# Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then



## neelie OAP (28 May 2012)

Its been a very interesting reading people's thoughts on the PP methods, so what are your thoughts  or experiences of the Monty Roberts way of doing things, and have you ever thought of making the trip to the USA to gain the qualifications or do you think our own qualifications through the BHS are more suitable


----------



## sychnant (28 May 2012)

Intelligent Horsemanship has always worked for my horses if I have had problems doing something with them.

You don't have to go to the US to get the qualifications btw, courses are regularly run over here, check out their website for details


----------



## Hedwards (28 May 2012)

I think 'his' methods work (although i use the term 'his' losely as i dont believe he is the only one to be using them)

I have always admired MR - however I find he's become very commercial in recent years, promoting his latest book rather than what he actually does.

I remember going to see him waaaay back in the 90's i think, and was in awe of him, my non horsey father took me (we travelled all the way from Leicester to the South Coast I think - the whole family went and we made a weekend of it) - and even my dad was amazed by what he did, and more importantly, MR explained it in a way my dad understood!

On a subsequent holiday in California, we made a stop at Flag is Up Farm (Monty's Ranch/Farm/Training yard etc etc) we were the only visitors that day that werent there for training, we were welcomed with open arms, Monty wasnt there, however we met one of his daughters, who spoke to us for a long time, as well as watching them 'starting' a young racehorse - completely awe-inspiring - my whole family including my very young (at the time) brother sat in complete silence watching one of MR's trainers work the horses. Of course meeting Shy Boy, Dually were an added bonus!

I thoroughly enjoyed 'join up' with my old mare Betty - we had a round pen at Uni, however, I've never really had the facilities to be able to do it since...


----------



## brucea (28 May 2012)

Been one of the horse/owner combos used in an event (at Gleneagles) about 8 years ago - spent lots of time working together in the afternoon and went way over time in the evening show with him - Link and Monty seemed to really hit it off together - helped a lot at the time.

Loved Monty - funny, sharp, fair, good horseman. Didn't think so much of KM though - watched her get into quite deep water of her own making with a mare she chose to have an "assertive" approach to, where a more reasoned approach would have worked much better, she didn't seem to take account of the mare's personality. 

Hate the Dualy as a device, mine went in the bin because I wouldn't give it away to anyone else to abuse their horse with. Work on your hands - get them better - you don't need such a gadget.

Stood with Monty and laughed our heads off at my big stoopid horse seeing himself for the very first time in a full length mirrored wall  Watching the slowly dawning realisation that it was really himself he was seeing! I didn't know horses could pull quite so many faces!


----------



## Marydoll (28 May 2012)

What ive seen and tried with Monty ive liked, i also rate and respect Richard Maxwell, im not a big fan of KM though


----------



## ponypilotmum (28 May 2012)

I'm more of a fan of Richard Maxwell, but all of them - well - it's just common sense really isn't it? it's nothing new, it's stuff we were doing 30 years ago. Stuff we were taught by proper nags men.


----------



## Magnetic Sparrow (28 May 2012)

I agree, Lucky-Lady, but if common sense really _was_ common we wouldn't need Monty Roberts, Kelly Marks or Richard Maxwell! As it is I've got time for all three of them, they have a lot to offer, but no-one should slavishly follow anyone's method without considering their own horse and what they already know of its character imho.


----------



## amandap (28 May 2012)

lucky-lady said:



			I'm more of a fan of Richard Maxwell, but all of them - well - it's just common sense really isn't it? it's nothing new, it's stuff we were doing 30 years ago. Stuff we were taught by proper nags men.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is half the problem people aren't taught or don't bother to learn.
Nothing is new in the horse world really but with so many owners either new to horses or learned/taught rough and/or ineffective ways there is a need for something surely. If people were taught the basics from the word go there would be no need for people like Monty/Parelli et al.
It may all be 'common sense' when you know it but if you're not taught it isn't imo.

The BHS may well be good (I've no personal experience) but their message isn't getting through to owners. I believe KM does some teaching with BHS now.

I also think there are a lot of people that try to run before they can walk so to speak. Jumping on a horse and riding off into the sunset is a tiny part of having a horse.


----------



## smokey (28 May 2012)

Also saw MR at Gleneagles several years ago and was very impressed by the man himself, although I do think that anyone with common sense and a natural affinity with horses could probably achieve the same results. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed his performance, and several of his books.


----------



## Ibblebibble (28 May 2012)

i think some aspects of the method are very good, anything that makes people try to understand their horses rather than just impose their will on them can only be a good thing IMO I quite like him too, he always seems to come across as a caring kind of guy, damn good rider in his day too!! what i do find is that i take some of his 'stories' with a pinch of salt, reminds me of one of the old guys in the pub who's stories would get more 'interesting' with every telling

Although a lot of NH is old methods repackaged i honestly don't think it's such a bad thing, some of it had got so buried it needed bringing back out into the open, people needed to be reminded that horses are living breathing animals not just machines and you can get great results from working 'with' them

Now if you really want someone who stays under the media radar and actually seems to spend his time working with horses and people rather than promoting himself look up Mark Rashid he's given me a few lightbulb moments with my sensitive /quirky gelding


----------



## PandorasJar (28 May 2012)

Like with any method, they shouldn't be followed to the T, but instead the bits that work for you and your horse should be taken from a range of ideas.

Listening to your horse is far more valuable than any one method of training. Ask the horse and work together rather than argue it - they are a lot stronger than us!

That being said I loved his books as a kid - someone who loves what he's doing and loves the animals he's working with.

Pan


----------



## Morgan123 (28 May 2012)

I really, really dislike join up and really, really dislike that I was taken in by it and did it with my horse when I first got him. Sure it works fine, and you have the horse following you nicely like a dog and it all feels very warm and lovely, but now i would MUCH rather get my horse to follow me because he thinks it's a good idea because I am interesting and fun, rather than because he knows I will send him away from me if he doesn't follow me around like a dog. There are far, far better ways of getting the horse to stick wiht you at liberty. Also, it really really bugs me that he says this is natural, because there have been studies (one in case was run by the Natural Animal Centre) with wild Equids, none of whom showed this behaviour, and certainly it is a behaviour that we don't see in our domestic horses (except in perhaps very rare circumstances). 

Secondly, I think that MR is quite contradictory. A great example is that I am signed up to his weekly emails which have a weekly Q&A - one lady said she wanted to try join up but her horse rushes at her with its teeth bared. His response was to put a plastic bag on the stick to make herself more menacing. Aside from the point that it's not really very safe advice, I just think that's really oversimplifying things - i.e. horse is agressive so you jsut have to find a way to make yourself more agressive/domainant/scary than he is. Many far, far better ways of going about working with a horse like this, and really I don't think trainers should advise on working with agressive animals without seeing them first because there are SO many multiple issues that can be going on (fear agression, dominance agression, many spoilt homebreds become agressive, pain agression etc) and all should be treated differently.

Another example of something he does whihc I disagree with is his use of flooding as a tool - e.g. I have seen him twice at demos use a large doll tied on to a horse, to make an 'unrideable' horse 'rideable'. Both horses went crazy and bucked, but of course could not get the doll off and, of course, in due time both were unable to do anything but stop bucking and get on with things. In SOME situations this might be the only safe way of proceeding, but it is massively stressful to the horse (much like being put in a roomful of spiders if you're a spider-phobe), and not a long-term cure, it'd be miles better ot work bit-by-bit with the horse and address the cause of the problem, in most cases.

The pressure-release (dually)stuff is just standard so OK if you agree wiht pressure-release as the basis of your training methods, but I don't think the dually is all that 'kind' which is what it is marketed as. He said in a demo that it 'shouts praise and whispers corrections' which made me laugh. Release of pain - or uncomfortableness, at the very least - is not exactly shouting praise. 

I think there are much kinder ways of treating horses, but some of what he does is OK. he is certainly a very likeable person and has a nice way with horses, but I don't like what he actually does with them a lot of the time, if you see what I mean!


----------



## Ranyhyn (28 May 2012)

I don't follow any particular thinking on horse training/ownership particularly.  I try to pick up things from all ideas that suit my individual horse and so long as we're both happy then I adopt a "if its not broke - don't fix it" approach.


----------



## fburton (28 May 2012)

Not fond of Join-Up myself, but think IH does a lot of good helping both people and horses.


----------



## Montyforever (28 May 2012)

I like Monty Roberts but I wouldn't follow anyone blindly, would only take the bits of advice I think will be helpful and don't use a dually etc 
I've done join up didnt find it made things that different as I had been having weekly groundwork lessons with her for a while but didn't do any harm so I don't see a issue with it


----------



## amandap (28 May 2012)

The trouble is join up over shadows the principles imo. Because that is what MR shows at demos everyone thinks that's some magic bullet and rushes out to do it. I have learned a lot about how to move a horse loose and not block it, use my body energy etc. from JU but I've never done it.  

Many people see IH as join up and duallies and tbh they are not really what it's about at all imho. To me it's about personal awareness and development, questioning and gaining knowledge and skills from everywhere that puts the horse's view at the forefront.


----------



## Morgan123 (28 May 2012)

amandap said:



			The trouble is join up over shadows the principles imo. Because that is what MR shows at demos everyone thinks that's some magic bullet and rushes out to do it. I have learned a lot about how to move a horse loose and not block it, use my body energy etc. from JU but I've never done it.  

Many people see IH as join up and duallies and tbh they are not really what it's about at all imho. To me it's about personal awareness and development, questioning and gaining knowledge and skills from everywhere that puts the horse's view at the forefront.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, he does use join up with most if not nearly all horses he works with, and uses duallys on all of them  so they are pretty core to what he's doing. But you are right in that there are still things that can be learnt re: body language, energy etc whihc are not quite so drastic, and can be useful!


----------



## neelie OAP (28 May 2012)

All very interesting, my honest opinion is to keep an open mind, because they all have SOME good idea's, because with horses I have found that you can never stop learning, its just such a shame that all the old 'nags men' are all but gone now, because people could learn so much from them, suppose I was lucky really because my dad was one, of course I didn't appricate it at the time bless him, but now looking back I do.


----------



## amandap (28 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			To be fair, he does use join up with most if not nearly all horses he works with, and uses duallys on all of them  so they are pretty core to what he's doing.
		
Click to expand...

That's a fair point and most people think you have to use a dually and do JU.

It's a bit like a clicker gadget being core to what a clicker trainer does. Many people think they have to have one. 

I do wish MR would re make the dually DVD though.


----------



## BlackRider (28 May 2012)

I too am not a fan of join up, and too many people think this is the magical answer, and do this very regularly with their horses.

I'm sure Kelly Marks once said its something you should only need to do a handful of times with a horse. At the end of the day you are forcing the horse away from the "herd" which is a punishment, and IMO isn't something you should do on a daily basis, like some people need to think they should do.

I did go to a demo many years ago, but felt it was just a vehicle for selling the duallys...


----------



## Equilibrium Ireland (28 May 2012)

I'm not a NH person per say and I  despise PP. But most of what these guys teach is common sense. Sometimes people miss out on the real workings of horses if only taking lessons learning to ride. Or how to do the basics of pick feet and groom ect. Most people enjoy a life of horses and have never started one and don't realise it's more than just getting on. I mean really, that's my business and I'm still amazed people think horses will normally buck or try and get you off. Then I get really annoyed people think only a NH guru or follower are the only ones who know how to do it properly. 

So yes it's nice I guess for people to see all this kind of stuff but with caution. As in because you know how to do join up or think you know, doesn't mean you have the skills to buy a youngster and proceed with no issues. One little mistake in the starting process can lead to life long issues. 

By the way lost all respect for join up when a friend and her boss went to a clinic and practiced join up on each other. LOL!

I also am a bit miffed with this word bonding. It's way over used and is most used by people who refer to every horse they have as a rescue. People who never want or think anyone can ride their horse but them. "black stallion syndrome". I feel I've done the best job when my horses or any horses I'm dealing with can be delt with by anyone. My horses are all different and "need" me in different ways. That's not a great word but hard to describe. Some horses are naturally people horses, some less so. As long as you have mutual respect for each other and have good working relationship, you shouldn't be so worried about this word bond. 

Terri


----------



## Merlin11 (28 May 2012)

I saw Monty at Gleneagles and was very impressed. He very clearly has a way with horses. I don't agree with all his methods but think most people could learn something from him. We certainly got some good tips on loading and people now comment on how well our horses load onto the trailer. Haven't tried join up or the special halters. Think I have a good bond with my horses without join up - they follow me everywhere!


----------



## EquiGal92 (28 May 2012)

Love Monty Roberts however saying that there are some things that I do disagree with and think that there are much more better solutions though such as like using the Buck Stopper (I think thats what its called). And watching demos on H&C channel have been a bit  for me also at times...

But still Monty Roberts, Kelly Marks and Richard Maxwell all top my list of fave methods I have seen/heard/read about unlike Parelli and like Monty Roberts about yay or nay for definate - Clinton Anderson.


----------



## Theocat (28 May 2012)

I've always thought of Join Up as a shortcut to establishing the kind of relationship you ought to have with your horse.  I can understand using it on a new horse, but what I really don't understand is all those people who rush out and do join up with a horse they've had for years.  Shouldn't they have built that relationship already?  I've never "joined up" with mine and I can't get rid of him!

I've seen a bit more of MR over the last few weeks, and I've been surprised how much I liked him - that Martin Clunes vid came across well; or MR did, anyway!


----------



## ZondaR (28 May 2012)

I really like him.  My horse wont load without a dually halter so thank you for that MR.  NH is common sense and obvious after you have learned it.  The books and the halter have certainly improved my relationship with my horse.


----------



## muff747 (28 May 2012)

I think we need to remember that when we see MR working with horses at demo's they usually have a specific problem that the owner has been having difficulty with.  The JU is done in that situation IMO to re-establish some basic boundaries, a bit like when a child has been allowed to run wild and is creating havoc, the Super Nanny goes in and sorts out the rules and forms a contract (if the child is old enough to understand) with the child on how they will be expected to behave in future, and how they will be rewarded for good behaviour.  
So, (based on how MR describes the Equus language converstation) the JU says to the horse, hey listen up, we need to draw up a contract so we can understand each other and get back some respect here.   The sign language the horse gives in return say "ok, I will let you be the chairman of the discussion"
The JU is a tool but is not necessary in all cases, it all depends on the personality of the horse and if there is a problem to work on. If there isn't a problem, I don't see JU is necessary to enable a good relationship with your horse.  
The dually halter is another tool which only needs to be used on horses that have taken over control of their handlers.  It is only necessary to reestablish some respect and if a half a ton horse has realised it can break away when tied up or can pull over a human when it is being led, then I think a dually is necessary - but it will not be needed if there are other ways of getting a strong horse to remember to be respectful, I don't know how though?
I have found that IH is about learning horse phsycology (sp?)-learning to understand why the horse is behaving in such a way so that makes it easier to find a solution, and particularly learning about their body language and how they are reading our body language all the time we are around them.  This is what MR has taught me and that is what I believe he is trying to get across to people so they can have a better relationship with their horse.


----------



## moandben (28 May 2012)

I thought I liked MR until I just watched a video on you tube posted on the REAR facebook page of him doing join up on a TWH with great big riser pads on its feet and bandages on its legs to hide the torture marks. !!!


----------



## Miss L Toe (28 May 2012)

Equilibrium Ireland said:



			I also am a bit miffed with this word bonding. It's way over used and is most used by people who refer to every horse they have as a rescue. People who never want or think anyone can ride their horse but them. "black stallion syndrome". I feel I've done the best job when my horses or any horses I'm dealing with can be delt with by anyone. My horses are all different and "need" me in different ways. That's not a great word but hard to describe. Some horses are naturally people horses, some less so. As long as you have mutual respect for each other and have good working relationship, you shouldn't be so worried about this word bond. 

Terri
		
Click to expand...

Sheesh, am I glad to see a professional actually make that statement..... Every time I hear "we will take three months to bond before we ride/canter/jump"........... sigh, I know the person is inexperienced, not able to take on anything other than a kind plod.

It is a recent phenomenon, and to be honest, I just used to tack up and ride, yes some horses need a bit of time spent on tacking up, but once on their back, there was not much bonding, just ask them to do what is required.
These days, I have a lot more time to mess about with my boy, but to be honest, I think it is a one sided relationship, he knows who I am, and does ask for help sometimes, but in general I am a source of food, and a good groomer. Even after four years, he would be quite happy with someone else as long as they were fair to him.
Education..... does every school child have to bond with their teacher before they open their first book, not really.


----------



## Meowy Catkin (28 May 2012)

RE bonding. I hadn't heard of the term being used in reference to a horse/owner relationship before I came on this forum.

I like that my horses recognise me, even if I'm in a group of several people. I always assumed (maybe wrongly) that that was what they meant by _bonding_.


----------



## EstherYoung (29 May 2012)

Ibblebibble said:



			Now if you really want someone who stays under the media radar and actually seems to spend his time working with horses and people rather than promoting himself look up Mark Rashid he's given me a few lightbulb moments with my sensitive /quirky gelding

Click to expand...

Definitely 

I'm very lucky as my instructor trained with him and she takes the same patient approach.


----------



## Slightlyconfused (29 May 2012)

Havent seen any of his demos but have had too IH out to see my mare who had a very bad start in life, she wont have a bridle on as she was ear twitched and after 40 minutes of them telliny me how to lead my horse and then desensitise her with stuff on ends of sticks, which i had had been doing anyway, i was told she is dangerous there is nothing they can do and just turn her away........i was so upset 7 months later i met a man called Terry Buxton and her came out to work with her (charging £20 for fuel rather than the £120 i spent on the IH) and after 40minutes her head was low, licking lips and he was pulling the halter on and off over her years and she didnt care, all it was he was doing was ground workng  making her look to him for direction and support. He showed me how to do it and we have been doing great......he will be coming back out soon to help me re back her.


----------



## neelie OAP (29 May 2012)

Would you send your horse to a MR approved trainer in this country, if you were having problems,  I believe that there are a few getting around now, or prefer to send to someone that did NH, or were BHS trained,


----------



## neelie OAP (29 May 2012)

slightlyconfused said:



			Havent seen any of his demos but have had too IH out to see my mare who had a very bad start in life, she wont have a bridle on as she was ear twitched and after 40 minutes of them telliny me how to lead my horse and then desensitise her with stuff on ends of sticks, which i had had been doing anyway, i was told she is dangerous there is nothing they can do and just turn her away........i was so upset 7 months later i met a man called Terry Buxton and her came out to work with her (charging £20 for fuel rather than the £120 i spent on the IH) and after 40minutes her head was low, licking lips and he was pulling the halter on and off over her years and she didnt care, all it was he was doing was ground workng  making her look to him for direction and support. He showed me how to do it and we have been doing great......he will be coming back out soon to help me re back her.
		
Click to expand...

As some body said earlier on, true horsemen just get on and do the job without any hype, fortune making or claim to fame !


