a horse without knowing a thing about Buck Brannaman, Ray Hunt, or Clinton Anderson. Never owned a rope halter, used side reins (the horror), and didn’t have flags, carrot sticks, long ropes, just a longe line, a longe whip, and me.

Maybe if I knew what I know now (I have enjoyed learning the Buck Brannaman ideas), some horses that gave me problems might not have been so difficult, but I achieved my goals at the time. /shrug

[QUOTE=Kwill;7789802]
I am not disagreeing with you, Bluey. I trained many a horse without knowing a thing about Buck Brannaman, Ray Hunt, or Clinton Anderson. Never owned a rope halter, used side reins (the horror), and didn’t have flags, carrot sticks, long ropes, just a longe line, a longe whip, and me.

Maybe if I knew what I know now (I have enjoyed learning the Buck Brannaman ideas), some horses that gave me problems might not have been so difficult, but I achieved my goals at the time. /shrug[/QUOTE]

Oh, yes, you are touching on a different topic there, that no matter how many and much we handle horses, we are always learning and refining what we do and wishing we knew that before.

That is the beauty of working with horses, they are always teaching us as we teach them.

We can learn from anyone, but it really is at times like nails scratching on a blackboard to watch what some do, when they get a bit carried away, when they become used to being quick and a bit rough and think that is ok, it gives results and don’t see where that may be hurting the ultimate end we have for horses.

A good example of that right here, in this OP’s story, the horse becoming sore from some of those handling techniques.

[QUOTE=J-Lu;7789222]
I can’t believe I’m saying this… but there’s nothing offensive about the first two videos, in my opinion. Neither horse looks distressed or upset and they both look calm. I don’t understand your point.[/QUOTE]

My point was the horses are not asked to drop their heads and back up with their backs in a healthy position.

No, there is swinging at the face - which results in a raised head and hollowed back - and the horse backs up in THAT position.

If you read the article - the author pointed out this type of high headed (because things are being swung at the horse’s FACE) ground handling was resulting in a stiff and sore horse.

Someone defended “NH” practices and said that the horses are NOT asked to back with a high head - well here we have pepperoni swinging strings at horses - and high headed backing as a result.

At left, Mo has his head up, back arched, hind legs splayed. The arrow indicates where the massage therapist and chiropractor found his “trouble spot” over his croup. Because he was out of alignment and tight, his hind legs were not able to come underneath and support his body in balance properly. He needed three adjustments to fix this, plus I needed to STOP backing him up in this way.

Right photo shows the new way we back up. Head low, nice relaxed back, and the hind leg is stepping under the body to support his weight in balance. It was not an overnight fix. It took two months of lowering his head and backing up, several steps at a time, as it was so hard for him to change over from what we had been doing for several years. The end result: a clean bill of health from the chiropractor and now Mo can do more things, like canter on the longe line!

It occurs to me that common sense would tell you that a horse throwing his head up while backing, every time, would not be a good idea. “that looks terrible, but the clinician told me to do it…” Critical thinking skills might have these “experienced horse people” questioning these methods just on the face of it.

Reminds me of the other thread where the sadistic trainer was really hurting the horses and the people involved for the most part thought it was a-ok.

[QUOTE=californianinkansas;7788888]
This guy is my current “favorite” natural horsemanship “trainer.” And per his FB page, he only charges a very reasonable $420 initial fee, then just $20/month thereafter. :winkgrin:
http://friendshiptraining.org/[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=californianinkansas;7789257]SMH:o
Thank you for noticing that! I fixed it. But, just in case, here is the link: http://friendshiptraining.org/

On the NPHFS (Nicky P. Hissy Fit Scale, with 0 NP =a normal person, and 10 NPs =when NP unsuccessfully sued CoTH), Friendship Training guy only rates at about 5 NPs (so far at least).:D[/QUOTE]

Oh good heavens. Not him again. Can I not go anywhere without being reminded of him?!

But the rope-swinging, etc. isn’t the cue to back up. It’s the correction for missing the cue to back up. So I don’t understand why the woman’s horse always backed up with it’s head high, unless she mistook the correction for the cue and never gave the horse the opportunity to respond to a subtle signal?

Which is certainly possible when the only instruction a person has is via DVD or other medium that doesn’t allow for feedback from a trainer. Or as Bill Dorrance put it “[W]hat’s best in some circumstances may not be best in others. That’s why I recommend strongly to people that they get some real good supervision on this.”

I am so tired of hearing Pat instill disrespect for horses in people and then in the next breath tell people to demand respect from their horses. I guess he’s trying to tell his audience that it’s not the person’s fault when the horse misbehaves - after all, he’s a “coward, a claustrophobe and a panic-aholic.” I think instead that Buck Brannaman had it right when he said “The horse is a mirror to your soul. Sometimes you won’t like what you see. Sometimes you will.”

[QUOTE=pAin’t_Misbehavin’;7795869]
I think instead that Buck Brannaman had it right when he said “The horse is a mirror to your soul. Sometimes you won’t like what you see. Sometimes you will.”[/QUOTE]

Ain’t that the truth! I was at a clinic over the weekend and observed some really interesting dynamics of the people and their horses. I’m certainly not immune to it and am very aware of how my horses and I are alike. Sometimes the things I say when describing Mac, for example, mirror the negative things about me (his first answer is usually “no”) and sometimes the positive things.

