Natural Horsemanship vs Traditional Training

[7HL]

As usual some find these threads as a chance to pick on a particular trainer or person that uses natural horsemanship. Some want to make it out to be more then it really is. Some want to turn it into a discussion about marketing, which it is not. For some, it's about fear of a label.

It would be the same as someone saying that all that ride dressage are rich, snobby, stuck up and generally have a stick up their butt. While that may be true of some, it is a generalization.

What I truly believe natural horsemanship is, can be best summed up as follows:

Julie Goodnight
"Natural horsemanship (NH) simply means that we know and understand the horse's instinctive and herd behaviors and that we use that information to develop a willing partnership and communicate with the horse and in a way that he understands."

Nothing more!

Just because some bastardize a term for their own purpose, doesn't make them right or correct. And that is on both sides of this discussion. There is good and bad in all methods of training.

[MaresNest]

When someone tells me how they follow PP or CA or whomever, I think I'm dealing with someone who thinks you can learn to train horses from a DVD or a book or a TV show.

Agreed. That's not to say that there aren't worthwhile things about NH, nor that there aren't bad 'traditional' trainers. But I am skeptical of NH because its adherents seem to be largely preoccupied with gadgets and gimmicks.

I think you have to judge training methods by their effectiveness and sensitivity to the needs of the horse. You have to take each situation on an individual basis.

[MelantheLLC]

I went to two John Lyons clinics (3 days each) 25 years ago, and it saved both me and my horse.

Yeah, I was a novice; it was the first horse I'd owned. But I'd taken lessons (English) off and on all my life, and several years of "dressage" lessons which consisted of "move him forward! Get his head down!" And my horse, under this lovely regime, began to rear.

You can call this whatever kind of training that you like. But it was typical at all the barns I'd been at. And that was not a small number by the time I was in my 30's. The instructor just said, "Do this," and did not give you the tools or the reason for it "beyond that's how you do it. That's how everyone does it. That's how it's always been done by the people who know."

Lesson horses could be forced. I found out my horse couldn't. So I became afraid of him.

So I ended up at this JL clinic. I've never seen or done any of the other NH guys. But I'll say watching JL work with a youngster was the most amazing and touching thing I've ever seen.

Those of you who think it's just "running a horse until it's tired," just know that you are simply misinterpreting what you've seen, the same way someone who isn't conversant with your methods might misinterpret something they saw you do without having it explained to them.

I saw a 3 year old colt who'd never been away from home go from frantic and frightened to secure and attentive in about an hour and a half. Was it running? Yeah, it ran--it was scared of the whole situation. And it learned that JL could help it figure out how to stop running.

In addition, JL explained exactly how he helped it do that. He explained his body language and the horse's. He mentioned things nobody had ever mentioned before in all those years of lessons I'd had at all those different barns. He was aware of the tiniest motion of the colt's ears as it flicked toward him and away while the horse was still running and calling. He knew how to place himself to suggest to the colt that it consider its options and begin to think instead of run in panic. He noted and explained these things to the audience, and he noted and explained the colt's reaction.

Those are good things to teach people. Maybe those of you fortunate enough to have been "born" with the talent, or to have had years of talented and clear instruction, can claim that the flick of an ear is obvious--but it's my experience that a "talented" horseperson can rarely explain with much clarity what it is that they are actually doing and reading in terms of horses.

JL was pretty good at it. He certainly gave me a whole new view of my horse and started me on a journey of educating myself in body language and behavioral training. It wasn't easy and it wasn't simple, but if I'm any sort of a horseperson now it's more due to him than to the 8 or 10 different lesson instructors who just had me trot around and around at their bidding for years.

BTW, I was just re-reading JL's first book, and in his first chapter he says that the round pen is a tool that's only used for a limited time. He talks about using it for 3 to 5 DAYS, and possibly coming back to it if you have certain specific issues you are working on. He talks about all the hours and years that are put into a horse that is dependable and fully trained, and how there aren't any short cuts to that.

Whatever you call the kind of work he does, by no means is it just running a horse in circles to tire it out, any more than dressage is trotting a horse in circles just to make perfect circles.