----------



## Pale Rider (29 May 2012)

Funny really, but I dislike MR method intensely, for a lot of the reasons people say they hate PP.


Also if you are relying on a Dually to load, you ain't taught your horse to load.

I haven't much time for HH this week, which is a shame because it's getting interesting.

Tiny, if you read this, I have looked but must have thrown it, cause I definitely had one. Replying like this as on phone and PM doesn't seem to work.


----------



## Wheels (29 May 2012)

Neelie oap, no I wouldn't send my horse away to one of the ih trainers in the UK but I would have one out to help me with my horses if I thought I or they needed it. What is the point of having someone else train your horse if you don't know the methods they are using?


----------



## fburton (29 May 2012)

muff747 said:



			So, (based on how MR describes the Equus language converstation) the JU says to the horse, hey listen up, we need to draw up a contract so we can understand each other and get back some respect here.   The sign language the horse gives in return say "ok, I will let you be the chairman of the discussion"
		
Click to expand...

That is one interpretation, though there is a simpler one that explains the behaviours seen in JU - and, imo, less anthropomorphic, because it doesn't involve "respect". 




			If there isn't a problem, I don't see JU is necessary to enable a good relationship with your horse.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, and even if there _is_ a problem, one can achieve a good relationship, with the horse being a safe, willing and "respectful" partner, without the use of JU.




			[...] but it will not be needed if there are other ways of getting a strong horse to remember to be respectful, I don't know how though?
		
Click to expand...

In a word, training - where the horse learns to show the behaviours you want and not show the behaviours you don't. It really is as simple as that (in principle, although in practice it takes a bit of skill, naturally). The end result of this training is "respect".

The idea that it happens the other way round - i.e. that you first "establish" respect and then that causes the horse to behave as you would like - is naturally appealing, but imo illusory. In practice, the horse _still needs to learn_ what you want him to do and not do!

I believe JU can sometimes be harmful and unhelpful. Where it may help is to a) instill confidence into the handler, and b) get the horse to pay more attention to the handler. It is certainly one way to start a 'conversation' with a horse, but there are others which are less obviously pressuring and punitive, and arguably just as effective.


----------



## Caol Ila (29 May 2012)

NH-style approaches were the standard operating procedure around where I first learned how to ride and train horses.  Reschooled two horses with it and started a youngster.  I'm pretty happy with the results on all counts.  It was really all a matter of pressure and release, understanding their body language and psychology, and one of the key concepts, moving their feet, which makes sense if you watch horses in a field and the alpha horses will move submissive horses around.  

I haven't done join-up in a few years, not since moving to the UK, as my horse is trained to the nines and doesn't need it. Last year, however, I tried a variant, just for the craic, where I let her loose in the indoor school and didn't put any pressure on her.  I ignored her and let her wander about and do what she wanted.  And you know what?  After a minute or so of entertaining herself rolling and exploring the arena, she joined up.  

I have also read some scientific studies of join-up which have made me rethink how and why it works.  Some NH trainers suggest that it works because this is what horses to do each other.  These studies found no evidence of that.  They tried all sorts of experiments.  The one I remember put dominant mares in the round pen with yearlings.  The mares chased the yearlings, but stopped chasing when the yearlings stayed out of their space.  There was no "invitation" to enter the mare's space after the yearlings had shown submission.  There were also observational studies of wild and domestic horses which showed no evidence of horses doing this.  The researchers surmised that join-up is simply conditioning.  When the horse lowers his head and indicates that he is now paying attention to the trainer, and then turns to face the trainer, the trainer stops chasing him.  So the horse learns what behaviours remove the pressure of being chased around the round pen.

HOWEVER, just to make it all the more interesting, another longish term study was done where a group of unbroken horses were trained using NH-type methods, including join up, and another group of similarly unbroken horses were trained using "conventional" methods.  At various key points during the training process, such as when the horses were first ridden, the researchers looked for concrete physiological indicators of stress, testing heart rate, breathing rate, measuring adrenaline levels, that sort of thing.  They found that the horses in the NH group had significantly lower stress levels than the conventional group.  

I wish I could remember where I read these studies.  It made for fascinating reading.

Whatever the reasons it works, I would continue to use join up when breaking youngsters, as it gets their attention and gets them focused on you and they learn better.


----------



## neelie OAP (29 May 2012)

Wheels said:



			Neelie oap, no I wouldn't send my horse away to one of the ih trainers in the UK but I would have one out to help me with my horses if I thought I or they needed it. What is the point of having someone else train your horse if you don't know the methods they are using?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I quite agree with you on not sending  horses away, once they are in some one else's hands you really have no idea on whats happening, something I would never dream of doing, but so many people do.


----------



## Marianne France (29 May 2012)

When I got my first horse in my thirties, I was determined to have the best possible relationship with that horse. I'd read Monty's first book and went to a demo. That first time, I truly thought I was watching a magician at work, the way he predicted what was going to happen and at the end the non-loader taking himself into the lorry for safety when the audience clapped. I'll never forget it 

I've been to several other Monty Roberts and Kelly Marks demos since and continue to learn from both.  I can see it's incredibly difficult to cram a lot of info into one evening in order to show an alternative method to people who may or may not be open-minded.

Monty's methods are so much more than join-up and the dually though. They are inevitably highlighted as a means of starting a conversation with a horse - but afterwards (to me) it's a way of considering how a horse is feeling and working with that.  I haven't done join up with my first horse for years now, and have never done it with some of my youngsters, because we've had good conversation from the outset.  I have a couple duallies used for initial training - if required - but my horses all load without them now.

I'm also a Mark Rashid fan before I'm accused of being on anyone's payroll


----------



## Kaylum (29 May 2012)

its not necessarily how they are trained its the kind of person they are and how they interact with people as well as horses.  

its like when you talk to someone who said they have a horse and you know they are lying in the first two sentences as they say something you know is total rubbish.


----------



## talkinghorse (29 May 2012)

I first came across Monty Roberts at a demo in 2002. Until then I had had a fairly traditional horse experience towed on a pony by parents who rode, hacking, Pony Club; then as an adult, first horse and BHS instructors. I felt fairly confident on the back of most horses and had insufficient experience to handle the 'unruly' horse on the ground. If Monty Roberts' methods were common sense, in my 55 years of being on or around horses, I had met bullies with whips, a few wise men who had no problem and no-one knew why, and the rest who muddled through like myself  common sense was rarely displayed.

I started to learn Monty's methods with Intelligent Horsemanship in UK in 2003 and did courses, helped at demos and with training until I felt I was sufficiently experienced to attempt the assessment and examination in 2009. At 65, as I retired from a successful and sometimes high profile academic career, I became the proud holder of the Monty Roberts Preliminary Certificate of Horsemanship. I held that in higher esteem than all the letters after my name: the MRPCH showed what I could do, the rest showed what I had learned.

The MRPCH is not a qualification in JoinUp  JoinUp is only the handshake on first meeting the horse  the certificate requires study and examination in feeding and nutrition, horse anatomy and psychology, stud practice and foal handling. This is the preliminary certificate and does not qualify me to offer horse training services in Monty or Kelly Mark's name. There are two further courses, on handling untouched horses and dealing with difficult horses, that you need, followed by further assessment and monitoring to become a Recommended Associate. I doubt if the person whom slightlyconfused spoke of was a RA, as she would have mentioned that she was asked to complete an evaluation form and return it to Intelligent Horsemanship, where the odd conclusion would have been followed up. 

The Monty Roberts training has made me more observant, more confident and more sympathetic when handling horses. I have learned to get my timing right and know when something I am doing is wrong. As I have learned that horses don't have problems but their handlers often do, I have found that I have fewer problems. Monty's methods work when handling children and adults too. You can't say that about many other forms of horsemanship.


----------



## spaniel (29 May 2012)

I met Monty Roberts many years ago and that meeting has stayed fresh in my mind ever since.  There will always be debate about methods but for anyone who hasnt looked further than the equine side try checking out some of the work Monty and his family do with troubled children.  Its awe inspiring.

For anyone who hasnt met Monty I can tell you now that the guy can look you in the eye and see right into your soul.   Had he not been involved with horses he would still be a special person.


----------



## sykokat (29 May 2012)

I saw MR many years ago when he first started coming to this country to do demos. It was at Tattersalls in Newmarket. Went along to see what all the fuss was about. Came away impressed. Didnt think anymore of it until a couple of years later when I saw him on H&C channel. Yes, a lot of IH is common sense but MR has opened peoples eyes to the behaviour traits of horses and found the meaning of some of it. Common sense only comes with time and experience and being in the position of working with many different types of horse. Not everyone has opportunities like this. I have watched PP, CA and MR and in my mind Monty has it right. No one ever knows everything there is to know about horses. Even in a whole lifetime there is always new things to be learnt about these animals and new challenges. If I chose to use NH I would always choose the method use by MR


----------



## fburton (29 May 2012)

Caol Ila, you make some excellent points.



Caol Ila said:



			HOWEVER, just to make it all the more interesting, another longish term study was done where a group of unbroken horses were trained using NH-type methods, including join up, and another group of similarly unbroken horses were trained using "conventional" methods.  At various key points during the training process, such as when the horses were first ridden, the researchers looked for concrete physiological indicators of stress, testing heart rate, breathing rate, measuring adrenaline levels, that sort of thing.  They found that the horses in the NH group had significantly lower stress levels than the conventional group.
		
Click to expand...

While this study is interesting and definitely a step in the right direction, it has been criticized on a number of points relating to experimental design. One is that it compared only a _single_ practitioner of NH/IH and "conventional" methods - Monty himself vs a relatively unknown trainer. How skilled and/or representative was the other trainer? Given Monty's acknowledged experience and skill, was it a fair comparison between NH and "conventional" methods in general? It's impossible to know for sure.

As far as I know, only maximum heart rates were used for the submitted paper as a physiological indicator of stress, although the researchers also noted behavioural signs. There is potential data on heart rate _variability_ which might be more reliable than straight heart rate (especially when the horse is also exercising) but that hasn't been analyzed or written up. They took cortisol swabs but have not had the resources to analyze those (yet). As far as I know, neither breathing rate nor adrenaline were measured (the latter is hard to do properly).

Rather disappointingly from my point of view, the paper doesn't address the issue of exactly what Join-Up does and how it does it.

Still, as I said, the study is to be welcomed - even if its effect is to raise further questions rather than settle the matter once and for all.


----------



## fburton (29 May 2012)

P.S. The conventional trainer in the Join-Up study was Phil Roelich, an eventer who produces horses.


----------



## talkinghorse (29 May 2012)

Fuller details of the research comparing Monty Roberts work with the conventional trainer can be read here: http://www.eurodressage.com/equestr...ng-technique-helps-young-horse-perform-better


----------



## Slightlyconfused (29 May 2012)

Talkinghorse they we're RA as i got the names and numbers off the web site and the one of them had a web site.....i did have a form to fill in but was so upset with what they said.....i have a health problem and at the time was going through a bad patch so didnt bother to fill it in as didnt have the energy for it. 
X


----------



## NoseyPosey (29 May 2012)

fburton said:



			I believe JU can sometimes be harmful and unhelpful. Where it may help is to a) instill confidence into the handler, and b) get the horse to pay more attention to the handler. It is certainly one way to start a 'conversation' with a horse, *but there are others which are less obviously pressuring and punitive, and arguably just as effective*.
		
Click to expand...

Go on then - spill the beans!! I did want to simply write "such as?" or "what are they?" but every way I think of asking, it sounds sarcastic 

I have used JU with mine after a bad(ish) start and it appears to have got us back on track. I can't help thinking from what a lot of posters are saying on this thread, they echo what I am told everytime I go on a course through work - "this course is not the be-all and end-all of how to do the job, we just give you tools to work with. You won't use all of them all of the time and you can't use one of them for all tasks, it's up to you how to use them according to the situation".

I thnk what I'm saying is, JU seems to have worked initially with my horse but how do I build on our "relationship"?


----------



## Wagtail (29 May 2012)

I really dislike join up. The only time I use it is for horses that won't be caught. I think it messes with the minds of normal, well behaved horses and causes confusion and stress.

In the wild, the lead mare will chase off others that have been disrespectful or naughty and 'send them to Coventry', only allowing them back when they are forgiven and she feels they have learnt their lesson. NH practicioners mistakenly use join up to instill the position of themselves as 'leader' to their horse, thinking that it builds a relationship where the horse respects their leadership. What in fact it does, to a normal, well behaved and polite horse, is to send them away, as though they have been naughty. They have not, of course committed any misdemeanor, and so it makes them stressed and confused. They lick and chew to appease this person who has inexplicably suddenly behaved totally irrationally and sent them away!


----------



## fburton (29 May 2012)

Rosieshire said:



			Go on then - spill the beans!! I did want to simply write "such as?" or "what are they?" but every way I think of asking, it sounds sarcastic 

Click to expand...

Hehe.. I wouldn't have minded!

The most direct way to 'start a conversation' with horses is to start working with them. That's it - nothing secret or mysterious. Different approaches emphasize positive reinforcement (reward-based) and negative reinforcement (pressure and release) to different degrees. What makes them effective is how well they're applied. Although working towards a definite goal gets the job done faster, _any_ time spent interacting is a valuable opportunity to shape a horse's behaviour and attitude towards your ideal. Problem horses may need particularly sensitive or confident handling - even assertive at times. There are a few 'tricks' (which aren't really tricks) which can accelerate the process - such as mutual grooming, or finding a horse's itchy spot, or ear or wither massage - but these are quite well known. One thing that makes a big difference to the quality of the conversation is heeding and responding to the signals the horse is sending you, rather than simply telling and commanding all the time; it definitely helps for the horse to know that you listening.

Is this the kind of thing you had in mind?


----------



## fburton (29 May 2012)

Wagtail said:



			In the wild, the lead mare will chase off others that have been disrespectful or naughty and 'send them to Coventry', only allowing them back when they are forgiven and she feels they have learnt their lesson. NH practicioners mistakenly use join up to instill the position of themselves as 'leader' to their horse, thinking that it builds a relationship where the horse respects their leadership. What in fact it does, to a normal, well behaved and polite horse, is to send them away, as though they have been naughty. They have not, of course committed any misdemeanor, and so it makes them stressed and confused. They lick and chew to appease this person who has inexplicably suddenly behaved totally irrationally and sent them away!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that's _another_ theory!


----------



## Pipkin (29 May 2012)

neelie OAP said:



			Would you send your horse to a MR approved trainer in this country, if you were having problems,  I believe that there are a few getting around now, or prefer to send to someone that did NH, or were BHS trained,

Click to expand...

Would I hell! A friend sent her mare to a MR approved trainer, mare came back underweight, stressed and worse than before she went.

Another lady sent horse to same trainer, horse went home with untreated poll injury and was a complete psycho.


----------



## fburton (29 May 2012)

Rosieshire said:



			I thnk what I'm saying is, JU seems to have worked initially with my horse but how do I build on our "relationship"?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed this question. The answer I would give is quite simple (perhaps disappointingly so) - *more of whatever you find is working*, following your initial JU. Building a relationship takes time - I would distrust anyone who says it doesn't and offers shortcuts.


----------



## fburton (29 May 2012)

Pipkin said:



			Would I hell! A friend sent her mare to a MR approved trainer, mare came back underweight, stressed and worse than before she went.

Another lady sent horse to same trainer, horse went home with untreated poll injury and was a complete psycho.
		
Click to expand...

It's important to remember that IH Recommended Associates are not clones - they are individual people with different strengths and weaknesses. So bad experiences with one doesn't mean that bad experiences are likely with all. Many people and their horses have been helped by the work (and advice) of RAs, and there are some that I know of better than others that I would be happy to entrust with any horse of mine. As always, however, it's good if you can get a recommendation from someone else that you know and trust.


----------



## NoseyPosey (29 May 2012)

fburton said:



			Sorry, missed this question. The answer I would give is quite simple (perhaps disappointingly so) - *more of whatever you find is working*, following your initial JU. Building a relationship takes time - I would distrust anyone who says it doesn't and offers shortcuts.
		
Click to expand...

That's great thanks - I can't ride yet til my collarbone has healed anyway so I did JU just the once and a bit of free lungeing but apart from that, I've been taking her out for walks in hand and given her lots of grooming & fuss. Everyone says they've seen a difference in her and she even lets me wash her feet now so I guess I must be doing something right.


----------



## amandap (30 May 2012)

Here's the list of Kelly Marks 'approved' trainers. Aka RA's.
http://www.intelligenthorsemanship.co.uk/specialist-horse-training.html

I expect the list of _approved_ Monty Robert's trainers is on his site.

I have seen one person and know of another who both claimed (and may well have) to have done the KM courses and both were doing their own thing much of it not very nice at all.  What people take away and use after courses is their responsibility. We all know of the two people watching the same movie will 'see' very different things. Also there are many people who you can teach until you are blue in the face but they will still carry on doing their thing. lol

If you use an RA and have a complaint there is a complaints procedure in place. RA's have been removed from the list in the past I believe.

ps. Rosieshire, I second fburton, building a rapport takes time, and I will add patience, seeing the horses responses to you and most of all imo consistency.


----------



## cornbrodolly (30 May 2012)

Have seen horses ruined by Join up which seems to me to be all about chasing the horse away and instilling fear.
We use a more KF Hempfling approach , and acheive the same without stress to the horse - often the first session is done at halt and walk.
MR and IH , to me, is just a brand - and as others have said , some instructors will be better than others.
In the end , theres no short cut to be a horseman- it takes years of experience- and that experience has to be with horses ,not marketing /showmanship/empire building. There are lots of excellent horsepeople around , but finding them is the hard part. Their  qualities  are usually the same whatebver method they use - they re quiet,patient,sympathic ,fair but firm. For young inexperienced riders to follow any guru and to expect they re suddenly great with horses is peddling untruths.
As for this 'bonding' with your horse - now what does that mean? Just that the horse is obediant,willing, well mannered? Or does it stray into 'silly land' where we humans want a love and devotion that horses are very unlikely to feel ?[ except for a mare & foal bond]


----------



## debsg (30 May 2012)

I am a member of IH and have been using Monty and Kelly's methods for nearly seven years. I am 53 and have been around horses all my life and did my AI many years ago. I also admire Mark Rashid and others. I have not personally done JU with my mares as I have not felt it necessary.
SlightlyConfused, I am sorry that you had a bad experience with your RA. I'm pretty sure that he or she is a rarity, as all the people I've dealt with have been great. Maybe you could get in touch with the office, even now, and explain what happened.
Similar message to Pipkin's friend. II'm sure that Monty/Kelly would not be happy that someone was using their name and causing suffering to any horse.
At the end of the day, no one trainer is perfect for all horses and owners. We should all carefully research the methods that interest us, choose a trainer recommended by someone we respect and then go with our gut instincts.