I find the “NH” title difficult. I’ve seen horses soured by it when it is the only approach to training. Yet I’ve seen my own horse come around because I have new tools to add to my toolbox through going to various clinics.

There are a lot of good clinicians/trainers out there and a lot of crappy ones - in “NH” just as in any discipline. I’ve worked with those I really like and would work with again (Buck Brannaman, Harry Whitney, Bryan Neubert) and I’ve worked with others whom I wouldn’t give my money to again. My goal is to develop my partnership with my horses so that we better understand each other and work with each other, not against each other. I’ve learned from my h/j trainers, dressage trainers, eventing trainers, and now “NH” clinicians.

I’d say this woman took on the “NH” approach as an end-all, be-all discipline unto itself, which is isn’t. The tools one can learn can help build a foundation, but from there you should be able to (and should!) go in any discipline and further develop the horse. Plus, she mad a lot of bad decisions along the way. She has no one to blame but herself for the ultimate outcome.

I like to toolbox idea, too. I have a lot more respect from my new horse using NH techniques on the ground – he’s a pushy SOB. I like the tools I have been given to solve these specific problems. The under saddle ideas don’t always mesh with classical dressage techniques, but I do give them consideration as to how they might fit into my program.

I study Natural Horsemanship and yes I have quite a few of the Parelli DVDs and training tools but I do not strictly adhered to their program. I like to watch or read about as much as I can from any trainer I can come across. I think that everyone has something they can teach us. And everyone teaches thugs just a little bit differently and I might understand what one person says a little bit better than another. I don’t like all of the bashing of trainers. Sure there are some that I learn more from but that does not mean that someone else cannot learn more from the ones I do not. I would like to think that we are all in this for the good of the horse and to better ourselves. I want to be the best possible human and partner for my horse. And I will tell you that the most valuable thing I learned from the Parelli program was to relax and have fun and let my horse be himself. I learned that he can express his opinion, even if it is through a buck because he is talking to me when he does this. And I am much more relaxed in our schooling sessions and much less of the Nazi I used to be. I also feel that playing with my horse on the ground has allowed me to get closer to my horse because I am not always schooling him only under saddle.

Anyway, that is just my experience and it may not be right for some but it is the path I have taken.

[QUOTE=Madaket;7796984]
I study Natural Horsemanship and yes I have quite a few of the Parelli DVDs and training tools but I do not strictly adhered to their program. I like to watch or read about as much as I can from any trainer I can come across. I think that everyone has something they can teach us. And everyone teaches thugs just a little bit differently and I might understand what one person says a little bit better than another. I don’t like all of the bashing of trainers. Sure there are some that I learn more from but that does not mean that someone else cannot learn more from the ones I do not. I would like to think that we are all in this for the good of the horse and to better ourselves. I want to be the best possible human and partner for my horse. And I will tell you that the most valuable thing I learned from the Parelli program was to relax and have fun and let my horse be himself. I learned that he can express his opinion, even if it is through a buck because he is talking to me when he does this. And I am much more relaxed in our schooling sessions and much less of the Nazi I used to be. I also feel that playing with my horse on the ground has allowed me to get closer to my horse because I am not always schooling him only under saddle.

Anyway, that is just my experience and it may not be right for some but it is the path I have taken.[/QUOTE]

You are aware that, for the first, oh, 15 years at least, the Parellis did think anyone that didn’t ride like they taught were abusing horses and terrible horsemen?
I heard them time and again bashing dressage itself, again and again, making fun of how dressage riders trained and how they rode like a chicken.

Karma is funny, in the later years, the Parellis “got religion”, decided now that dressage was their next goal and hired a top dressage trainer, then invented their own “dressage” way of riding, that, would you know, makes anyone look like a chicken, flopping around on a horse when they ride, I think they call it “fluidity”.

I am glad Parelli taught you so much.
I hope you are now also learning what is not good about it, as explained in the OP and correct some of what you learn, if you really think, as you say, “we are all in this for the good of the horse and to better ourselves”.

My opinion, if you depend on what you learned in the Parelli system to train “for the good of the horse”, you have much you learned there that you may ought to reconsider, for the sake of your horse.
Sorry to say, theirs is really a system that is fairly rough around the edges, in the name of training, when it comes to how they teach people to handle horses.

[QUOTE=J-Lu;7789201]

This woman doesn’t get to blame Natural Horsemanship - the entire discipline - for her own very bad decisions. She needs to blame herself![/QUOTE]

I took the article to mean one SPECIFIC trainer (pepperonis,) not NH as a whole.

One of my favorite NH trainers is Warwick Schiller. All his groundwork is to prepare the horse for riding and he deals with lots of people who dont realize their horses are a result of bad handling.

One thing i noticed about this article was the 25 year gap in horse ownership. She is probably remembering those days through rose colored glasses. After 25 years away from horses she bought a green one, didnt take riding lessons, and blamed natural
horsemanship. Even if she did pick a bad trainer that isnt the real problem

[QUOTE=Bluey;7797064]

Sorry to say, theirs is really a system that is fairly rough around the edges, in the name of training, when it comes to how they teach people to handle horses.[/QUOTE]

There are holes in their program that are readily exposed by spending time with someone who actually learned from Tom and Ray.

Dumbing the horse down to the human’s level is not a training program.