When I had nobody around, including the so-called professionals, who could do a decent job of helping me figure out how to deal with my horse, I was lucky to stumble across this education.

[Horseman614]

Horseman614

Having exposure in the English and Western world is invaulable in this discussion. Unfortunately it appears not many folks posting here feel this way. The NH group is not as bad as it is being portrayed, and the English group is not as good as they are portraying themselves. The groupies to PP and the rest are idiots, we can all agree to that. But the basic principles of horsemanship spoken about by Tom Dorrance and Ray Hunt are excellent methods of horsemanship. The marketing gurus of PP and the rest make me just as sick as they make you. Interestingly enough, I have watched them at times and found I can learn from anyone. Sometimes I learn that I will never try that with my horse because it is silly or non productive. I have had the exact same experience with English clinics I have attended. I have used specific techniques from both sides I have learned at clinics and used them with my horses with great success. They good part is there are more ways to accomplish the same thing. As one gentleman in an above post wrote, it all depends on what the horse needs. I have found some techniques work well on some horses but do not work at all on other horses. Sometimes you have to find another way. I have ridden English with the RCMP, I have ridden western with Al Dunning. Both have something that they can offer me.

I haven't consumed the cool aid. But I don't ignore the water trough.

One thing that some of these posts say that does bother me is that they would never spend so much time on the ground with their horse. They prefer to ride. I love to ride too. In the clinics I have taught, I watch magnificient warmbloods walk into the arena, or should I say drag their owner in. Then they can't stop their horse, or have him get around other horses, because he has never been socialized. He kicks - he bites and has zero manners. After about 15 years of teaching, and a lifetime of watching /seeing this, I would love to see the English folks spend a little more time on the ground and teach their horses some manners.

One last thing in this rant. I enjoy horses. If I can learn from someone, anyone, something to help me with my horse, then my horse will be better off and so will I. As a teacher, you must accept the path of being a student.

[M. O'Connor]

A good trainer is a good trainer, whether NH or traditional.

But I don't know any traditional trainers who have "branded" and marketed their their methods to the extent that some NH trainers have. Nor do I know any traditional trainers who have been able to convince the general public that their leadrope works better than anyone else's leadrope, or that after thousands of years of human interaction with the equine, that they have discovered pressure points on a horse's face and facets to a horse's nature that no one else ever has.

I have never used force to convince a jittery horse who is afraid of flyspray to stand still for it. It is very natural for some horses to enjoy a good game of "chase" before allowing themselves to be caught, but I've never thought of coining a phrase to market the methods I use to catch one of these creatures.

Many truly great trainers know there are other ways to get to Rome, and that theirs may not work on every horse.

Many NH brands are successful only because there are people out there who will pay money to learn "new" methods that are, in actuality, based on thousands of years of history and knowledge that went into developing the art of classical horsemanship. If anyone doubts this, just read Xenophon.

There isn't really anything new about NH, other than the marketing.

[tkhawk]

I went to two John Lyons clinics (3 days each) 25 years ago, and it saved both me and my horse.

Yeah, I was a novice; it was the first horse I'd owned. But I'd taken lessons (English) off and on all my life, and several years of "dressage" lessons which consisted of "move him forward! Get his head down!" And my horse, under this lovely regime, began to rear.

You can call this whatever kind of training that you like. But it was typical at all the barns I'd been at. And that was not a small number by the time I was in my 30's. The instructor just said, "Do this," and did not give you the tools or the reason for it "beyond that's how you do it. That's how everyone does it. That's how it's always been done by the people who know."

Lesson horses could be forced. I found out my horse couldn't. So I became afraid of him.

So I ended up at this JL clinic. I've never seen or done any of the other NH guys. But I'll say watching JL work with a youngster was the most amazing and touching thing I've ever seen.

Those of you who think it's just "running a horse until it's tired," just know that you are simply misinterpreting what you've seen, the same way someone who isn't conversant with your methods might misinterpret something they saw you do without having it explained to them.

I saw a 3 year old colt who'd never been away from home go from frantic and frightened to secure and attentive in about an hour and a half. Was it running? Yeah, it ran--it was scared of the whole situation. And it learned that JL could help it figure out how to stop running.