----------



## Orangehorse (30 May 2012)

When I had my horse broken in, the trainer did not do a Join-Up has he said it wasn't necessary.  It is knowing when it is a good thing, and when not a good thing.  

I met Monty when I was a helper at a demo and he impressed me a lot.  There is always a slight niggling doubt, having heard the criticisms about being "showman" and commercial - but after all, the spectators have paid £s for an event, so the horses chosen are going to be ones to explain the methods with.  

I asked an RA if they find that due to the influences of Monty, Kelly, et al, if they find that people are more understanding of their horses and have fewer problems, but she said, sadly not, they go out to just as many.


----------



## neelie OAP (30 May 2012)

Orangehorse said:



			When I had my horse broken in, the trainer did not do a Join-Up has he said it wasn't necessary.  It is knowing when it is a good thing, and when not a good thing.  

I met Monty when I was a helper at a demo and he impressed me a lot.  There is always a slight niggling doubt, having heard the criticisms about being "showman" and commercial - but after all, the spectators have paid £s for an event, so the horses chosen are going to be ones to explain the methods with.  

I asked an RA if they find that due to the influences of Monty, Kelly, et al, if they find that people are more understanding of their horses and have fewer problems, but she said, sadly not, they go out to just as many.
		
Click to expand...

 Well I think maybe that last sentence just about sums it all up, don't you !


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

I'd be interested if some of the MR followers above could address some of the concerns raised by others about the theories behind join up/duallies etc? that's what I always find frustrating - we end up discussing particular RAs who ahve done a bad job and discounting them, but not the actual theory of the practice. Kelly MArks used to even be on this forum and I asked her a couple of times about the theory/ethics behind join up etc etc and she did not respond.


----------



## Caol Ila (30 May 2012)

Wagtail said:



			I really dislike join up. The only time I use it is for horses that won't be caught. I think it messes with the minds of normal, well behaved horses and causes confusion and stress.

In the wild, the lead mare will chase off others that have been disrespectful or naughty and 'send them to Coventry', only allowing them back when they are forgiven and she feels they have learnt their lesson. NH practicioners mistakenly use join up to instill the position of themselves as 'leader' to their horse, thinking that it builds a relationship where the horse respects their leadership. What in fact it does, to a normal, well behaved and polite horse, is to send them away, as though they have been naughty. They have not, of course committed any misdemeanor, and so it makes them stressed and confused. They lick and chew to appease this person who has inexplicably suddenly behaved totally irrationally and sent them away!
		
Click to expand...

That is another very good point, Wagtail.  In my years of bumbling about and trying and thinking about various methods of horse training, I found that my horse will join up happily on her own accord but when you send her away, the ears go back and she grudgingly trots off and then will keep trying to rejoin.  In any other activity, dressage, hacking, jumping, lunging, other groundwork, whatever, the ears are happy and she willingly does what you want.  But send her away from a perfectly good join-up, the ears are unhappy.  I suspect it is because it feels like undeserved punishment.  

In the study, the other issue with it that I remember reading was the NH-group horses had a more "natural" lifestyle in general.  They were turned out in a herd whereas the "conventional" group were kept stalled.  Things like that also effect the horse's general stress levels.  

I am still happy to use join-up as a method to condition a horse to listen to me, even if that's all it is, as it can be a fairly effective one.  But once he's listening and following, there's no reason to keep reiterating the point and sending him away for no reason.  Once you have the join-up, I feel it is time to move on to other and indeed more useful training.


----------



## Ladyinred (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			I'd be interested if some of the MR followers above could address some of the concerns raised by others about the theories behind join up/duallies etc? that's what I always find frustrating - we end up discussing particular RAs who ahve done a bad job and discounting them, but not the actual theory of the practice. Kelly MArks used to even be on this forum and I asked her a couple of times about the theory/ethics behind join up etc etc and she did not respond.
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid Kelly rarely responds to that type of question. She invariably has more pressing business.

To my mind the theory is very flawed and makes some huge and unfounded assumptions. JU and round pen work is far from new.. there is evidence of a round pen dating back to Roman times somewhere (OH knows more about this than me) My thoughts are many on the subject but I have said them before and it always ends in an argument, so I shall keep quiet.


----------



## Wagtail (30 May 2012)

Caol Ila said:



			That is another very good point, Wagtail.  In my years of bumbling about and trying and thinking about various methods of horse training, I found that my horse will join up happily on her own accord but when you send her away, the ears go back and she grudgingly trots off and then will keep trying to rejoin.  In any other activity, dressage, hacking, jumping, lunging, other groundwork, whatever, the ears are happy and she willingly does what you want.  But send her away from a perfectly good join-up, the ears are unhappy.  I suspect it is because it feels like undeserved punishment.  

In the study, the other issue with it that I remember reading was the NH-group horses had a more "natural" lifestyle in general.  They were turned out in a herd whereas the "conventional" group were kept stalled.  Things like that also effect the horse's general stress levels.  

I am still happy to use join-up as a method to condition a horse to listen to me, even if that's all it is, as it can be a fairly effective one.  But once he's listening and following, there's no reason to keep reiterating the point and sending him away for no reason.  Once you have the join-up, I feel it is time to move on to other and indeed more useful training.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. Once a horse has 'joined up' with you, it is pretty much usually for life. Horses never forget! The 'join up' has usually happened however, without ever actually sending the horse away as in the traditional sense at all!


----------



## amandap (30 May 2012)

Kelly Marks was banned I believe. 

Like the rest of us, if you want to learn about something you research it.  Do you want Kelly Marks question (grilling) time? Lets get all trainers (including BHS ones etc.) to come on here and answer questions shall we? lol

Let's face it, we are all different and we will never all like or agree with every trainer and not everything one individual trainer teaches, if you don't like something that's fine but if you want to know about something you find out. Wanting questions answered about a training philosophy or ethics is not easy you have to make your own mind and if it's not to you're liking leave it to one side.


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

amandap said:



			Kelly Marks was banned I believe. 

Like the rest of us, if you want to learn about something you research it.  Do you want Kelly Marks question (grilling) time? Lets get all trainers (including BHS ones etc.) to come on here and answer questions shall we? lol

Let's face it, we are all different and we will never all like or agree with every trainer and not everything one individual trainer teaches, if you don't like something that's fine but if you want to know about something you find out. Wanting questions answered about a training philosophy or ethics is not easy you have to make your own mind and if it's not to you're liking leave it to one side.
		
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. I have researched it, and I am interested thought in the responses to my questions (research usually does - and should - lead to asking more questions). As there are obviously no answers to this in the research I am interested in the answers to them from the horse's mouth, as it were! I don't think that's unreasonable, and would expect that, if there were reasonable answers to them, the trainers would respond to them, but this never happens (whihc SEEMS to say a lot, perhaps).


----------



## amandap (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			That's exactly my point. I have researched it, and I am interested thought in the responses to my questions (research usually does - and should - lead to asking more questions). As there are obviously no answers to this in the research I am interested in the answers to them from the horse's mouth, as it were! I don't think that's unreasonable, and would expect that, if there were reasonable answers to them, the trainers would respond to them, but this never happens (whihc SEEMS to say a lot, perhaps).
		
Click to expand...

Kelly Marks is not unique in this  and when answering in the past got banned for advertizing or something I believe. Perhaps Mark Todd wants to come and talk to me personally? If it doesn't make sense to you then what is your point? I don't tend to look into stuff if it doesn't make sense to me and I don't feel the need to be able to 'discuss' with every trainer I've looked into. Perhaps I'm a one off in this respect?
Why don't you join her IH discussion group and ask on there? You don't have to join IH or be associated.

Better add, by make sense I mean understandable after reading books etc. etc. I looked into KFH a few years ago and Dancing with horses, his book, made little sense to me and was actually all muddled but I don't expect to be able to discuss with him on a forum.
I also saw him live and was not impressed one bit but again I don't want to 'discuss' with him why he did some/a lot of the stuff he did or didn't do. It just wasn't for me.


----------



## NoseyPosey (30 May 2012)

I hear what some are saying about unnecessarily sending a horse away in order to do JU if it hasn't done anything wrong but a herd is constantly re-inforcing (or even re-evaluating) the pecking order in any case isn't it? I watch ours "correcting" each other all the time regardless of whether they are stepping out of line or not and none of them are young either.


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

amandap said:



			Kelly Marks is not unique in this  and when answering in the past got banned for advertizing or something I believe. Perhaps Mark Todd wants to come and talk to me personally? If it doesn't make sense to you then what is your point? I don't tend to look into stuff if it doesn't make sense to me and I don't feel the need to be able to 'discuss' with every trainer I've looked into. Perhaps I'm a one off in this respect?
Why don't you join her IH discussion group and ask on there? You don't have to join IH or be associated.

Better add, by make sense I mean understandable after reading books etc. etc. I looked into KFH a few years ago and Dancing with horses, his book, made little sense to me and was actually all muddled but I don't expect to be able to discuss with him on a forum.
I also saw him live and was not impressed one bit but again I don't want to 'discuss' with him why he did some/a lot of the stuff he did or didn't do. It just wasn't for me.
		
Click to expand...


Yes but gven that IH is such a strong entity, and based on something which seems to flawed to me, i am just interested in the reasons behind it. It doesn't NECESSARILY have to be Kelly MArks, that was just an example. none of the other IH followers have given any reasons behind it/reasonable explanations either?

May join the IH forum yes, though I expect I might be kicked out for asking the wrong sorts of questions, I will let you know


----------



## Wagtail (30 May 2012)

Rosieshire said:



			I hear what some are saying about unnecessarily sending a horse away in order to do JU if it hasn't done anything wrong but a herd is constantly re-inforcing (or even re-evaluating) the pecking order in any case isn't it? I watch ours "correcting" each other all the time regardless of whether they are stepping out of line or not and none of them are young either.
		
Click to expand...

Ah but you are wrong. There would have been a subtle act of defiance first, probably completely unapparent to you. Often a top horse only has to gesture with its head to send a subordinate one away. They do not go all out and send the other away by chasing it unless it commits a greater act of insubordination.


----------



## muff747 (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			That's exactly my point. I have researched it, and I am interested thought in the responses to my questions (research usually does - and should - lead to asking more questions). As there are obviously no answers to this in the research I am interested in the answers to them from the horse's mouth, as it were! I don't think that's unreasonable, and would expect that, if there were reasonable answers to them, the trainers would respond to them, but this never happens (whihc SEEMS to say a lot, perhaps).
		
Click to expand...

When you say researched it, have you read  any of MR books?  
I just googled "Ask Monty" and came up with this site which happens to have the answer to your question.
http://www.montyroberts.com/ju_ask_monty.html
If it doesn't answer your question fully, you can e-mail him and ask him personally.


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

muff747 said:



			When you say researched it, have you read  any of MR books?  
I just googled "Ask Monty" and came up with this site which happens to have the answer to your question.
http://www.montyroberts.com/ju_ask_monty.html
If it doesn't answer your question fully, you can e-mail him and ask him personally.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, i have read at least three of his books cover to cover and dipped into others, i am signed up to his email updates, I have met him twice, been to talks of his and Kelly, and demos. I have asked Kelly and other RAs online as well. I hvae read numerous articles, e.g. the one quoted earlier, about comparative training techniques, also including the Natural Animal Centre's own research into herd behaviour, etc etc. I think I've tried quite hard :-D. I like learning and thinking about behaviour and training techniques.

I don't think that the question about chasing away/starting a relationship wiht a horse in that way/the fact that herds don't do this/ all the other multiple  inconsistencies wiht the theory have ever actually been fully addressed, interestingly. 

Another thing that I directly asked him, to be given a very waffley (albeit funny and distracting) answer was about lunging. MR joins up wiht a horse then lunges wiht two lines, and I personally think that's really awful - especially with the horses he is just backing. They are giving (you can see it!) all the signs of wanting to come in, licking chewing etc etc etc, and now he's completely ignoring these signs and they have to keep working. This is in the 'break in in half an hour' thing. Another area I really wish someone would cover - because the lack of responses seems to suggest that actually, there is no response and therefore there is no reason behind it and it really IS just flawed logic.


----------



## muff747 (30 May 2012)

Well, it does sound like you have asked all the questions you wanted but perhaps the answers you did get just don't make sense to you.
Like Amanda said earlier, you look at trainers and their methods and one of them usually clicks and you get a feeling that they are talking complete sense and it all sounds logical to you....maybe you haven't met that trainer yet?
Or maybe you are just trying to analyse the methods too minutely.
People who follow a particular method usually do so because they have found it works for them, and unless we have been there with the trainer throughout their career and learnt everything they have about their methods, then I guess there will always be bits of those methods that are not quite clear about but it still works, so they just do it without questioning.
We all cannot know everything about everything there is to know about horses, we have to rely on other experts to guide us.
We are all learning all the time, even MR says he is still learning everyday, so perhaps you will feel more at ease if you accept that you may not understand some things, it just is as it is?


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

Yes - well i have found other things that DO work for me and my horse and I'm happy wiht them so that's fine.

I guess really what I'm syaing is that there are lots of inconsistencies in the method, and nobody 'in the know' will address them so they are obviously therefore some kind of flaws, so just maybe these are things other people might want to consider before they undertake this method too.


----------



## Hackie (30 May 2012)

Ive used a Monty Roberts certified trainer in Australia - he is a VERY talented h'orseman, and one of the best breakers I've experienced. 

I had an off the track thoroughbred that I was having terrible trouble with (he would not stop bucking!) that I took to him for lessons, and he was really great, he a) made a sound determination that the horse was genuine and would improve with work, and b) proceeded to work with me on a regular basis and we sorted him right out.

I had a lot of success with this instructor, but I would caveat by stating that he is a truly remarkable horseman which is more important than the actual methods used, and also that I combined my training with a (again, talented) classical dressage instructor once we had resolved the big issues.


----------



## muff747 (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			Yes - well i have found other things that DO work for me and my horse and I'm happy wiht them so that's fine.

I guess really what I'm syaing is that there are lots of inconsistencies in the method, and nobody 'in the know' will address them so they are obviously therefore some kind of flaws, so just maybe these are things other people might want to consider before they undertake this method too.
		
Click to expand...

But just because you don't "get" the inconsistencies doesn't mean to say they are flaws - one mans flaw is another mans "light bulb moment".
Personally I don't see any need for questions, I think the methods 
work - for me - so I don't have any questions.
If I knew what your "other methods" are, I probably would have questions and probably wouldn't understand why you use them - each to their own and I think people make up their own minds - as you have. 
I made up my mind I like NH and MR methods but I don't have questions about other methods, I just leave them alone for others to follow.


----------



## Caol Ila (30 May 2012)

To be honest, I think there are quite a lot of things horsepeople do that are not based on any kind of sound, underlying scientific or empirically validated theory, but you do them because that's what you were told to do by someone designated as an expert, or that's just what's done, or it seems to work even though you don't know why, or it doesn't work but you do it anyway.  

On that note, I see a lot of people doing things that patently don't work but they keep doing it anyway because they think that's the way it's done, i.e. cranking his head into a frame with the inside rein alone hasn't improved his dressage or general way of going over the last year; what makes you think it's going to start now?


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

Caol Ila said:



			To be honest, I think there are quite a lot of things horsepeople do that are not based on any kind of sound, underlying scientific or empirically validated theory, but you do them because that's what you were told to do by someone designated as an expert, or that's just what's done, or it seems to work even though you don't know why, or it doesn't work but you do it anyway.  

On that note, I see a lot of people doing things that patently don't work but they keep doing it anyway because they think that's the way it's done, i.e. cranking his head into a frame with the inside rein alone hasn't improved his dressage or general way of going over the last year; what makes you think it's going to start now?
		
Click to expand...

Please don't take this the wrong way but I feel that I'd be being really narrow minded if I thought that way myself. I would never do something just becuase a professional told me how to do it and it worked for them, I'd think about why it worked. There are a million ways of being cruel wihtout overtly hitting a horse - look at Parelli, for example. I think it's absolutely imperative that we think about why things are working. If, for example (and as the research seems to suggest), doing a join up is actually stressful for the horse and works simply as conditioning (not some magic equus language, becuase horses don't do this), then I don't want to simply do it becuase Kelly Marks, MR and all the RAs say it's ok - wihtout them further responding to any research or queries about what they're doing!


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

muff747 said:



			But just because you don't "get" the inconsistencies doesn't mean to say they are flaws - one mans flaw is another mans "light bulb moment".
Personally I don't see any need for questions, I think the methods 
work - for me - so I don't have any questions.
If I knew what your "other methods" are, I probably would have questions and probably wouldn't understand why you use them - each to their own and I think people make up their own minds - as you have. 
I made up my mind I like NH and MR methods but I don't have questions about other methods, I just leave them alone for others to follow.
		
Click to expand...

my previous post applies to this response too. we should always question everything - and particularly if there is research suggesting it's wrong/inherently incorrect/inconsisteny. 

A lovely example is a girl at my yard who saw another girl doing a parelli game involving tapping the horse's leg with the carrot stick to get it to pick up its foot on command. the second girl said she wanted to learn Parelli, becuase she wanted her horse to pick up its foot on command.

There are a million ways you could teach a horse to pick up its foot on command, involving carrot sticks, whips, vvoice commands, clickers, hobbles - all sorts of things, from nice to nasty. In all of them you might get the same result, but the horse might have (or might not, depending on the method) been massively stressed on the way. Just becuase all the ways 'work' (in that you get the desired result) doesn't mean that they're all 'right'!

BTW - I am not rubbishing either of those girls, I just thought it was an interesting example of the thought process being 'I want my horse to do that so I must learn this programme' rather than 'interesting, how can I teach my horse to do that'.


----------



## Caol Ila (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			Please don't take this the wrong way but I feel that I'd be being really narrow minded if I thought that way myself. I would never do something just becuase a professional told me how to do it and it worked for them, I'd think about why it worked. There are a million ways of being cruel wihtout overtly hitting a horse - look at Parelli, for example. I think it's absolutely imperative that we think about why things are working. If, for example (and as the research seems to suggest), doing a join up is actually stressful for the horse and works simply as conditioning (not some magic equus language, becuase horses don't do this), then I don't want to simply do it becuase Kelly Marks, MR and all the RAs say it's ok - wihtout them further responding to any research or queries about what they're doing!
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that blindly doing something because you're told to is ideal.  It just seems to be be very common amongst horsepeople.  I always question underlying assumptions and revise theories and training methods accordingly, but my point is that it is quite normal for people to do things with their horses and have no idea why.  "Because that's how it's done."


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

Caol Ila said:



			I'm not saying that blindly doing something because you're told to is ideal.  It just seems to be be very common amongst horsepeople.  I always question underlying assumptions and revise theories and training methods accordingly, but my point is that it is quite normal for people to do things with their horses and have no idea why.  "Because that's how it's done."
		
Click to expand...

OK great - so (assuming you continue to use these methods) how do you address the concerns that have been highlighted re: join up, duallies, lunging after join up, etc etc?


----------



## Caol Ila (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			OK great - so (assuming you continue to use these methods) how do you address the concerns that have been highlighted re: join up, duallies, lunging after join up, etc etc?
		
Click to expand...

Wrong assumption.  I don't own and never have owned or used a dually halter (I don't even know what they are without Googling), I don't lunge after join-up, or ever really, unless I'm giving a complete newbie a ride or lesson on my horse, and I haven't done join-up on my mare in many years.  If I bought a baby tomorrow that was all over the place, I would probably use join-up to get its attention.  Regardless of whether join-up works because you're "speaking" to it in its own language or because you're conditioning it to listen to you, it is a handy tool.  But it can be (and often is) overused.


----------



## Morgan123 (30 May 2012)

Caol Ila said:



			Wrong assumption.  I don't own and never have owned or used a dually halter (I don't even know what they are without Googling), I don't lunge after join-up, or ever really, unless I'm giving a complete newbie a ride or lesson on my horse, and I haven't done join-up on my mare in many years.  If I bought a baby tomorrow that was all over the place, I would probably use join-up to get its attention.  Regardless of whether join-up works because you're "speaking" to it in its own language or because you're conditioning it to listen to you, it is a handy tool.  But it can be (and often is) overused.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - I didn't really mean duallies specifically, I just meant 'MR practices in general' - apologies for not clarifying. And I also didn't mean you specifically.

Agree, join up is a quick tool, but it's also an (uneccessarily) dominant way of initiating contact with a horse and 'getting its attention'. I just feel that it's important to spend time thinking about what's really going on with it rather than that it's a magic trick which is fine becuase Monty says it's fine.


----------



## neelie OAP (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			I'd be interested if some of the MR followers above could address some of the concerns raised by others about the theories behind join up/duallies etc? that's what I always find frustrating - we end up discussing particular RAs who ahve done a bad job and discounting them, but not the actual theory of the practice. Kelly MArks used to even be on this forum and I asked her a couple of times about the theory/ethics behind join up etc etc and she did not respond.
		
Click to expand...

 good point, I think people should ask far more questions !


----------



## neelie OAP (30 May 2012)

Did anyone catch the 'Ffemio Y Meistr'  four part programe that S4C television put out last August, now that was certainly food for thought


----------



## Chottsy (30 May 2012)

I saw Monty Roberts a few years ago, and I did enjoy watching, because I did see so much useful stuff in what he was saying. So many horses do invade personal space, and these horses didnt invade his. I understand where people are coming from, but when I saw his demo, I had two ladies behind me very loudly b****ing about him, which for any young teenager is enough to dent your view. 
I also like the idea of the Dually, although I wouldn't necessarily go for his one, but when I have had to lead more difficult horses, and the lead rope has gone round the nose, I found that any time the horse pulled against it I would then have to loosen it again so that it didn't stay pulled tight, meaning I only had one hand on the lead rope. If the Dually got rid of this need, and there was nothing on the market similar, I would get it purely for that reason. 
However, a friend of mine did some sort of IH work in Spain, and I watched him work with a horse, it was amazing to watch. The horse wasn't nasty or naughty particularly, but was a tense, untrusting ex-rachorse that had been through an unexperienced rider.
He used our fullsize 90mx40m school, so the horse could run as far as he wanted. Within a minute, the horse wanted to be with him, but if he moved away, then so did my friend. He then did some work on a rope halter and line, the headshy and untrusting horse was completely chilled in his company, and my friend could wave his arms about and move all round the horse, without him caring. Was so nice to watch.


----------



## eatmoremincepies (30 May 2012)

Theory and research are interesting things.  I did some physics at university, but wouldn't say I really understand or have researched everything about electricity.  But I'm satisfied that it's not emotionally harming my light switches, so I'm happy to use it.



Conditioned responses in JU?  I thought a conditioned response needed repetition for the subject to connect the stimulus and response . . . so why does a horse not just stop moving but come towards me when I turn away at the end of a JU?  I've only done it the once.    Anyway in 10 years don't remember doing a JU more than once with a horse.

We will never know what a horse experiences during JU.  Any theory is just a theory.  So in that spirit, here is mine.  

JU starts just by asking the horse to move away round the pen.  No emotion, no "you bad horse".  When you're trained to do it, you're told not to do it when the horse is attentive to you, only when they have lost interest in being with you for a few seconds.   Just "oi you, can you move around the pen for a bit please".

(In demos the horses can be difficult and dangerous, and pretty oblivious to people, so a stronger sending away may be needed; but for most horses, they don't need to go out of a trot)

Sooner or later horse asks questions - shall I speed up?  shall I change direction?  Person answers questions with body language but no emotion.  Horse seems to realise that its questions are being answered in a way it understands, without person getting angry or constraining/hitting it.   Horse is then happy to be with person.

Conversation goes on from that moment throughout leading, handling, riding - horse asking questions, person noticing questions and answering them in a way horse can understand.    In 5 minutes standing chatting to your mates on the yard with a leadrope in your hand, a typical horse might ask 10-20 questions (can I shuffle closer to you?   Can I nudge you?  Can I rub on you?).   

JU is just an opportunity to start these Q&As, it can just as easily be done while leading a horse or loose in a big arena or field - frequently a horse will choose to circle round the person instead of running away further into the field or school, tell me that's a horse that I've trapped and forced to run around me!  

The vast majority of the time, there is no round pen available so the JU effect is achieved via leading exercises.  But generally these are more straightforward horses.

Btw anyone who has had a bad experience with an RA or MR person, if you really want to do something about it, I hope you will get in touch with Kelly or Monty and say who it was and what happened.  They want to know if someone is using their name without training or has been trained and is doing a bad job.  

(Disclaimer:  I am not an RA etc but did the training about 10 years ago and have integrated it with other people I've learned from)

Not bothered about the theory (see electricity reference above) but for those interested in the practical applications, I hope the above is useful.


----------



## fburton (30 May 2012)

neelie OAP said:



  Did anyone catch the 'Ffemio Y Meistr'  four part programe that S4C television put out last August, now that was certainly food for thought 

Click to expand...

Nope, never 'eard of it! What was that about?


----------



## neelie OAP (30 May 2012)

fburton said:



			Nope, never 'eard of it! What was that about?
		
Click to expand...

 It was a four part series explaining MR methods, think you may still be able to see it on S4C's web site, or google it on Ffemio Y Meistr might be worth a go !


----------



## competitiondiva (30 May 2012)

lucky-lady said:



			I'm more of a fan of Richard Maxwell, but all of them - well - it's just common sense really isn't it? it's nothing new, it's stuff we were doing 30 years ago. Stuff we were taught by proper nags men.
		
Click to expand...

here here!!!

I'll admit I'm not 'up' with the whole natural horsemanship techniques, but isn't a round pen much the same as lunging? Most of what I've seen on tele about him is he wanted people not to use the methods of the old west and use more 'intelligent' horsemanship.  Erhem, we aint the old west, nor have we (to my knowledge) ever broken horses in like that.  Therefore I felt he was preeching to the converted in the UK???? Maybe that's just down to my experience and I've been lucky to see good horsemanship from a young age (that's not to say I haven't seen crap riders!! lol!! but the horses I've seen and broken in myself have never been done in the ways of the old west)? All I'll say is if 'his' methods have helped you then bonus, but I can't help feeling that a good british horseman/woman!! could have done the same for half the money???


----------



## eatmoremincepies (30 May 2012)

Know what you mean competitiondiva - I think MR does sometimes make it sound as though there is no-one breaking horses in in a calm & kind way, which obviously there are. 

I think you have been a bit lucky with your experience of good horsemen/women - for a large majority of horse owners I've come across it hasn't been this way. 

Re common sense - there is certainly some stuff that is common sense, but there is a lot more too.  Have shared these methods in depth with quite a lot of people over the years, up to 4* eventers, and they have all found some new and useful info in there.     Even Yogi B now uses some MR methods.


----------



## muff747 (30 May 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			my previous post applies to this response too. we should always question everything - and particularly if there is research suggesting it's wrong/inherently incorrect/inconsisteny. QUOTE]
Which research did you mean?
I don't blindly follow what an expert says without thinking it through and satisfying myself that it all makes sense - and there is no cruelty involved. I have also read his books, watched videos, been to demos, listened to him talk about his work, talked to him face to face.  When I said you don't "get" it, I mean I can see the logic behind his explanation that he has recognised the language of Equus.  He describes the behaviour of the horses and interprets it as a "horse language" in a way that I understand and can see with my own eyes. I have studied horses behaving  in the field and can see the Equus language happening between the horses, locking the nearest ear to the dominant horse, the licking and chewing and bobbing the head down near the ground. I have also practiced join up with an un catchable pony in the field and the pony behaved in exactly the same way as I have seen MR describe during his demonstrations.  IMO there was no fear or stress involved when I was doing JU with this pony except it's own fear of being caught.  I did catch it quietly and without any chasing or it galloping around the field so I have concluded that his methods work in the way he describes and it all makes sense to me.  Therefore I don't need to ask anymore questions, I am happy that there is no cruelty involved.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## talkinghorse (31 May 2012)

fburton said:



			Nope, never 'eard of it! What was that about?
		
Click to expand...

Barry Thomas had just finished his training with Monty Roberts in America and S4C filmed Monty presenting him with his certificate at Aintree in February 2011. The interview was for one of four episodes of Ffermio: Y Meistr, showing the 'master' Monty Roberts' techniques, used by Barry in Wales. 

The programme description describes it: In the second programme, Barry meets the original 'master', Monty Roberts from California, at one of his demonstrations at Aintree. Barry also turns his hand at taming one of Dyfan James' Limousin bulls. He also tries to tame one of Valmai Thomas' horses ready for the show season.With on-screen English subtitles.

You can find more about the programme here too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-13017546


----------



## VJames (31 May 2012)

*RE: A comparison between the Monty Roberts technique and a conventional UK technique for initial training of riding horses*

Dear All

If you would like to read an interesting and detailed overview (presentation) about the scientific study comparing MR methods to Conventional UK methods which was presented at the International Society of Equitation Science (ISES) visit the link below. You do not need a password to access the presentation, it is a PDF file and is found at the bottom of the page.


http://www.mobileliveryassociates.co.uk/distance-learning-material-for-associates/


----------



## fburton (31 May 2012)

Thanks for that, VJames.

I have been waiting for Anthrozoös to publish the study and they _still_ haven't done so, so this is a useful alternative source.

And thanks neelie OAP and talkinghorse for the Ffemio Y Meistr pointers.


----------



## debsg (31 May 2012)

Morgan 123, you would be most welcome on the IHDG  
Your questions are valid ones, which deserve a much more detailed and scientific answer than any I could provide. There are plenty of knowledgeable people on there who will happily discuss this with you. I personally do not use JU as have never felt the need with my mares.
I believe Kelly has previously been banned for 'advertising' her methods during a discussion. I would think it would be a little difficult to answer queries without reference to the methods used, but there you go!


----------



## fburton (31 May 2012)

debsg said:



			I believe Kelly has previously been banned for 'advertising' her methods during a discussion. I would think it would be a little difficult to answer queries without reference to the methods used, but there you go!
		
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound very fair to me.


----------



## rosiejones (31 May 2012)

Hello 
I saw Morgan 123 asking for someone in the know to answer a question and I might be able to help, I'm a recommended associate of ih. Can you clearly phrase what your question is though? I've got a little confused reading through the previous comments. 
Intelligent horsemanship is all about questioning, open mindedness and finding the best solution for each horse, that's why sometimes it seems like common sense and good old fashioned horsemanship and sometimes it seems so strange it's funny (someone on here was laughing at the human to human learning we use on courses before you are let loose on real horses)! The central point is that it's all about finding solutions that work for the horses. 
I'm literally amazed to read the comment about km taking an assertive approach without reading the horses personality, Kelly is incredibly passionate about working with each individual horse in a way that works for them, and has literally no ego or temper (really!). I'm actually not that easy to impress and certainly no cult follower, and I wouldn't professionally associate myself to any other person, but I literally trust Kelly to always put the horse first. I have found ih to be so friendly and welcoming and useful to all sorts of horsepeople.
One of the best things that ih does is to stop this us and them nonsense between 'nh' and traditional. Most of us are actually trying to do the same thing and should be looking for the best people to help us base on individual talent and merit not which camp they are in. I'm often helping with remedial ridden issues on professional competition yards, and am happy to turn to 'traditional' instructors for my own development, currently having fab dressage lessons on my own horse. 
Shocked to read also of negative Ra experience, it's pretty tough to become an Ra and feedback is constantly monitored and standards are high. To those who had bad experiences sending horses away to 'monty' people or nh people, they probably were not RAs at all, dont tar us all with the same brush, I know I certainly have never sent a horse home anything other than happy well and successful! 
The main thing is to use whatever works for you, ih can prove a useful support for you in doing that because it really is not that prescriptive, and is full of experienced problem solving thinkers. If it works and is non violent, in my opinion, it is intelligent horsemanship! Hope this is useful, obviously one sided but true for me!


----------



## amandap (31 May 2012)

eatmoremincepies said:



			Theory and research are interesting things.  I did some physics at university, but wouldn't say I really understand or have researched everything about electricity.  But I'm satisfied that it's not emotionally harming my light switches, so I'm happy to use it.



Conditioned responses in JU?  I thought a conditioned response needed repetition for the subject to connect the stimulus and response . . . so why does a horse not just stop moving but come towards me when I turn away at the end of a JU?  I've only done it the once.    Anyway in 10 years don't remember doing a JU more than once with a horse.

We will never know what a horse experiences during JU.  Any theory is just a theory.  So in that spirit, here is mine.  

JU starts just by asking the horse to move away round the pen.  No emotion, no "you bad horse".  When you're trained to do it, you're told not to do it when the horse is attentive to you, only when they have lost interest in being with you for a few seconds.   Just "oi you, can you move around the pen for a bit please".

(In demos the horses can be difficult and dangerous, and pretty oblivious to people, so a stronger sending away may be needed; but for most horses, they don't need to go out of a trot)

Sooner or later horse asks questions - shall I speed up?  shall I change direction?  Person answers questions with body language but no emotion.  Horse seems to realise that its questions are being answered in a way it understands, without person getting angry or constraining/hitting it.   Horse is then happy to be with person.

Conversation goes on from that moment throughout leading, handling, riding - horse asking questions, person noticing questions and answering them in a way horse can understand.    In 5 minutes standing chatting to your mates on the yard with a leadrope in your hand, a typical horse might ask 10-20 questions (can I shuffle closer to you?   Can I nudge you?  Can I rub on you?).   

JU is just an opportunity to start these Q&As, it can just as easily be done while leading a horse or loose in a big arena or field - frequently a horse will choose to circle round the person instead of running away further into the field or school, tell me that's a horse that I've trapped and forced to run around me!  

The vast majority of the time, there is no round pen available so the JU effect is achieved via leading exercises.  But generally these are more straightforward horses.

Btw anyone who has had a bad experience with an RA or MR person, if you really want to do something about it, I hope you will get in touch with Kelly or Monty and say who it was and what happened.  They want to know if someone is using their name without training or has been trained and is doing a bad job.  

(Disclaimer:  I am not an RA etc but did the training about 10 years ago and have integrated it with other people I've learned from)

Not bothered about the theory (see electricity reference above) but for those interested in the practical applications, I hope the above is useful.
		
Click to expand...

I've done these discussions so many times (lol) but would like to say I agree with and like this post.

I also second rosiejones's post, and add, folk will tell you in all areas of horsemanship that they have done this course or that course but this is no guarantee of their skill level in practice. The only IH/KM approved trainers are the ones on the list I linked earlier in the thread, if that is your choice of trainer.

It's a case of finding someone who suits you and your horse and can help you progress in a way you want to. There is an element of trial and error in this process I have found with many professional sectors.  For eg. I have found (eventually) the most fantastic EDT, it's in my mind because he was here yesterday.


----------



## Jenni_ (31 May 2012)

I remember when I worked at Gleneagles and him and his team were there- we took them to the pub and I kept in touch with one of his ( drop dead gorgeous ) students for a few years!


----------



## Morgan123 (31 May 2012)

FANTASTIC thank you. I'm at work but I'll surreptitously start writing some questions and then I'll post later, thank you for the opportunity


----------



## neelie OAP (31 May 2012)

rosiejones said:



			Hello 
I saw Morgan 123 asking for someone in the know to answer a question and I might be able to help, I'm a recommended associate of ih. Can you clearly phrase what your question is though? I've got a little confused reading through the previous comments. 
Intelligent horsemanship is all about questioning, open mindedness and finding the best solution for each horse, that's why sometimes it seems like common sense and good old fashioned horsemanship and sometimes it seems so strange it's funny (someone on here was laughing at the human to human learning we use on courses before you are let loose on real horses)! The central point is that it's all about finding solutions that work for the horses. 
I'm literally amazed to read the comment about km taking an assertive approach without reading the horses personality, Kelly is incredibly passionate about working with each individual horse in a way that works for them, and has literally no ego or temper (really!). I'm actually not that easy to impress and certainly no cult follower, and I wouldn't professionally associate myself to any other person, but I literally trust Kelly to always put the horse first. I have found ih to be so friendly and welcoming and useful to all sorts of horsepeople.
One of the best things that ih does is to stop this us and them nonsense between 'nh' and traditional. Most of us are actually trying to do the same thing and should be looking for the best people to help us base on individual talent and merit not which camp they are in. I'm often helping with remedial ridden issues on professional competition yards, and am happy to turn to 'traditional' instructors for my own development, currently having fab dressage lessons on my own horse. 
Shocked to read also of negative Ra experience, it's pretty tough to become an Ra and feedback is constantly monitored and standards are high. To those who had bad experiences sending horses away to 'monty' people or nh people, they probably were not RAs at all, dont tar us all with the same brush, I know I certainly have never sent a horse home anything other than happy well and successful! 
The main thing is to use whatever works for you, ih can prove a useful support for you in doing that because it really is not that prescriptive, and is full of experienced problem solving thinkers. If it works and is non violent, in my opinion, it is intelligent horsemanship! Hope this is useful, obviously one sided but true for me!
		
Click to expand...

Yes agree keeping an open mind is the answer, all horses are individuals as we know, so why don't we take that on board when we train them, which method we use on one may work very well, but that could be a total disaster on the next one, with horses there is always some thing more to learn !


----------



## neelie OAP (31 May 2012)

fburton said:



			That doesn't sound very fair to me. 

Click to expand...

Yes me too


----------



## fburton (31 May 2012)

eatmoremincepies said:



			Conditioned responses in JU?  I thought a conditioned response needed repetition for the subject to connect the stimulus and response
		
Click to expand...

For "trial and error" learning (operant conditioning), a single reinforcement or punishment can be enough for learning to occur, though repetition is usually needed to strengthen the association.




			. . . so why does a horse not just stop moving but come towards me when I turn away at the end of a JU?
		
Click to expand...