In addition, JL explained exactly how he helped it do that. He explained his body language and the horse's. He mentioned things nobody had ever mentioned before in all those years of lessons I'd had at all those different barns. He was aware of the tiniest motion of the colt's ears as it flicked toward him and away while the horse was still running and calling. He knew how to place himself to suggest to the colt that it consider its options and begin to think instead of run in panic. He noted and explained these things to the audience, and he noted and explained the colt's reaction.

Those are good things to teach people. Maybe those of you fortunate enough to have been "born" with the talent, or to have had years of talented and clear instruction, can claim that the flick of an ear is obvious--but it's my experience that a "talented" horseperson can rarely explain with much clarity what it is that they are actually doing and reading in terms of horses.

JL was pretty good at it. He certainly gave me a whole new view of my horse and started me on a journey of educating myself in body language and behavioral training. It wasn't easy and it wasn't simple, but if I'm any sort of a horseperson now it's more due to him than to the 8 or 10 different lesson instructors who just had me trot around and around at their bidding for years.

BTW, I was just re-reading JL's first book, and in his first chapter he says that the round pen is a tool that's only used for a limited time. He talks about using it for 3 to 5 DAYS, and possibly coming back to it if you have certain specific issues you are working on. He talks about all the hours and years that are put into a horse that is dependable and fully trained, and how there aren't any short cuts to that.

Whatever you call the kind of work he does, by no means is it just running a horse in circles to tire it out, any more than dressage is trotting a horse in circles just to make perfect circles.

When I had nobody around, including the so-called professionals, who could do a decent job of helping me figure out how to deal with my horse, I was lucky to stumble across this education.

Any good trainer or horseperson can do the same with a 3yr old unruly colt.

I understand what you are saying. I started off English lessons-in the ring. Seat, posting, diagonals, exercises etc. While I did get a good background on horse behaviour-not much you can cover in an hour lesson-it was mostly about me. But I grew up with cows in India-so at least I knew big animals-their behaviours-though vastly different fom horses.

What John Lyons says-or at least as you described it is just common sense. Any good rancher who grew up with them and in a nice way-there are same whackos there-will know that stuff. My mustang is with a trainer-he does some NH stuff. But he grew up riding horses and picked up stuff along the way and just has a lot of tool kits.

Each horse is different-if you focus on outside signals alone -flick of an ear, pinned ears, it won't work. What each horse is going to do after it flicks an ear-is very different.Every horse brings something slightly different to the table-so Lyons who may have decades with horses can tell you stuff and sell you DVDs, books-the only way you can get it is by experiencing it and getting a feel for it yourself. It is good-it expands your awareness. Exposes you to different ideas. I personally like Mark Rashid and the Dorrances and even Linda Kohanov-very unique and different perspective. But you know ultimately you have to figure out your personality and the horse and go from there. NH or traditional-good horsemanship is good horsemanship. I think NH probably brings in more clients-it adds a certain amount of mystique and magic to it. I mean instead of saying -Yeah I grew up with horses, been riding all my life-I can do it in my sleep, NH makes it some great thing. They did train horses to go to war and in the chaos, not only trained the horse to fight, but also maintained control of the horse-now that is training...

[DLee]

Labels don't work for me. I am neither. I am both.

I pick and choose and use what works best for me and my beliefs in training.

[Ambrey]

Every good trainer I know uses NH methods, whether s/he'll admit them or not- most of them are very logical and based on sound learning theory.

I think people have issue with those who think it's fundamentally different from the way all good trainers work.

But note, I'm defining "good" trainers by my own subjective standards- trainers who choose reinforcement (either positive or negative) over punishment. I don't like trainers who depend on punishment to train. I really don't like them. I think most trainers use some, and all trainers use negative reinforcement (application of an unpleasant stimulus that will go away when the horse does what is asked of it) but pure punishment bothers me and I prefer to see it used as little as possible.

[findeight]

And I think this is the majority of what horse people have gotten with going to the 'traditional" trainer.

Oh, I just cannot resist here...and only 45 minutes until I don't have to be on call for work and can go do other things...anyway..