Isn't it the case that, in Join-Up, the horse often _does_ just stop moving, and the handler has to approach the horse a few times in order get the "hook on"?

I'm not saying any of this proves the issue one way or another. However, I haven't seen anything that would completely rule out a "learning theory" explanation. Is it worth knowing _how_ electricity or Join-Up works? I personally think it is potentially useful knowledge, but I appreciate that others might not be bothered.


----------



## Morgan123 (31 May 2012)

Helloooo - me again. I have actually had to work a bit today - GUTTED - so didn't have as much time as I'd have liked to phrase these properly :-D, so please let me know if anything is not clear:

1) my first and foremost question is about join up. I know it's not always done on every horse and all that stuff, but I'm just asking anyway. There is no evidence (that I have seen) that join up is related to herd behaviour, while there is quite a bit of contrary evidence that it is something other - e.g. simply conditioning (not so negative), or indeed other studies (e.g. Natural Animal Centre's one with zebras being chased by lions and showing some behaviours similar to a horse in join up!!) that show it in a much more negative light. Of course all studies will have their limitations and these are all just - as fburton says - theories. But the fact remains that there are (at best) limited positive findings about join up, and that clearly it is a means of starting a 'conversation' with a horse in a very dominant way (move away from me and keep moving). I think I'm asking how we know it's right, when the evidence appears to suggest otherwise, and whether it is REALLY justifiable.

2) Lunging. Sorry, it's quite hard to phras this as a question. How can it possibly be right to lunge a horse you've just joined up with? Sorry that's not very neutral. But you've moving the horse away from you when, squaring up to it, etc when you're joining up, and then essentially 'training' it that if it acts submissive you'll allow it to come and stand with you (negative reinforcement). I cannot see how it would therefore not be intensively stressful for a horse to be immediately after (I am referring now to the demo 'break in in half an hour' horses) to be lunged, where all their signs are then ignored. 
When I asked Monty this in a Q&A session the convulted response essentially was 'a language is not a language unless someone is listening'. But this made no sense becuase that was my point - he is talking about learning the 'language' of the horse - i.e. equus - but then he is ignoring it?? Unfortnately there was no chance for follow up discussion on that one.

3) Using dummy dolls - as in demos and so on (favourite quote from monty here: 'some people say that the horse stopping bucking is learned helplessness. I say it's learned acceptance' :-D. Who's to say either of us are right, of course, but lovely example of how we can just switch things round to suit us!). Right - so using dummy dolls to overcome fear is flooding (as they did in the 70s when they were experimenting with overocming phobias, e.g. putting spider-phobics in rooms full of spiders and waiting for them to calm down). This is extremely stressful for the subject, which is why they don't do it with people anymore - e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy, where the behaviour is broken down into sections, is much more practical, long-lasting and less stressful. If the theory of MR's stuff is about listening to the horse, understanding its language and respecting it, where does it fit in to use a method that is so extreme and stressful?

I have more but this will do for now since I need to finish a few things before i leave work, haha. Thanks in advance, sorry this is convoluted.


----------



## Wagtail (31 May 2012)

Very good questions, morgan123 and I for one would love to know the answers to them. I have often wondered about lunging, because even though I dislike JU, I do lunge and I do therefore worry that I am causing the same stress as I believe JU causes. However, my horses do not show the same appeasement behaviour when lunged (licking and chewing), and look very relaxed and so I am pretty sure that they just accept it as work and not being sent away like in JU.


----------



## tess1 (31 May 2012)

Good questions from Morgan123.

I'd also like to ask a question.   Why did Roberts feel the need to include a Buckstop in the list of equipment he had access to during the study of his method?  It has been previously stressed on his forum that this is a tool of last resort used only when all other techniques have failed and this is horse's last chance before being sent for slaughter or similar.  I don't believe any of the horses in the study fell into that category (?).  

This following a quote from an article previously printed by Cavallo magazine asking experts' opinions on join up:

Dr. Evelyn Hanggi, Equine Behaviourist and President of the Equine Research Foundation in Aptos, California. Round pen training and Monty Roberts are not one and the same. Proper use of a round pen by a good trainer is not nearly as stressful as what you see with Roberts. He uses halters that create pain. *He uses a buckstopper and right there he loses any credibility of non- violence.* Horses do not learn well when they are fearful or in pain. (my empahasis).

full article can be read here (scroll down to page 2) http://friendshiptraining.org/documents/Critique_NATURAL_HORSEMANSHIP.pdf


----------



## rosiejones (31 May 2012)

Look forward to having a go at answering these tomorrow just popped on so u don't think I've disappeared but no time now! Rosie


----------



## tess1 (31 May 2012)

In response to the posting of the findings of the study on Roberts' method, a write up of the presentation at the Equitation Science Conference is below:

Later in the morning it was time for the much publicized study titled &#8220;A comparison between the Monty Roberts technique and a conventional UK technique for initial training of riding horses&#8221; a presentation which had been causing quite a strong reaction from all sides and had brought the man himself, to fly from the US to attend the conference proceedings. I know many people have been asking about this one, so I will go into a bit more detail&#8230; The study involved two trainers, Monty Roberts himself and Phil Roelich, a UK trainer with 12 years experience starting horses.

14 horses were split into two groups and were cleverly and carefully matched according to their behavioural responses to leading and novel-object tests. Trainers had the help of one assistant each, 30 mins per day with each horse, and 20 days to train them to perform a standardized flatwork and obstacle test which was scored by a panel of judges who were blinded to which horse corresponded to which trainer (this was possible because Monty had brought his own assistant who the judges did not recognize, and none of the judges knew Phil Roelich at all). The sessions were videoed and horses wore heart rate monitors as the only way to evaluate their stress response. So what did they find? Not all the findings were detailed, but rather focused on the heart rates at two crucial points of any horse&#8217;s breaking-in: first saddle and first rider. These two stages have been previously documented to cause higher stress. The Heart Rates of the horses trained by Monty Roberts were indeed lower than those of Phil Roelich&#8217;s horses at those times. Monty&#8217;s horses also scored considerably higher in the ridden and obstacle courses. So the conclusion? Well it is important to acknowledge the findings, but in my humble opinion *it may have been more appropriate to title the study &#8216;a comparison between Monty Roberts&#8217; and Phil Roelich&#8217;s ability to start horses in no more than 20 days&#8217;, because it sounded a bit like they were comparing apples with pears.* Later in the corridor, Andrew McLean and Monty had a long friendly discussion and* it was suggested that the study could be repeated addressing the limitations of this one, for example allowing for the full duration of training according to each technique (the UK method typically is expected to take 6 weeks  &#8211; would the UK trainer&#8217;s horses have been exposed to higher stress than normal in trying to halve the training time? after all this was not a speed test but a stress test) as well as matching trainer experience to make the study more reliable.*  my emphasis

full article here http://horsesandpeople.com.au/equitation-science-articles/348-2011-ises-conference.html

I was at the Equine Behaviour Forum Seminar last year when Veronica Fowler presented the preliminary findings to this study.  I think it is fair to note that the reliance upon heart rate to infer decreased stress levels was challenged by Andrew McClean (Australian Equine Behaviour Centre http://www.aebc.com.au/) as there is evidence to suggest that lowered heart rate can actually indicate increased stress.  To date there has been no attempt to my knowledge to carry out analysis of the cortisol swabs taken during the sessions, nor any observational analysis of the horses' behaviour including those that may be indicative of stress, displacement of fear.  To my mind, the study would be stronger if these short-comings were addressed.  I am aware that there is currently no definitive ethogram for fear-based behaviours displayed in training, but I am sure that there is enough expertise available to come up with a working model if the incentive were there.  Sue McDonnell has documented the equid ethogram in considerable detail, and, for example, has interesting knowledge and insight into behaviours such as licking and chewing - commonly seen in join-up and other training approaches  http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=6346 

from the above article:
_The lowered head, relaxed posture, licking, and chewing are part of an autonomic response when stress or pain fluctuates, or when panic or startle resolve. The first scientific description I encountered was in the field of neurophysiology. In mammals, this cluster of responses occurs when the animal is returning from predominantly sympathetic tone (fight or flight response) back to parasympathetic tone (feed or breed response). This process is also known as sympathetic attenuation. So it is seen in all sorts of situations. 

When a horse is suddenly frightened, then quiets down, the head drops, there might be salivation, tongue and jaw movements, and a sigh. It does occur in all horses, feral or domestic, whenever startled by something in the environment, or after a disturbance. In domestic horses, we see it most often when evaluating video of hospitalized horses in association with episode of pain, a minor seizure, or the collapse of narcolepsy. The scenario can be reliably provoked by presenting a startling noise, then letting things quiet down.

These behaviors also can be induced by administering drugs that produce the neurochemical conditions in the brain corresponding to anxiety and panic. Some have been studied in horses. At certain blood levels, panic followed by relief responses is seen. Rapid blinking and yawning, which are signs of the related autonomic state of mild anxiety, are seen at different blood levels. So these behaviors have always seemed very physiologic--plain and simple, no thought is required.

So in the popular demonstrations in which a horse is run around a pen, then allowed to stop--I think of the same simple underlying autonomic physiology. Scare or excite the horse, then stop.

Certainly, it could also be consistent with the more complex behavioral concept of displacement behavior. This term refers to behavior occurring out of context (usually feeding behavior) in a thwarted goal or conflicted situation. The horse is motivated to escape, but is thwarted from escape and the energy is redirected to feeding motivation, which induces salivation, chewing, etc. The jaw and tongue movements relieve the energy and so attenuate the stress.

The physiologist's and behaviorist's interpretations seem much more plausible than the submission, trust, "digesting a thought," or "dawning moment" you hear about in popular horse talk. That's why some people question whether the high-pressure aspect of some "natural horsemanship" techniques are the most humane. They would say that if the horse is thinking, it's likely "I'm scared, want to get out of here now," or "Thank goodness this guy has stopped chasing me in circles so I can relax for a minute."

Years ago we studied punishment in horse training. In that context, when subjects "figured out" how to avoid the punishment, they usually showed the lowered head, lip licking, chewing, and sighing. They then responded correctly and avoided punishment, so they had learned. But they usually showed signs of anxiety and mild depression. The end of a training trial seemed like relief, "Thank goodness that's over," and they became reluctant to do the trials_


To her credit, Veronica Fowler also pointed out during the presentation at the EBF symposium that the probable reason that Roberts' horses did better in the ridden tests was because they were practising the manouveres pretty much as soon as he got a rider on board - which of course he managed to do much quicker than the conventional trainer as, has already been pointed out, traditional trainers do not have quite the same focus on speed.


----------



## tess1 (31 May 2012)

Finally, an alternative view of Join-up (ie, other than "the language of equus") can be found here http://www.horsesandpeople.com.au/equitation-science-articles/326-different-horse-training.html

Extract from above article

_How it works &#8211; the popular explanation

A common explanation of round-yard training is that it mimics horses&#8217; behavioural responses in their natural environment where group structure is maintained by horses&#8217; use of a range of visual signals to communicate. One instigator of round-yard training reported that an equine leader seeking to discipline a youngster would show dominance by chasing it away from the group and keeping it away. Subsequently, the youngster would show certain responses such as turning an ear toward the dominant horse, lowering their head toward the ground and licking and chewing. These responses are said to prompt the dominant mare to acquiesce by showing behavioural signs that include averting her gaze and allowing the youngster to rejoin the group1. When transferred to round-yard training, a similar process of dominance and submission results in the trainer becoming dominant over the horse and the horse accepting him as its leader1.

Problems with the popular explanation

The use of visual signals to communicate with horses is certainly important, but it is beguiling to think that we can enter their social hierarchy by mimicking their signals and behaviour.

Humans are physically unable to mimic horse signals with any subtlety as we do not have the same visual signalling structures (i.e. our ears do not move like horses&#8217; ears) and of course once we ride the horse, we have further problems with visual communication because the horse is not likely to see all our signals.

We certainly can train horses to respond to certain visual signals, but we need to recognise that this is what we are doing; training them to respond to our signals and not mimicking the horse&#8217;s own communication signals. This is an important concept to understand because it highlights that when training methods come up with fabricated interpretations of ethology they are not comprehensible and therefore confuse those dealing with the horses.

There are a number of different interpretations of the responses that the horse is expected to exhibit such as; being considered signs of submission2, that the horse is &#8216;ready to negotiate&#8217;3 or they may be displacement activities4. Whilst it is important to remember that we do not know exactly what it is like to be a horse, with logical, systematic objective research we can arrive at the most likely explanations.

Head lowering and licking-and-chewing have received much attention, here is a summary of what objective observation and research has proved so far:

    they are rarely performed simultaneously5-9
    they are mostly performed while the horses are facing away from each other7,9
    they occur mostly while horses are walking, not going at speed7
    they are more likely to simply be a reflection of the physiological response to the presence of a potential predator, whereby the horse could be salivating after adrenaline release has caused a dry mouth, or simply moving the jaw after having it tightly clenched while being chased. In this instance, as the threat reduces (chasing), head lowering and/or licking-and-chewing may indicate redistribution of saliva around the buccal mucosa10.

From this, it is clear that the general interpretation of head lowering and licking-and-chewing needs to be updated._


----------



## fburton (31 May 2012)

Since the Cavallo magazine article has been quoted, in the interests of fairness I feel I should say how it came about and point out some errors and misrepresentations.

The article was created by someone from Cavallo by simply assembling a series of quotes obtained from messages posted in a mailing list (Equinebehaviorgroup@equine-behavior.com) that had a relatively few private subscribers. This person asked a couple of questions about join-up and "licking and chewing" and a number of people, included me, responded. There was no suggestion that our replies would be used in a magazine article and at no point was our permission formally sought to print our comments. So the statement "CAVALLO asked leading experts from all over the world" is dishonest and misleading.

More importantly, I had no idea that my random thoughts on a subject (which is what they were) would be presented as a definitive statement in an article that was intentionally slanted against Monty Roberts. I only discovered that later on, after the article was published in the magazine. Had I known this was going to happen, I would not have allowed my words to be used in this way - either I would have used different, carefully considered words or I would simply not have given permission for them to quote me at all. This regardless of my opinions of Roberts or Join-Up.

If they had quoted me verbatim, it would still have been taking what I wrote out of context. But they didn't even do that - they actually changed my words! So, for example, I did *not* write (of L&C) "This action is caused by a previous adrenaline release." This gives the impression that it is known for certain what causes licking and chewing in join-up, which is untrue! The adrenaline mechanism was (and still is) a theory of mine. The hypothesis has yet to be tested properly. What I actually wrote is: "I believe this action is caused by previous adrenaline release." Rather different - and remember that the context was an informal discussion amongst academics, not a statement of "fact" as you might find in a textbook.

Similarly, my original words "Can we rule out the simple physiological explanation which goes: being made to flee -> increase in circulating adrenaline -> dry mouth -> licking (with or without saliva secretion when the sympathetic/parasympathetic balance swings back the other way)?" got transmuted into "The simple physiological explanation goes: being made to flee - increase in circulating adrenaline - dry mouth - licking.".

Another example: "I felt that driving away had a detrimental effect on the trust that I had already built up." turned into "... and realized that the driving away ..." Another dishonest shift in emphasis from what I originally wrote to fit their agenda.

Finally, they didn't even get my job title right! They said I was a "Brain Researcher and Behaviourist at ... the University of Glasgow. In fact, my research field was (and is) cardiac electrophysiology. I have never given myself the label of "Behaviourist". I have a keen interest in equine behaviour, and see a strong role for "learning theory".

The article that gets quoted on the Internet is a translation back to English of the German, so there may be an element of Chinese whispers. Nevertheless, it was wrong of Cavallo to use what was essentially a candid private conversation to make a public article with an agenda.


----------



## tess1 (31 May 2012)

Thanks for clarifying that fburton, I guess we have to acknowledge that pretty much everyone has an agenda!  If you were a politician I guess there could be a public enquiry


----------



## amandap (31 May 2012)

I think you should copy your post so you have it to hand every time this article is quoted fb. Save you some time.


----------



## fburton (31 May 2012)

amandap said:



			I think you should copy your post so you have it to hand every time this article is quoted fb. Save you some time. 

Click to expand...

Yes, good point Amandap.  Actually, I _did_ copy it, from a post on the IHDG forum a couple of years ago, with a couple of minor edits.


----------



## neelie OAP (1 June 2012)

This is all very intersting, but  after watching  the S4C Ffemio Y Meistr series, and seeing that chap 'Flooding' that poor coloured horse using a long stick covered in what looked like plactic bags, frightening the living day lights out of the poor thing, it really wasn't nice to watch, my friend who is a BHSI  happened to be watching it with me and was horrified.


----------



## Ladyinred (1 June 2012)

neelie OAP said:



			This is all very intersting, but  after watching  the S4C Ffemio Y Meistr series, and seeing that chap 'Flooding' that poor coloured horse using a long stick covered in what looked like plactic bags, frightening the living day lights out of the poor thing, it really wasn't nice to watch, my friend who is a BHSI  happened to be watching it with me and was horrified. 

Click to expand...

But, you see, thats where the smoke and mirrors come in. I bet they never admitted to flooding!! They will have called it desensitisation (which it isn't) just as they never chase a horse in the round pen they 'send it away'. Changing the language to make people think something is more acceptable doesn't help the horse one iota.


----------



## neelie OAP (1 June 2012)

Ladyinred said:



			But, you see, thats where the smoke and mirrors come in. I bet they never admitted to flooding!! They will have called it desensitisation (which it isn't) just as they never chase a horse in the round pen they 'send it away'. Changing the language to make people think something is more acceptable doesn't help the horse one iota.
		
Click to expand...

 Well what ever term they use for it, it certainly isn't very nice, I wouldn't ever subject any of my horses to that sort of treatment !


----------



## Morgan123 (1 June 2012)

Ladyinred said:



			But, you see, thats where the smoke and mirrors come in. I bet they never admitted to flooding!! They will have called it desensitisation (which it isn't) just as they never chase a horse in the round pen they 'send it away'. Changing the language to make people think something is more acceptable doesn't help the horse one iota.
		
Click to expand...

That's what I thought when Monty Roberts was talking about using the life sized dolls on a horse wiht a phobia for being ridden - he said "now some people call this learned helpnessness. I call it learned acceptance". 

Now of course you can argue for either of those cases, but I just thought what a fantastic example of the language being altered to make a change in how we feel about what we are seeing! 

I hadn't thought that deeply about this particular thing before (other than the above) but actually I bet fburton has some interesting thoughts in terms of what we would see if something was learned helplessness (like Seligman's dogs in... I think it was the 70s? For anyone who doesn't know this study see * below) - what we'd see if a behaviour was learned helplessness vs learned 'acceptance' (not a term that anyone has actually coined in behaviourism, but presumably what we're imagining is that they aren't helpless they're just learning in a more positive and accepting way that it's not a big deal). Fburton any thoughts?

Just off the top of my head, if we're looking at the case of flooding being used with a rider-phobic horse who has had a life sized doll strapped to it, I would have thought that if we are looking at learned helplessness we'd be seeing a massive raise in stress levels, followed by an apparent calming down but with intervals of return to escapist behaviour (bucking/throwing self around), followed by submission and apparent calmness, and then a lack of trying this behaviour in other circumstances - e.g. when an actual rider is placed on board (presumably a horse is aware of the difference between a dead weight and an actual rider, particularly as Monty chooses really outstandingly balanced and light riders for demos). To me this does fit in with what I've seen, but i am wondering if we take the view that it is some sort of acceptance what we think we'd see? Can it be 'acceptance' if it's a flooding theory and therefore initiates with a violent bout of stress? Perhaps measuring stress levels is the way forward with that one! Only I'm not sure an ethics board would approve it ....??? Sorry just thinking out loud (well with my fingers really !). 


*- basically two sets of dogs were used in this trial which was looking at symptoms similar to depression and anxiety disorders in people. The dogs were put (one at a time!) in a room with a metal floor and a barrire in the middle. The floor gave them an electric shock and the dogs would jump the barrier. For half the dogs, the other side was 'safe' and held no electric shock. For the other half, the floor shocked them on both sides. For the second group, they began to show apathetic behaviours and lack resistance, and stopped trying to escape the stimulus - even when an alternative 'escape route' was shown.


----------



## Morgan123 (1 June 2012)

ps - fburton - thanks for the response ot the cavallo article! Interesting definitely. I am interested in the study about reliably inducing licking and chewing behaviours by startling the horse, is that fair/reliable study etc (would be interested in reading this!).


----------



## Wagtail (1 June 2012)

What about chin wobbling? I have noticed that horses do this when they are either unsure or really concentrating and trying hard to get something right. They do this even when trotting or cantering.


----------



## Morgan123 (1 June 2012)

Wagtail said:



			What about chin wobbling? I have noticed that horses do this when they are either unsure or really concentrating and trying hard to get something right. They do this even when trotting or cantering.
		
Click to expand...

Yes true.

Are there any 'MR people' able to address these things? Really interested in feedback on these points.


----------



## amandap (1 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			Yes true.

Are there any 'MR people' able to address these things? Really interested in feedback on these points.
		
Click to expand...

Not me this time, I'm all discussed/argued out on these subjects after years of it.  
I'll leave it to the experts on both sides and 'science'. lol


----------



## eatmoremincepies (1 June 2012)

Worth noticing that some detractors mentioned have competing training/behavioural businesses or philosophies - a shame as mostly they are heading in the same direction, ie better treatment for horses.  I wish they would all acknowledge that they all have stuff to learn from each other, and more in common than different.  But that's humans for you . . 

Even if you think science does have the answers, will it ever be impartial enough to be practically useful on this subject?   I have absolutely no scientific evidence for what I do, but am happy deep down that the horses I work with become happy, relaxed and are still full of character and life.  So it works for me and I will carry on.

For anyone that is genuinely interested in these methods, I would not get too tied up in research/science with all its various agendas, and instead contact someone who has been qualified/recommended for a few years in these methods.  I think most would be willing to let you come and watch some training (as long as you are genuinely open minded and don't come with a chip on your shoulder).    Then you can make your own mind up about whether the horses looked happy and relaxed and whether you like that particular person's take on these methods?

Btw re focus on time - the time it takes to start a horse is a only by-product of the way the horse is being trained.   I know Monty always says how many minutes it took to start/load a horse (!) but he is not saying "look how clever I am to do this really fast", his point is that when you communicate with a horse in this way, the horse is willing to accept saddle/rider/trailer remarkably quickly (and usually with little or no reaction at all).   The communication is the point, the shorter time it takes is just a bonus or side effect.

Flooding/desensitising - there is a fine line and it's down to the trainer to know what is too much for a horse.  For my money, it's usually about working the edge of a comfort zone, if they go into total meltdown they are not learning anything except to be frightened of being trained.


----------



## SheadonSaffron (1 June 2012)

Bet Monty's riders over the years will be very happy to hear that Monty 'always chooses very well balanced, light riders' for his demos!

Some really interesting comments here.  As a Chartered Physiotherapist, I work in a very evidence-based profession (i.e we use techniques that are backed up by scientific studies), but have to recognise the limitations of science as well as the benefits.  If I only used techniques that have scientific evidence behind them in relation to treating horses, I would be very limited in the techniques I use.  So with a strong understanding of the science and the evidence in mind, I choose techniques that to me, in my opinion, are effective and well accepted by the horse.  As an Intelligent Horsemanship Recommended Associate as well, I also choose to use techniques that I consider to be of as little stress as possible to the horse (you can explain to a person that a 'hurt' is a 'good hurt' because it will help, but it's not so easy to explain that to a horse!).  I am continually learning, and hope always to be doing so, and I believe that the same applies to Monty Roberts and Kelly Marks (and hopefully to Mark Rashid, Clinton Anderson, and many others).

I look forward to seeing the responses to Morgan123's questions.

I'd like to second Rosie that IH, though, is about what works for the horse (and actually, what works for the person as well).  People keep on about certain 'methods' - I just don't get that.  It's not any particular method - if it's violence-free and it works, then to me it's IH!  Obviously Monty is Kelly's inspiration, but that doesn't stop her (or him!) learning from many other sources - and it shouldn't stop any of us either.

Sue


----------



## tess1 (1 June 2012)

eatmoremincepies said:



			Btw re focus on time - the time it takes to start a horse is a only by-product of the way the horse is being trained.   I know Monty always says how many minutes it took to start/load a horse (!) but he is not saying "look how clever I am to do this really fast", his point is that *when you communicate with a horse in this way, the horse is willing to accept saddle/rider/trailer remarkably quickly (and usually with little or no reaction at all).*   The communication is the point, the shorter time it takes is just a bonus or side effect.
		
Click to expand...

Whether or not you accept that the horse is _willing_ to take saddle and rider after a few minutes of training depends on whether you accept Robert's interpretation of what is actually going on between human and horse.  The articles I have previously posted represent an alternative view of what is taking place in a training session - ie, not the supposed "language of equus" which has little foundation in any form of ethological or behavioural science, but whether the horse is being negatively reinforced, positively punished, flooded, and given little choice (no choice?) as to whether to accept a rider or not.  This is not about whether or not the methods work, of that there is no question, the point is whether they work in the way this is explained by Roberts and IH associates.  

If the communication is so strong and clear between horse and human in the round pen, why did Roberts feel the need to put a buckstop into his bag of tricks during the "scientific study" of his methods.  Surely no one in their right mind could possibly consider using one of these on a young horse at the very beginning if his training work under saddle  Roberts, and other members of the IH forum clearly state that the buckstop is only for extreme cases.  The study ended when these horses had received a maximum of ten hours of training - I don't feel there can be any justification for even considering the use of this gadget on these young, unspoiled horses whose training in any case has been extremely quick and intensive in order to "prove" that "Monty's methods are kinder than conventional methods".  The whole premise of the experiment lacked kindness and empathy - it was both a speed and stress test.  And it is quite clear that Roberts was prepared to use any gadget at his disposal to get the desired result.


----------



## Ladyinred (1 June 2012)

Great post Tess. Full of your usual common sense and knowledge of learning theory.x


----------



## Marianne France (1 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Whether or not you accept that the horse is _willing_ to take saddle and rider after a few minutes of training depends on whether you accept Robert's interpretation of what is actually going on between human and horse.  The articles I have previously posted represent an alternative view of what is taking place in a training session - ie, not the supposed "language of equus" which has little foundation in any form of ethological or behavioural science, but whether the horse is being negatively reinforced, positively punished, flooded, and given little choice (no choice?) as to whether to accept a rider or not.
		
Click to expand...

Tess, I'm confused, and I apologise for this, but aren't you the person who posted an article from Cavallo magazine which was refuted by at least one of the expert contributors?  If so, I'm not sure why you are crediting this article with any scientific value?

I'm  a long way from being a horse expert, but I take my evidence from what I observe happening in the fields everyday, rather than rely on so-called ethological or behavioural science papers by people I've never heard of.

I HAVE seen Monty in action several times, and have even travelled overseas to do so.  At every occasion, the horse leaving the arena has been happy to join up with Monty (there are x million studies now involving heart rate monitors which show that horses are less stressed during join up than many other schooling situations)


----------



## tess1 (1 June 2012)

Hi Marianne

could you please give some links to the x million studies that show horses are less stressed in join-up than many other schooling procedures.

Discounting the cavello article which Fburton commented on (although I still feel it is an interesting - if disingenuous - "off the record" account of people's feelings about join-up) I posted a link to the write up of the study as presented at the Equitation Science Conference http://horsesandpeople.com.au/equita...onference.html ; Sue McDonald's interpretation of licking and chewing http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=6346  (she's the author of the equid ethogram subtitled "a practical field guide to horse behaviour - review here http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Equid_Ethogram.html?id=-Mvm9NjH0WUC) and an alternative view of join up by Amanda Warren-Smith here http://www.horsesandpeople.com.au/eq...-training.html (a quick google will show that she is an equine researcher with a considerable academic and publication record who collaborates a good deal in research with Paul McGreevy).  So I'm not just relying on one article for my comments and, obviously, if you choose to ignore the literature that is being produced by people who have made the study of equine behaviour their life's work, that is entirely up to you.  

I've also watched Roberts at work and have left the demonstration with a different perception to you.  It is very hard to be objective, we all have expectations and viewpoints and this colours what we see, which is why I prefer to look closely at all the possible explanations for what is going on, and feel that the more objective data we can gather to back up our almost inevitably very human-centric, subjective interpretation of events, the better.  How, for example, do you define "happy".  What you may interpret as "happy" I may perceive as the well-timed application of negative reinforcement and positive punishment in an enclosed environment, and utilising gadgets which are designed to cause discomfort and pain when the horse does not "co-operate", which has left the horse with little choice but to comply with the demands of the human.  Personally I feel that Roberts is a good showman who is a great crowd-pleaser and can "interpret" the horses' behaviours in a way that makes things understandable for the audience, but is not necessarily accurate in terms of what is really going on in physiological, ethological and behavioural terms.  I would advocate watching Roberts' videos with the sound turned down and focussing purely on the horse-human interaction without the overlay of his interpretation, distracting jokes etc.


----------



## muff747 (1 June 2012)

Marianne France said:



			I'm  a long way from being a horse expert, but I take my evidence from what I observe happening in the fields everyday, rather than rely on so-called ethological or behavioural science papers by people I've never heard of.QUOTE]

I have watched and studied MR methods and have studied horses at liberty in the field and the behaviours MR highlights, such as L&C, circling around and dropping the head along the ground does happen between horses. Why do people (particularly Morgan) on here keep saying there is no evidence that this behaviour is natural, have you never watched your horses or any horses meeting and greeting or sussing out a new horse introduced into the herd???
You may not see it in an established herd where they have already worked out which position they are in in the hierarchy.
I have done JU in a very large field with a pony that wouldn't be caught and it did exactly the same gestures that MR highlights so that's why I base my trust in his theories, I can see it is natural and their own language.
O - and although we can't move our bodies like a horse can, we can mimic their demeanour, i.e we can be assertive by squaring our bodies towards them, we can stare at their eye with head up and a stiff and erect body posture, which they do detect and react to. Even BHS teach us to "stiffen our body"(my words) to signal a half halt or to relax our bodies or we will transmit tension to the horse.
Also, just a small point - there has been some discussion earlier about when the L&C happening *after* being chased away and the adrenalin is reducing, but I see this behaviour if I just ask my horse to back away from me.  Or if a horse is barging against me, I use pressure on the head collar to ask it to back off, or I sometimes use my fingers against the shoulder to ask it to back off me, and it can L&C then  So I interpret that as the horse saying ok ok I hear you, I'm listening now, which is more or less what MR interprets the action as.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## tess1 (1 June 2012)

Perhaps I should add that I am not, of course, relying on scientific data when I question Roberts's decision to include a buckstop in the list of equipment he had access to in his study where the horses received a total of ten hours of training.  Sometimes we can rely perfectly well on our instincts to tell us something is wrong - no need for science there.


----------



## lizijj (1 June 2012)

Hi, first apologies as I have skipped to the last page just to post my experiences. I stay with friend on a working ranch in Nebraska. I have seen them back (backing is not breaking) a horse in a round pen within an hour very effectively. I asked them about NH techniques and the amount of 'new' promoters of these techniques. They have told me that it all goes back to Ray Hunt:

http://www.rayhunt.com/

Personally, I think most of it is common sense - but being (myself) reminded about the principles of horse/human relationships, particularly join up and shaping, has improved my horsemanship. Ultimately though, the most important lesson I have learnt from my USA friends is that if they are worked enough and not over fed, it makes the biggest difference. 

I think that over feeding, lack of turnout and lack of work is one of the biggest problems when it comes to riders accusing horses of bad behaviour - let a horse live like a horse. I'd only stable a horse if it were old, ill or for a competition. Having said that, I'm lucky to have good natural shelter in my field...


----------



## eatmoremincepies (2 June 2012)

lizijj said:



			I think that over feeding, lack of turnout and lack of work is one of the biggest problems when it comes to riders accusing horses of bad behaviour - let a horse live like a horse. I'd only stable a horse if it were old, ill or for a competition. Having said that, I'm lucky to have good natural shelter in my field...
		
Click to expand...

This, exactly.  Appropriate work, appropriate feeding, and turnout, particularly in a group, does over 50% of the job with most "problem" horses, IME.    

Yes, a lot of "NH" training originated with Ray Hunt, Tom Dorrance etc who in turn apparently found inspiration in books on old french classical training.

Tess1, on this and other forums you have continually posted critical comments on Monty's methods - it seems pretty clear you've decided that it's not for you, which is fine.   Would it not do more good in the world to spend your time on training that you do actually enjoy?


----------



## Brightbay (2 June 2012)

eatmoremincepies said:



			Tess1, on this and other forums you have continually posted critical comments on Monty's methods - it seems pretty clear you've decided that it's not for you, which is fine.   Would it not do more good in the world to spend your time on training that you do actually enjoy?
		
Click to expand...





			noun (plural forums)
1a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged:
we hope these pages act as a forum for debate
an Internet message board.
		
Click to expand...

Tess1 holds a particular view, you appear to hold another.  You're engaging in a debate, In a piblic forum.  Exchanging views and ideas.  Neither of you might be willing to change your own views, but others are reading, and by reading what you write, may be moved to change theirs 

IMO, this is also the purpose of science... it is a means to _explore_ the world, not to defend a point of view to the bitter end 

For my part, I have enjoyed reading and speaking to Lucy Rees, who has studied feral and domestic horses extensively, started mustangs, and who has written an excellent book combining both her observations of horses over many years with a sound understanding of the science involved.  And she watches and records both affiliative and agonistic behaviours, so can describe how a horse actively asks another horse to approach, as well as the Monty Roberts favourite, how horses chase each other away.  Balance in all things is a good idea


----------



## Pale Rider (2 June 2012)

There are literally dozens of old time horsemen in the mould of Bill and Tom Dorrance and Ray Hunt who are credited with promoting what we now call Natural Horsemanship, but which is in fact just horsemanship. There is nothing new in this and it can be traced back as far as Xenophon, the Greek  historian, soldier and philosopher, 400BC.

The nub of the problem with todays horses is the oft quoted 'common sense' or lack of it. Sense isn't common, in fact it is quite rare, especially where horses are concerned.

We have at our disposal, some of the most fantastic horses generations of breeding has produced.

What do we do with them? We feed them the wrong sorts of feed, horses were never meant to eat cereals, let alone laced with sugar and molasses. We graze them on pasture genetically modified to fatten cattle.

We restrict their turnout, put them in small acreages then wonder why they are unfit, fat, prone to all sorts of metabolic disorders with crap feet. Even our competition and racing horses are kept in a way that promotes anything but well being and health.

When horses threw in their lot with humans, things worked well for them as they were used and covered thousands of miles in their lifetime with their new partners, who understood their fears, phobias and needs.

When the horse became a weapon of war, and militaristic force was applied to him in a one size fits all regime, or regimentation, the old ways of understanding and horsemanship began to errode away. Harsher and harsher tools and tack became the norm in a brutalistic way of removing the horses opinion.

The modern horse needs a proper diet, and a job to do that involves movement and exercise. Training, whichever technique you choose is only a part of horsemanship, but can never be successful unless the whole horses needs are met in the way he has been designed by evolution. The horse has never been so out of place in his association with human beings since his gentle power was replaced by machines.


----------



## tess1 (2 June 2012)

Hi Eatmoremincepies

The title of this thread is &#8220;what do people think of Monty Robert&#8217;s methods?&#8221; not &#8220;please only post nice things about Monty&#8221;.  So I posted what I thought of Roberts&#8217;s methods, and I have linked to articles to explain why I hold those views.  I thought the point of a discussion forum was, er, to discuss things?  However, I only bothered to post because I saw confirmed for the first time that Roberts had included a buckstop in his list of equipment in a study which was supposed to be demonstrating that his method is kinder than conventional techniques &#8211; I trust that I do not have to elaborate for you to understand the irony of that point?  

The reason I included the links to the articles on join up, licking and chewing and the Equitation Science write up was to present an alternative, equally plausible (in fact a whole lot more plausible) view of Roberts&#8217;s work than that which he presents himself.  In my view Roberts&#8217;s explanations of what goes on in the round pen ranges from inaccurate to misleading.  There was a recent furore where a video surfaced of Monty doing join up with a TWH on a concrete surface where the horse appeared to be in some discomfort.  In the video the horse displays all the classic signals of licking, chewing and so on and Roberts&#8217;s interpretation is &#8220;weeeellll, Mr Roberts, if we were in a meeting now, I&#8217;d let you be chairperson&#8221; or something equally facile and human-centric.  However, the vast majority of people who study equine behaviour in a far more impartial way would disagree with that interpretation.  I am more likely to give weight to their views, over the views of an individual with a commercial and egotistical investment in making people believe that his interpretation is correct.  

It is also worth bearing in mind that there is considerable question over whether horses do actually perform join-up on one another.  Did Roberts really observe join-up in the wild?  It fascinates me that there is no video footage of feral horses or ponies performing join-up on one another, whereas I am sure that if this was a relatively frequent communication between horses Roberts and other proponents of the technique would want video footage.  I do know that a study was done whereby the researchers put pairs of mares and youngsters in a round pen to see what would happen, and needless to say, it wasn&#8217;t join up (I did think that study was hilarious).  In Roberts&#8217;s father&#8217;s book there is a description of round pen work that sounds very much like a rudimentary join-up.  When I worked for an old horse dealer (years before Roberts came on the scene) he told me how to catch a tricky horse &#8211; with a rudimentary form of join-up.  So I think it is important to question whether join-up really is the language of equus, or whether it is a very clever, but ultimately man-made technique to getting a horse to stay close to a person and &#8220;give in&#8221; quickly to what the person wants &#8211; because, put very simply, life is made somewhat uncomfortable for the horse if he does not stay close to the person.  Irrespective of whether it is man-made or not, I do not feel that it is a particularly welfare-friendly form of training &#8211; especially not when it is done in highly stressful demo-type situations and paired with dummy riders, buckstops and the like.  The horses in the study were joined up with a minimum of four times &#8211; that&#8217;s a lot of join-up in ten hours of training.