This quote was in response to another posters description of an earlier "instructor/trainer" grabbing the Pony's head and whipping it around repeatedly in a tight circle hanging on the reins with the kid still aboard.

How dare you equate what "most horse people have gotten out of traditional training" with this crap?

Do not presume to include me in this sweeping pronouncment of what "everybody" goes through.

That is what always sets these threads going, assumptions and generalities about what "everybody" else does. On both sides.

Carry on.

[NancyM]

After reading the thread about whether to let a NH person come to see a horse for sale, and a few other threads on this topic, I'm suprised at how some people are so vehemently opposed to "Natural Horsemanship" training methods.

I think we should compare "NH" and "traditional methods" in a few specific scenarios to see just how different they are. How would a NH trainer deal with these issues and how would a traditional trainer deal with these issues? Also, feel free to add how you THINK the "other trainer" would deal with it, if you are more familiar with one than the other.

1. Horse will not stand to be fly sprayed.

2. Horse is difficult to catch.

3. Horse nips/bites.

4. Horse won't stand still to be mounted.

Would anyone like to discuss this?

OK, I don't have time right now to read all the responses here already, I just wanted to say that Natural Horsemanship IS Traditional Horsemanship. Everything else is a shortcut. It is not the fault of good horsemanship that some gurus have promoted and marketed it, and made money out of showing people how to do it in an easy stepwise fashion, making it easy to understand and learn. The fact that they have done this just makes true horsemen jealous that they didn't think of it first. The fact that the "movement" has so many "followers" (read: religion), just proves that there are problems and "holes" in the system that you are referring to as "traditional" (non-natural?) Is non-natural simply "beat the horse until it gives up"?

Natural horsemanship has a simple base, none of which is in dispute as to whether it is a good idea or whether it works...

-Use the horse's natural responses to relationships and pressure to advantage in your training.
-Show the horse what you want him to do before asking him to do it.
-Use only as much pressure as necessary to gain a response.
-Notice the try, reward for the right behaviour.
-Keep emotion, anger, fear, confusion out of horse training.
-Train in a stepwise fashion, building on what has gone before.
-Look for recognized signs of acceptance and understanding of each step before moving on to the next step.

Does anybody who trains horses regularly want to argue with any of this stuff? Whether or not they call themselves "natural" or not? "Natural" is a marketing phrase, used in advertising, to gain clients for horse trainers. Works, too. Whether or not the trainer has any skill or is training what you want your horse to learn is yet to be determined, and has little to do with the marketing.

[equineartworks]

Labels don't work for me. I am neither. I am both.

I pick and choose and use what works best for me and my beliefs in training.

Me too...and what is best for the horse (dog, cat, bird, etc) I am with. Training is a lifelong commitment to your partner, so I think we owe it to ourselves to learn and evaluate new and old methods. Then take what works for you and leave the rest.

The extremists you find in all training styles just make it more difficult to weed out the fruit bats.

But this really has been discussed to death here with some pretty funny and not so funny arguments for all styles. Moving on now...

[mp]

I was a bit curious for a decade or two how it could be that you could get a horse to piaffe but not be able to get it to stand at the mounting block. Or why it was that some trainers could not catch their own horse in a field or in a stall, but the horse would come to the groom (or perhaps some stranger they didn't know.) Then I figured it out !! There are a lot of BULLIES and flat out A**HOLES making a 'living' as Horse "Trainers!!"

And some "show" trainers simply focus on what the horse does under saddle and in the ring because that's what's important to their clients. As long as the other behavior isn't out and out dangerous, they just view it as a quirk and don't take the time to fix it.

I've never heard of a client firing a trainer because his horse wouldn't stand to be tacked up. But I know of several trainers who lost clients because the horse wasn't pinned champion.

[katarine]

I just wanted to say that Natural Horsemanship IS Traditional Horsemanship. Everything else is a shortcut. It is not the fault of good horsemanship that some gurus have promoted and marketed it, and made money out of showing people how to do it in an easy stepwise fashion, making it easy to understand and learn. The fact that they have done this just makes true horsemen jealous that they didn't think of it first. The fact that the "movement" has so many "followers" (read: religion), just proves that there are problems and "holes" in the system that you are referring to as "traditional" (non-natural?) Is non-natural simply "beat the horse until it gives up"?

Natural horsemanship has a simple base, none of which is in dispute as to whether it is a good idea or whether it works...

-Use the horse's natural responses to relationships and pressure to advantage in your training.
-Use only as much pressure as necessary to gain a response.
-Notice the try, reward for the right behaviour.
-Keep emotion, anger, fear, confusion out of horse training.
-Train in a stepwise fashion, building on what has gone before.
-Look for recognized signs of acceptance and understanding of each step before moving on to the next step.

Does anybody who trains horses regularly want to argue with any of this stuff? Whether or not they call themselves "natural" or not? "Natural" is a marketing phrase, used in advertising, to gain clients for horse trainers. Works, too. Whether or not the trainer has any skill or is training what you want your horse to learn is yet to be determined, and has little to do with the marketing.

Emphasis mine, I agree on the first point, disagree on the second...I don't think good quality horsemanship can be learned solely from books, DVDs, etc. You need good eyes on the ground, and good people to offer insight and suggestions in real time. You also need a willingness inside yourself to consider ALL information, and realize each horse is an individual, and that just because you read the chapter 4 times, you aren't necessarily ready to move on to the next chapter. What bothers me about all the DVDs , shows, etc...is the notion that if you'll follow these 7 steps, you're set. What isn't conveyed is your horse may figure it out LOONNNNG before you do, get bored and cranky, and move on without you lacking real life in person horsemen and women, those folks can really get in a pickle with their ponies. THAT is what bothers me about the whole shrinkwrapped training package. So, there are good horsemen that are bothered- because it's not the best way to learn this stuff. No more than you can really learn to fly in just a simulator or video game or books. You need real time with a real instructor, before you take off

[Ambrey]

You also need a willingness inside yourself to consider ALL information, and realize each horse is an individual, and that just because you read the chapter 4 times, you aren't necessarily ready to move on to the next chapter.

And that if your read the chapter 4 times and it's still not working, it might be because it's just not the right way for your horse

I think what these programs have to offer is that they give people a starting point to go out there and do something. However, if someone then chooses not to learn by the trial and error of that doing and adapt the program to fit himself and his horse, he hasn't learned much.

[rainechyldes]

I think mostly my issue with so called 'NH" is; most of them tend to imply that no one has ever thought of any of this stuff before they did, and that so called traditional training is cruel and unusual punishment- and anyone who uses traditional training isn't horse 'aware'.

Both of which are incredibly false statements.

Someof the basic ideals in NH is what I called for years common sense. It's not new and shiny, it's old old stuff, but prettied up with expensive and colorful new equipment and then added to with extra things like games etc that people with horse knowledge and common sense start rolling their eyes at.

All in all the :NH: is pure marketing as it exists in it's niche. That's really all it is.
I do bow to their marketing skills- pure genius.

I am not an NH trainer.

But this is how I do the 3 listed in the orginal post.

1. Fly spray
Horse is nervous about fly spray, I generally hold the horse, don't tie them, have my spray bottle and a cloth. I get as close and spray as much as I can while verbally soothing the horse. Once I can't get any farther, I grab the cloth, spray into the cloth and finish wiping down the horse. *** Since to my mind - the main goal is to get fly spray on the horse yes?***
Eventually they all learn to stand- since it's never a dramatic episode.

NH? No.. common sense.

2. Nippy horse.
I rarely have this issue, as I was taught many many years ago to never hand feed a horse treats unless I was wearing gloves. thus the horse doesn't 'smell' my flesh and assume it means treat. NH- no ..more common sense.
If I do have a nippy horse, I usually tend to let my elbow do the talking.
I position my elbow up, and when they turn to nip they 9 times out of 10 smack themselves, I do nothing- totally passive. They soon give up.
NH?...no.. common sense.

3. Horse won't stand still to be mounted.
A little tougher, but hardly mind boggling.
2 people. One holds the horse, the other one gets on.
Spend an hour getting on and off said horse, they are so gd bored by that time, they stand like a statue.
NH? ..no..common sense.

It's not rocket science.