BrightBay &#8211; what is the title of the Lucy Rees book you are referring to please?


----------



## Marianne France (2 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			We have at our disposal, some of the most fantastic horses generations of breeding has produced.

What do we do with them? We feed them the wrong sorts of feed, horses were never meant to eat cereals, let alone laced with sugar and molasses. We graze them on pasture genetically modified to fatten cattle.

We restrict their turnout, put them in small acreages then wonder why they are unfit, fat, prone to all sorts of metabolic disorders with crap feet. Even our competition and racing horses are kept in a way that promotes anything but well being and health.
		
Click to expand...

Hear, hear !!!!


----------



## amandap (2 June 2012)

Marianne France said:



			Hear, hear !!!!
		
Click to expand...

... and we also wonder why we have so many behavioural problems.


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (2 June 2012)

Basically agree with "Pale Rider" above who's said what I was going to say, in essence.

I think the problem is often how these "methods" are hyped up: everyone then follows like lemmings, even if they've not got the experience to cope with their horses and/or the method doesn't suit.

Some horses can deal with Parelli for instance, others can't; but frequently if the horse doesn't respond to the "method", then often the solution as given as more of the same, i.e. go back and do the thing again!!! And then the poor confused owner has to pay up front to either repeat the "level" they're in, OR move up a level and yet more expense! Sorry, but I can't see the sense of that!

Good old fashioned "horsemanship" will never go out of fashion because it doesn't need to. The horsemen (& women, not forgetting!) of older generations lived, worked and breathed horses - because they had to. My grandparents had draught horses working the land, and my grandmother had a pony and trap; so they HAD to sort out their problems themselves coz there wasn't any other alternative. Often the solutions to problems were simple: horses/ponies were kept far more simply, they were work animals so were fed accordingly, i.e. not over-fed, and the work they did kept them fit and curbed any excesses of behaviour.


----------



## Marianne France (2 June 2012)

Amanda, you are absolutely correct, apologies for not mentioning the behavioural aspect.



MiJodsR2BlinkinTite said:



			My grandparents had draught horses working the land, and my grandmother had a pony and trap; so they HAD to sort out their problems themselves coz there wasn't any other alternative. Often the solutions to problems were simple: horses/ponies were kept far more simply, they were work animals so were fed accordingly, i.e. not over-fed, and the work they did kept them fit and curbed any excesses of behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry if we've veered off the original heading of this thread but this is SOOOO true !


----------



## amandap (2 June 2012)

MiJodsR2BlinkinTite said:



			Basically agree with "Pale Rider" above who's said what I was going to say, in essence.

I think the problem is often how these "methods" are hyped up: everyone then follows like lemmings, even if they've not got the experience to cope with their horses and/or the method doesn't suit.
		
Click to expand...

The thing is this is true of any 'method' any yard, any person who has the authority to influence others. YO's have a huge influence it seems to me and from my reading on fora all NH methods/thinking is discouraged or ridiculed at many yards so how much influence are people like MR having in UK really?  

Btw. lemmings don't jump off cliffs. lol A BBC? TV con I believe.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (2 June 2012)

Chottsy said:



			I saw Monty Roberts a few years ago, and I did enjoy watching, because I did see so much useful stuff in what he was saying. So many horses do invade personal space, and these horses didnt invade his. I understand where people are coming from, but when I saw his demo, I had two ladies behind me very loudly b****ing about him, which for any young teenager is enough to dent your view. 
I also like the idea of the Dually, although I wouldn't necessarily go for his one, but when I have had to lead more difficult horses, and the lead rope has gone round the nose, I found that any time the horse pulled against it I would then have to loosen it again so that it didn't stay pulled tight, meaning I only had one hand on the lead rope. If the Dually got rid of this need, and there was nothing on the market similar, I would get it purely for that reason. 
However, a friend of mine did some sort of IH work in Spain, and I watched him work with a horse, it was amazing to watch. The horse wasn't nasty or naughty particularly, but was a tense, untrusting ex-rachorse that had been through  an unexperienced rider.
He used our fullsize 90mx40m school, so the horse could run as far as he wanted. Within a minute, the horse wanted to be with him, but if he moved away, then so did my friend. He then did some work on a rope halter and line, the headshy and untrusting horse was completely chilled in his company, and my friend could wave his arms about and move all round the horse, without him caring. Was so nice to watch.
		
Click to expand...



To be honest I get tired of reading the emotive comments about the dually, I regularly defend it as it has transformed my big strong bargy horse quickly and easily with minimal fuss. He walks respectfully and on a loose lead rope now instead of dragging me around because he could, the improvement was instant. A rope halter had no effect when he was in a reactive state and it still wouldn't. It is a good piece of kit and there are similar things on the Market which would do the same thing.
I am not a MR devotee,I have been to one of his shows, it was standard NH fare, I have used a IH instructor for support with leading and longlining and was pleased with her help. I have looked at a wide range of NH and take what I feel works for me. I have just done some work with Steve Brady and I have total respect for him and his methods which are clear and understandable and they worked on mine and my eldest daughters horses. I'm sure they would be queries about certain of his techniques especially with bargy horses, but it felt 
proportional to me.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 June 2012)

The early demo's that Monty Roberts did when he first came to the UK were nearly always 3 or 4 join up routines on young horses and he would time how long he took from start to finish ie getting tack on and a rider.
We the early audiences, were all impressed by the speed and relative ease by which these virtual 'untouched' horses were delt with.
As time went on he sort of upped his game and started dealing with problem horses like bad loaders and so things went on.
I saw a recent TV show of his and it was based crudely around the current 'War horse' fad, and was I felt, a bit odd.
Although at this time I had already been fascinated by Ray Hunt, I didn't think that Ray would be accepted at all by a British equine audience. I did feel that the cleverest thing Monty did was swap his stetson for a flat cap when in the UK.
I began to get a little worried about certain claims Monty was making about his life and history, and his claims about the language of Equus I found frankly laughable. I felt that he was exploiting certain aspects of the horsemanship methodology, as propsed by the Dorrances and Ray Hunt, but leaving massive holes in the foundation which should be applied. This manifested itself in the application of pressure, both in the join up technique, and the development and sale of the pressure halters, the main criteria in their design being that they should be very different to the traditional rope halter, widely used by everyone else in his field.
I have to say that I think Monty Roberts has done the British no real favours in introducing his version of horsemanship, intelligent or otherwise. There are other trainers in this field who are much better and take more time to develop a wider, deeper, and permanent foundation on young horses, and provide better solutions to horses with behavioural problems.
The massive but, in all this is that we are creating huge problems both behavioural and physical in the way we manage our horses on a daily basis, which although may not affect the majority so far, is on an upward trend across the board. We are presenting problems now, which the likes of Dorrence and Hunt would just not have seen to any great extent. Training is after all one peice in the jig saw, management and diet are keystones in producing well balanced, safe, healthy, bidable horses capable of performing at their best in any sphere.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (2 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			This I totally agree with. 

Click to expand...


----------



## neelie OAP (2 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			There are literally dozens of old time horsemen in the mould of Bill and Tom Dorrance and Ray Hunt who are credited with promoting what we now call Natural Horsemanship, but which is in fact just horsemanship. There is nothing new in this and it can be traced back as far as Xenophon, the Greek  historian, soldier and philosopher, 400BC.

The nub of the problem with todays horses is the oft quoted 'common sense' or lack of it. Sense isn't common, in fact it is quite rare, especially where horses are concerned.

We have at our disposal, some of the most fantastic horses generations of breeding has produced.

What do we do with them? We feed them the wrong sorts of feed, horses were never meant to eat cereals, let alone laced with sugar and molasses. We graze them on pasture genetically modified to fatten cattle.

We restrict their turnout, put them in small acreages then wonder why they are unfit, fat, prone to all sorts of metabolic disorders with crap feet. Even our competition and racing horses are kept in a way that promotes anything but well being and health.

When horses threw in their lot with humans, things worked well for them as they were used and covered thousands of miles in their lifetime with their new partners, who understood their fears, phobias and needs.

When the horse became a weapon of war, and militaristic force was applied to him in a one size fits all regime, or regimentation, the old ways of understanding and horsemanship began to errode away. Harsher and harsher tools and tack became the norm in a brutalistic way of removing the horses opinion.

The modern horse needs a proper diet, and a job to do that involves movement and exercise. Training, whichever technique you choose is only a part of horsemanship, but can never be successful unless the whole horses needs are met in the way he has been designed by evolution. The horse has never been so out of place in his association with human beings since his gentle power was replaced by machines.
		
Click to expand...

well said, think that just about hits the nail on the head, thats the cause of 90% of our problems !


----------



## Marianne France (2 June 2012)

HOT OFF THE PRESS !!!!

I believe that the winner of today's Epsom Derby wore a Monty Roberts blanket going into the stalls.  Monty's methods work for me daily (non-professional horse lover lost in the middle of nowhere) right up to top quality competition horses.

Don't they say actions speak louder than words ?  

So you all go back to discussing the theory, I'm going out to play with horses


----------



## Pale Rider (2 June 2012)

Marianne France said:



			HOT OFF THE PRESS !!!!

I believe that the winner of today's Epsom Derby wore a Monty Roberts blanket going into the stalls.  Monty's methods work for me daily (non-professional horse lover lost in the middle of nowhere) right up to top quality competition horses.

Don't they say actions speak louder than words ?  

So you all go back to discussing the theory, I'm going out to play with horses 

Click to expand...

^^^like^^^


----------



## muff747 (2 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Hi Eatmoremincepies
It is also worth bearing in mind that there is considerable question over whether horses do actually perform join-up on one another.  Did Roberts really observe join-up in the wild?  It fascinates me that there is no video footage of feral horses or ponies performing join-up on one another, whereas 

So I think it is important to question whether join-up really is the language of equus, or whether it is a very clever, but ultimately man-made technique to getting a horse to stay close to a person and &#8220;give in&#8221; quickly to what the person wants &#8211; because, put very simply, life is made somewhat uncomfortable for the horse if he does not stay close to the person.  QUOTE]

I will say this one more time as the previous two times I have said this, funnily enough it has been ignored - I have done JU in a very large field with a pony that would not be caught - and she displayed the four signs that MR points out as being a discernable language.  She locked her nearest ear on me, she was licking and chewing (I couldn't run fast so I was just walking after her, not chasing her), she circled around me and made the circle smaller and bobbed her head along the ground.  After approx 30 minutes I was able to put a head collar on her and she was caught. Others had tried to catch her for the last three days and it was summer so there was plenty of grass, she wasn't hungry and I didn't entice her with food.  She was in no way distressed by this procedure and I was not out of breath chasing her, I did not have a round pen, she stayed relatively close to me even though the rest of the herd were all around us.
SO THEY DO DISPLAY THESE SIGNS THAT MR INTERPRETS AS A LANGUAGE.
Of course they don't do JU - to each other - that is ridiculous but they do have a body language that signals their intentions to each other - hasn't Tess or Morgan ever noticed these signals????.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## TarrSteps (2 June 2012)

Marianne France said:



			HOT OFF THE PRESS !!!!

I believe that the winner of today's Epsom Derby wore a Monty Roberts blanket going into the stalls.  Monty's methods work for me daily (non-professional horse lover lost in the middle of nowhere) right up to top quality competition horses.

Don't they say actions speak louder than words ?  

So you all go back to discussing the theory, I'm going out to play with horses 

Click to expand...

But like a lot of his methods, he didn't invent the idea, he's just publicised it.  Fair enough and I'm sure the accessibility of what he teaches has helped a lot of people and horses.  He is, no doubt, a very good horseman.

What has always bothered me a bit - more as time has gone by, it seems - has been his insistence that he has invented much of what he teaches and his constant assertion that the majority of other trainers favour brutal means.  It's simply not true.  What's more, it hasn't been true in the past either.  Yes, back in the days of "horses for work" I think there was a great deal more intentional cruelty (although many argue there's unintentional cruelty now. . . ) and flat out ignorance, but Monty was hardly the lone voice in the wilderness.

I think this is what makes people uncomfortable about the possibly colourful take on his past.  Of course, it's about promotion, but does everyone else have to be wrong for him to be right?  Why do his rivals/peers/antecedents have to be wrong in order for him to be right?  A lot of good horsemen have big egos but it's a bit hard to take, especially since he has been so successful, that he completely dismisses people like Ray Hunt or the Dorrance brothers in his own culture, let alone people like Tom Roberts or Henry Blake in other countries.

So yes, his methods have validity but there are other sources, just as good.


----------



## SpecialSparkle3 (2 June 2012)

Tarrsteps, can you please tell us who it was who invented the "stalls" rug used on Camelot today??   'Cos sure as hell it WAS  Monty Roberts , but if you think it was someone else, I'd like to hear who !


----------



## Marianne France (2 June 2012)

I am dismayed by the number of outright untruths being posted on this thread about Monty Roberts.  If you've actually seen him working with horses or at least read his books then fair enough you have some basis for your opinion.  If you're just repeating something you've heard, or have just made it up then please have the courtesy to start your sentence with "I believe" or "I've heard that"


----------



## tess1 (2 June 2012)

First off all credit to Monty for the stall-blanket success (I was under the impression that he invented it too, although would be interested to hear other info?).  I do believe this to be one of his much better ideas.  But I am disappointed to see that MR's supporters still haven't answered any of Morgan123's questions, and don't seem overly keen to discuss the inclusion of buckstoppers in experiements designed to show how "kind" Monty's methods are.  Ah well, off for a little tipple down the pub with friends now, perhaps someone would like to chat buckstoppers and scientific studies with me when I come back!

Muff, I'm sorry, I wasn't deliberately ignoring your post, I just don't think you understood the point I was trying to make.  I am not saying that horses don't show behaviours such as head lowering, licking and chewing etc, I am just saying they may very well not mean what Monty says they does, and that what happens in the round pen is more to do with learning theory and much less to do with what Monty says he has observed in feral horses.  There is more on this in the articles I have posted links to.


----------



## muff747 (2 June 2012)

Marianne France said:



			I am dismayed by the number of outright untruths being posted on this thread about Monty Roberts.  If you've actually seen him working with horses or at least read his books then fair enough you have some basis for your opinion.  If you're just repeating something you've heard, or have just made it up then please have the courtesy to start your sentence with "I believe" or "I've heard that" 

Click to expand...

I know for a fact that MR has worked with other horsemen and he has written that he is still learning all the time, hasn't ever stopped learning.  I agree he does bang on about other methods using violence but I have never heard him say his methods are the only ones.
I have heard him defend his methods against criticism from others.


----------



## muff747 (2 June 2012)

muff747 said:



			I know for a fact that MR has worked with other horsemen and he has written that he is still learning all the time, hasn't ever stopped learning.  I agree he does bang on about other methods using violence but I have never heard him say his methods are the only ones.
I have heard him defend his methods against criticism from others.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry cut myself short there, I meant to say this;-
I know for a fact that MR has worked with other horsemen and he says that he is still learning all the time, hasn't ever stopped learning.  I agree he does bang on about other methods using violence but I have never heard him say his methods are the only ones and I have never heard him name any names when he says other methods are violent.  I have heard him defend his methods against criticism from others.
There are certain aspects of his training I don't agree with but I do not think he is perfect, no one is perfect, but many of his methods are easy to learn and copy so anyone wanting to make a connection with their horse, can take this knowledge home and improve their relationship, and hopefully relay this interest to other horse owners they come into contact with.
And he, IMO has put a name to the signals that horses display in order to educate and enlighten anyone wanting to learn about the way horses communicate with each other.  And if my horse and many of the horses I have met since becoming aware of NH are displaying these signals, surely wild horses will be displaying them also.  It is quite obvious to me this is their "language".
I believe MR has interpreted these signs fairly because of the way the horse reacts after displaying these signs, such as making the circle smaller and therefore getting closer the the one sending away. This happens in the field so it must happen in the wild when there is any correction needed to an unruly youngster.  They turn their full attention to the person, or him after the initial signs, which gives the impression that they are willing to cooperate and when they eventually join up, the next step is they are then following. In effect they have given the responsibility of leader to the human and will then follow in a relaxed manner, completely of their own free will.
All MR is doing is explaining in an easy to follow way to educate people so they can begin to understand why horses behave the way they do and will learn to listen to these signs.


----------



## tess1 (2 June 2012)

Here I am, back from the pub and ... no discussion on buckstoppers ... shame ... 

Muff, I appreciate what you are saying, obviously everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, and that will be influenced by our knowledge and experiences.  Below is a post that I wrote on here a while ago regarding an alternative, and very plausible interpretation of join up.  At the end of the day we are all free to make up our own minds ... well, if you believe in free will that is  ... (just joking, I'm not into determinism really!).  

_As has already been mentioned, it's unlikely that Roberts 'invented' or 'discovered' join up - old horse-types have been doing it for years, I can remember being told how to walk down an uncatchable pony in a small field by driving it away from you years and years ago when I worked for an old dealer - way before Roberts every came here. In a book written by Monty's father there is a description of something that very closely resembles join up. So some may argue that he learnt it from watching his dad, nothing to do with wild horses. As I said before, to my knowledge horses doing join up with one another has never been videoed - surely if they used it as Roberts describes it would be seen by anyone who goes out and watches feral horses and ponies and would be easy to get on camera? *The clever thing that Roberts did was identify a very specific set of behaviours that horses display when they are uncomfortable with the status quo (being chased in circles) and would very much like the option to do something else. This makes it look a bit like 'magic' - until you understand learning theory and ethology.*

If it really did as it said on the tin, ie, improve the relationship, the origin wouldn't really matter, and you could just put it down to fancy marketing/poetic licence and leave it at that. However, horses only 'join up' in the round pen because really they only have a limited amount of choices - run round, or come and stand by the handler and stick with the handler. If they don't choose they come in/stick with option then they get to run round again. So the horse doesn't come in because he chooses to be with the human, he just doesn't want to keep running round the pen and he is looking for the other option. I don't believe that being forced into that option then makes the horse view the human as leader either - first off (as mentioned in one of the articles I put a link to earlier) there is no evidence that horses view humans as other horses, or as 'leaders'. Secondly, and perhaps more compelling, when given the option outside the roundpen the horse doesn't choose to stay with the handler - they walk away. Surely, if the human was now viewed as leader by the horse, the horse would stay with his leader? But he does not, suggesting that the idea of 'leader' is flawed one. The reason the horse walks away is because the learning is context specific - that means that the rules (stay with human or be chased around) apply only in the round pen. The learning has to be generalised - ie, happen in lots of different situations and locations - before the horse figures out that the handler chases him away in a variety of locations, and therefore it is easier to stay with the handler than be chased away - again the horse is just choosing the easy option, not necessarily displaying a desire to stay with the human as a result of 'leadership', 'respect' or any other anthropomorphic (humanising) emotion that we like to attach to equines.