[Guilherme]

NH is a label that, if it ever had a meaning, has long since lost it in the confusion of the marketplace.

I've never had much "heartburn" with Lyons. He seems to be the most level headed of the Gaggle of Gurus. The most "out there" is Tellingston-Jones. Most of the rest fall between them.

The "partnership" model bothers me as it presumes much from the horse. Personsally I don't think horses want to do anything besides breed, eat, and schmooze with their own kind. The idea that a horse "wants" to work is just not real. Most of the "touchy feely" stuff seems to come from people that can't accept the idea that they are going to impose their will, for their own purposes, onto one of God's creatures. So they "make up" stuff to salve their unnecessarily guilty consciences. This is just silly to me.

My horse is my servant. I am its master. This does not mean I ignore or neglect its needs, but my needs and desires are primary. Of course if I want to be successful with the horse I must keep it sound and healthy. This means good husbandry and good riding practices. I decide the 5Ws of the day; the horse provides the brawn to accomplish those goals.

NH from the horse's point of view is an oxymoron. If we are going to take that view into account (and I do) then I must consider it an oxymoron, too.

G.

[Equilibrium]

Labels don't work for me. I am neither. I am both.

I pick and choose and use what works best for me and my beliefs in training.

This is a very good statement. And as always, different things work for different horses.

I don't have any uncatchable horses myself because they're happy to see us. Horses can also help other horses in dealing with people.
I don't do punishment for any horse.

But at the same time I have a mare who is viscious, and really deliberate in trying to hurt you when she wants. I don't sugar coat anything where she is concerned. Had the mare since she was 8 months of age so she has NEVER been abused or mishandled. As soon as baby was born, she changed.

Terri

[rainechyldes]

Someone posted a good point.

That a lot of people say they prefer to 'not ' spend time on the ground working the horse.

Ok - here's where it gets foggy.

Traditional by this I mean classical training has a TON of groundwork.

So. I think this discussion is flawed somewhat here.

Someone like me, who was taught by classical riders/trainers, does a lot of ground work with horses. I am what I consider a traditional trainer, not an NH.

Someone who doesn't do groundwork - isn't a traditional trainer in the way that I would define it at all.

I think we need (for those into labels) a different label for trainers who don't do any groundwork

[Sandy M]

I'll chime in a say LoveMyTB's post is pretty darned funny. Don't take too much offense with it folks. She expresses what a LOT of people have experienced. If you don't have experience with the "shank, smack it, yell at it, then get the groom to fix your problem for you" system of training, then you're in for some FUN!!

See, this is so strange to me. Oh, I KNOW there are some godawful trainers out there. But I've been riding since I was around 9 years old, which would have been circa 1954. From the up/down instructors when I was a kid, to H/J trainers to eventing trainers to dressage trainers now, I never encountered, personally, ANY trainer who did the "shank it, smack it, yell at it, etc." routine. Did I disagree with standing martingales with the H/J trainer, yup, and it was my horse, so no standing. Trainer disagreed, but didn't "fire" me as a client. Did one dressage trainer want me to put drawreins on my horse. Yup. But I disagreed and said that if I couldn't ride the horse horse correctly into the bridle, it was my problem, not the horse's. Trainer disagreed (not the trainer I have now, by the way), but again, I wasn't "fired" as a client, and neither standing martingales nor drawreins, though they can be abused, are abusive in and of themselves, nor did I consider those trainers abusive. I don't doubt these people exist but for one thing, if I saw a trainer doing stuff like that, that would be the last day I would work with such a trainer and I don't understand why even a novice would accept that sort of behavior. When I was a horse-crazy kid - and well beyond! - well, heck I still am a horse crazy kid - I read every fiction and NON-fiction book in the library about horses and horse-training. Even that self-education was sufficient for me to say, "No, that's not right" and walk away.

[Alexie]

good point SandyM.

In my experience people who follow NH tend to assume everyone else doesn't do groundwork

that's not true, we just don't blether on about it to the point of tedium.

most good NH vids I've seen have had the same basic sound horsemanship techniques I've seen used by traditional trainers, just because they don't use the same exercises doesn't mean the principles are not the same.