Roberts asserts that he is speaking 'the language of equus' in the roundpen - however it is accepted that there are certain horses to which join up is not suited - so what is being said is that there are certain horses which cannot speak the language of 'equus' very strange. What is actually the case is that there are some horses in which the fight or flight instinct is so strong that it would be dangerous to put them in an enclosed space and trigger that behaviour - they would end up either hurting themselves or the handler.

If Roberts (and his followers) were clear about what was happening in join up I would take less issue with it (although it's not something I see the point of, or would do with my horses). But it is dressed up in flowery language about relationship and choice and leadership and respect - whereas to my mind the best way to get a relationship with a horse is, as others have said, spending time with horse, getting to know him, building trust in each other and so on - as well as learning how to read body language accurately, studying horse behaviour and acquiring good training skills - all of which makes you far more trustworty in the eyes of the horse, and therefore someone who it is a good idea to be around. The 'fluffy bunny' aspect of it comes (I think) because it attracts people who desperately want a 'good relationship' with their horse, and believe the marketing hype that this is a good way to go about it. These people tend to believe that 'join up' is enjoyable for the horse - lol, I don't think so

With regard to 'Shy Boy', I think 'Knackered Boy' might have been a more appropriate name for him. Any horse can only run so far, in the end he has to stop and turn to face the thing he fears - if the pressure is taken off him at that moment (ie, he is negatively reinforced - the removal of an aversive stimulus) then the laws of learning and behaviour say that he will repeat the reinforced behaviour - hence staying with Roberts - trying to leave results in him being chased again. This is a very effective approach - yes, it does stop the horse from running away - but not because the horse wants to be with the human, but because the alternative is to keep running It's also why he didn't want to leave at the end - how was he to know Roberts wasn't going to leap onto a horse and chase him for miles again. Better the devil you know ...

Anyone who regularly does join up on their horses will observe that (if the horse is being read and responded to accurately) the horses will produce the head lowering/licking and chewing behaviours earlier and earlier - this is not because they want to be with the person more and more - they have merely figured out which behaviours to produce to stop the pointless chasing round in circles ... they're not daft, horses_


----------



## muff747 (2 June 2012)

Also to take a small quote from one of your links again where they are questoning the interpretation of the licking and chewing-  
"So in the popular demonstrations in which a horse is run around a pen, then allowed to stop--I think of the same simple underlying autonomic physiology. Scare or excite the horse, then stop."  
The licking a chewing does not happen when the JU ends, it happens near the beginning of the process so I think their challenge of that particular sign is flawed because their observation is inaccurate.
I don't necessarily think the horse is saying, don't eat me because I mean you no harm, I am eating.  There probably is a scientific explanation but TBH, I'm not really interested to such a degree, so I am happy to let it go in one ear and out the other for now.


----------



## muff747 (2 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Anyone who regularly does join up on their horses will observe that (if the horse is being read and responded to accurately) the horses will produce the head lowering/licking and chewing behaviours earlier and earlier - this is not because they want to be with the person more and more - they have merely figured out which behaviours to produce to stop the pointless chasing round in circles ... they're not daft, horses 
But this is how they end up with a leader of a wild herd, the dominant one will chase the underling away until they show signs of submission, and then they will follow that leader.

However, horses only 'join up' in the round pen because really they only have a limited amount of choices - run round, or come and stand by the handler and stick with the handler. If they don't choose they come in/stick with option then they get to run round again. So the horse doesn't come in because he chooses to be with the human, he just doesn't want to keep running round the pen and he is looking for the other option. 
[/I]
		
Click to expand...

So why didn't that little mare that I caught in the (very large) field just run away to where I couldn't reach her then?? She was free to go where she wanted, she chose to come closer to me, couldn't that have been because she saw me as a potential leader?


----------



## lizzie (3 June 2012)

Re: the starting stall blanket.



TarrSteps said:



			But like a lot of his methods, he didn't invent the idea, he's just publicised it.  Fair enough and I'm sure the accessibility of what he teaches has helped a lot of people and horses.  He is, no doubt, a very good horseman.

So yes, his methods have validity but there are other sources, just as good.
		
Click to expand...

Excuse me but Mr Roberts DID invent the blanket! It was developed to help a horse that I was once acquainted with, Prince of Darkness. Monty has been a successful man in many areas of equestrianism including racing. He's had success in turning around some very famous racehorses including the outstanding Lomitas.


----------



## neelie OAP (3 June 2012)

Yes lots of very interesting points, but why is it then that there are so few MR certified trainers in the UK, when you see such a great number of BHS qualified instructors, is it cost or is it because people aren't really convinced of the methods used, there must be something holding people back surely


----------



## amandap (3 June 2012)

neelie OAP said:



			Yes lots of very interesting points, but why is it then that there are so few MR certified trainers in the UK, when you see such a great number of BHS qualified instructors, is it cost or is it because people aren't really convinced of the methods used, there must be something holding people back surely
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to lol but is that really a sensible comparison? BHS is THE UK training organization and has been for donkey's.  Most people stick with the BHS in UK and doing their courses is a requirement for many jobs...


----------



## Marianne France (3 June 2012)

neelie OAP said:



			Yes lots of very interesting points, but why is it then that there are so few MR certified trainers in the UK, when you see such a great number of BHS qualified instructors, is it cost or is it because people aren't really convinced of the methods used, there must be something holding people back surely
		
Click to expand...

Neelie, no offence, but you're trying to compare apples and pears.  Give me a Monty Roberts instructor (or - in the UK - a Kelly Marks Recommended Associate) anytime!

In my humble opinion, it would appear that you have direct experience of one method but not of the other, otherwise I suggest you might not even be asking the question.


----------



## neelie OAP (3 June 2012)

Marianne France said:



			Neelie, no offence, but you're trying to compare apples and pears.  Give me a Monty Roberts instructor (or - in the UK - a Kelly Marks Recommended Associate) anytime!

In my humble opinion, it would appear that you have direct experience of one method but not of the other, otherwise I suggest you might not even be asking the question.
		
Click to expand...

Well having first attended a MR session in the 80's and in the last few years, plus have lots of video's etc also BHS certificates , I still have an open mind on these methods, to me it does seem a bit strange why more people don't take up the certificates that MR has on offer


----------



## lizzie (3 June 2012)

neelie OAP said:



			Yes lots of very interesting points, but why is it then that there are so few MR certified trainers in the UK, when you see such a great number of BHS qualified instructors, is it cost or is it because people aren't really convinced of the methods used, there must be something holding people back surely
		
Click to expand...

Goodness me! You honestly don't know that the main UK supporter of Mr Roberts, apart from Kelly Marks(!), is HM the Queen? He visits several times each year privately to start her young horses and was awarded the MRVO by HM last year, a huge honour.

There are quite a number of Recommended Associates of Intelligent Horsemanship and it takes a lot of hard work to gain this recognition. MR certified training is another route to go. 

BHS is the oldest established training organisation and has improved, thank goodness, over recent years and it's no surprise to me to know that past and present presidents are supporters of Mr Roberts. I do know some very highly qualified BHS folk and more than one has embraced much of Monty's work


----------



## Marianne France (3 June 2012)

neelie OAP said:



			Well having first attended a MR session in the 80's and in the last few years, plus have lots of video's etc also BHS certificates , I still have an open mind on these methods, to me it does seem a bit strange why more people don't take up the certificates that MR has on offer

Click to expand...

In that case, I apologise for questioning your experience of MR 

Getting a MR qualification is VERY HARD WORK, I have a friend who pretty much had to put her life on hold for a couple years to attain the qualification.  It does involve transatlantic travel and plays havoc with your 'ordinary' job/life in the meantime (how many employers are happy for you to disappear for several months at a time?)

Kelly's RAs do a sterling job in the UK though, if you have an opportunity to see any of them at work, I'd thoroughly recommend it


----------



## neelie OAP (3 June 2012)

Marianne France said:



			In that case, I apologise for questioning your experience of MR 

Getting a MR qualification is VERY HARD WORK, I have a friend who pretty much had to put her life on hold for a couple years to attain the qualification.  It does involve transatlantic travel and plays havoc with your 'ordinary' job/life in the meantime (how many employers are happy for you to disappear for several months at a time?)

Kelly's RAs do a sterling job in the UK though, if you have an opportunity to see any of them at work, I'd thoroughly recommend it 

Click to expand...

ah yes as you say all the travel involved and being away from your work place could be a very good reason,


----------



## winterwood (3 June 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Why do his rivals/peers/antecedents have to be wrong in order for him to be right?  A lot of good horsemen have big egos but it's a bit hard to take, especially since he has been so successful, that he completely dismisses people like Ray Hunt or the Dorrance brothers in his own culture, let alone people like Tom Roberts or Henry Blake in other countries.

So yes, his methods have validity but there are other sources, just as good.
		
Click to expand...

Does Monty Roberts "completely dismiss people like Ray Hunt or the Dorrence brothers" ?


----------



## rosiejones (4 June 2012)

Ok I have not been able to keep up with this over the weekend I have been teaching on a clinic so not read recent disucssion. I hav written q very long response to your ques Morgan but as it was so long I've done it on the laptop not the iPhone, now having trouble getting the laptop to connect to the internet so my oh will take to work on memory stick on wednesday. Hope it's still useful and relevant then, not sure il get time to read and reply to all the recent discussion bit will do my best to input something useful over the coming week! Sorry to have kept you waiting! Rosie


----------



## lizzie (4 June 2012)

winterwood said:



			Does Monty Roberts "completely dismiss people like Ray Hunt or the Dorrence brothers" ?
		
Click to expand...


I'm sure that last question is rhetorical but I'll answer anyway! Of course he does not!


----------



## EMC (4 June 2012)

Sheesh, am I glad to see a professional actually make that statement..... Every time I hear "we will take three months to bond before we ride/canter/jump"........... sigh, I know the person is inexperienced, not able to take on anything other than a kind plod.
		
Click to expand...

What a horrible thing to say! Atleast the said 'inexperienced' owner is taking their time and reducing the danger to themselves and others by doing groundwork first.  

We don't all use the same bit/pad/saddle so why should everyone use the same training methods?

Of course in a professional yard there isn't always the time to explore other methods but if the horse is happy, and the owner is more relaxed and informed then to me that is a good thing and they may be more succesful because of it. 

I've had my horse with me a week now after buying him, although I did ride him when he was in training at his P2P yard everyday earlier this year. We've spent some time teaching him to respect my space, stop, back up and playing etc. It is varying his routine and teaching him manners at the same time.

I've also ridden him in that time but only once I made sure we were both relaxed in our new surroundings and I will take things as slow as I need to to ensure neither of us learn bad habits in his retraining. 

I see no point in jumping on prematurely just to satisfy others curiosity or give them something to gossip about when it goes wrong and I will use whatever (kind) method necessary to make sure we succeed.....be that NH, BHS or any other. 

Whilst I am not a 'professional' I do have experience with racehorses and just because I choose to 'bond' (and I use the term loosely) with my horse does not mean I should be relegated to a safe plod. Hopefully we will both grow old and when he is greying and I'm arthritic (It won't be long for me!) we will be safe plods together.


----------



## fburton (4 June 2012)

EMC said:



			Of course in a professional yard there isn't always the time to explore other methods
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - Catwalk and his headshyness comes to mind!



rosiejones said:



			Ok I have not been able to keep up with this over the weekend I have been teaching on a clinic so not read recent disucssion. I hav written q very long response to your ques Morgan but as it was so long I've done it on the laptop not the iPhone, now having trouble getting the laptop to connect to the internet so my oh will take to work on memory stick on wednesday. Hope it's still useful and relevant then, not sure il get time to read and reply to all the recent discussion bit will do my best to input something useful over the coming week! Sorry to have kept you waiting! Rosie
		
Click to expand...

Looking forward to that. Thanks for taking the time to write a response.


----------



## indie999 (4 June 2012)

I read a book of his a few years ago and it was very inspiring, probably applies to quite a few of our domesticated animals behaviour and our own.

I suppose the thing that I picked up is the herd behaviour, where we fit into it(sort of), emotion of humans(horses do not have that kind of human emotion), just survival...humanising animals..yes I am guilty of that ie soppy name of horse.

Its not about being soppy ,treating them like us all fluffy etc etc. I remember watching Harvey Smith saying if I swore at my horse in a softly kind tone the horse would think I was being very nice about it. However if he said something really nice in a growly tone then the horse would think it was being told off etc etc So right.

Thats what I learnt. I think when it all goes wrong its the owner and general inexperience thinking they can read a book and TRAIN their horse like Monty .

Thats probably the downside of Monty, reading his books watching his videos doesnt subsitute for experience. Monty does know what he is doing. Read his books, quite sad in places.


----------



## Natch (4 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			I did feel that the cleverest thing Monty did was swap his stetson for a flat cap when in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Now that is a very insightful thought. I hadn't really thought about it before - thanks 



xxMozlarxx said:



			To be honest I get tired of reading the emotive comments about the dually, I regularly defend it as it has transformed my big strong bargy horse quickly and easily with minimal fuss. He walks respectfully and on a loose lead rope now instead of dragging me around because he could, the improvement was instant. A rope halter had no effect when he was in a reactive state and it still wouldn't. It is a good piece of kit and there are similar things on the Market which would do the same thing.
		
Click to expand...

Disclaimer before I start *I own and use both dually and rope halters.*

I am going to try to word this appropriately as I don't want a fight, but I am really curious as to why you think that a rope halter wouldn't work but the dually did? Are we both talking about the fine rope halters commonly used by natural horse people? 

In my opinion they apply pressure slightly differently, but I would say that a rope halter can be much stronger than a dually, and therefore be more effective at getting a horse who was in a reactive state to respond, _unless_ the horse particularly disliked poll pressure but was okay with nose pressure, or if the horse was more likely to go confrontational with more severe pressure.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising you, I think its great that you have found what works for you and as I say I use both depending on the horse and activity. I am just really curious as to your situation.


----------



## SarahWeston (4 June 2012)

In the absence of Rosie, Ive decided to come on and see if I can answer some of the questions that have been asked. However I must make it clear that I do not speak for Monty or Kelly or even Rosie who may wish to come and offer her own take on things.

Im off on holiday tomorrow too so I wont be able to come and add any more to this discussion. 

I too am a Recommended Associate of Intelligent Horsemanship and I Ive come on here because I hold such high regard for Kelly Marks and IH. Yes, I am a friend of hers as well as an RA but I choose my friends carefully and rather uncompromisingly. I was hurt on her behalf to hear someone say that she was assertive with a horse as its something I have never seen and I have seen her in action over and over again. 

To me the process of Join Up is about opening up a discussion with the horse by moving his feet and directing his energy. For those that say it is unscientific, how many times does something have to be repeated and to be successful for what you want it to do, for it to be accepted that it works? For those that say it is a learned behaviour and that horses get quicker and quicker at offering the desired behaviour, how come the horses even offer it the first time and how come its always the same four behaviours? Unlike people who copy it badly, Monty and Kelly and the RAs would never expect a Join Up to take more than five minutes and would not repeat it more than a few times on separate occasions with a horse. Horses are however quick learners and I accept that they DO get adept at offering to Join Up more quickly each time. 

Why sending away and not chasing? Well, part of it is to do with speed and some of it is about intent. Whilst the body language used is assertive and directed at the horses eye and shoulder, there is no emotional content to it. Im not a person who says that only intent counts but it is a factor at least. Montys Join Ups do tend to be slightly faster than Kellys and any of her students/RAs. I dont know why that came about in the first place but may be because it is needed to be slowed down for students to see how it all worked and also from a health and safety point of view. 

The results of Join Up are often profound and it was a rather badly imitated Join Up that got me into IH in the first place. My own horse Petra who had been terrified of even a rug allowed me to sit on her back bareback after I had Join Up with her only once. Personally I think it works because you have moved the horses feet and directed his energy. When I am working with clients, I rarely use Join Up because so few have the right sort of safe facilities and in any event it can only be taught by a Monty Roberts instructor (such as Kelly) precisely because people need to have a really thorough understanding of why it works and its value and to have an undiluted version of it.

Join Up is so much more than just the opening to a conversation  it can show people just how effective their body language can be in working with a horse and how horses actually work. Its also a great assessment tool too, in that you can assess how a horse is feeling mentally and physically by watching his movement and reactions.

I believe that understanding body language is absolutely critical to working with horses and it has enabled me to specialise in training semi-feral foals, something that even the most experienced horse people can find difficult. As a result, hundreds of wild foals (and older ones too) have gone on to lead useful lives in long term homes right across the country. 

The fact that students are discouraged from doing Join Up with certain categories of horses is also to do with health and safety. You would be cautious too if you were teaching people to do things for the first time or having just one opportunity to demonstrate something to a wider audience of mixed experience. The list includes bottle reared horses which as we know may not have been socialised with other horses and therefore dont necessarily understand even the plainest body language (Equus!) and may have been inadvertently taught to be aggressive or pushy or both. Stallions are on the list too  some may be naturally combative  and any horse that is known to be aggressive. Thats just a sensible precaution. 

I could say to find out more about how Join Up works and to try it yourself go on an IH course but that would be advertising!

I would however say that there is so much more to the Monty Roberts methods than Join Up, much of which is about trying to find a solution to a problem or a way of educating a horse that is logical to the horse. Sadly so much of what happens to horses happens because it was done that way for military reasons or there is some sort of competitive or economic imperative or simply because someone has some sort of axe to grind.


----------



## mulledwhine (4 June 2012)

^^^^^ what a great reply.

I have in the past had Gary bosworth ( works under Kelly ) out to my old boy, and he said he was not even going to attempt join up with him, so I completly agree with all that you said


----------



## Kelly Marks (4 June 2012)

Hi Tess and LadyinRed and Morgan123

Sorry it took me ages to get here  but with 4 of my 6 horses competing this has been an even busier week than usual (though very rewarding and I'm not complaining),

TESS I think it was you who got me banned because whenever I tried to answer before - you contacted The Fat Controller to say I was advertising.  Hardly the way to engender useful discussions between parties to benefit the horse world!  

Tess if you dont mind me quoting you from somewhere else you say about horse limbs just consider what these limbs are designed to do naturally - and then the unnatural strain we put on them through repetitive jumping, circle work, work on hard, unforgiving surfaces, nailing metal to the amazing structure that is the hoof ... and so on. And carrying a human on top :-(  " 

I totally appreciate your right not to want to ride horses, compete or circle them  I have seen the photo of your lovely 11hander (?) with the saddle chariot and he looks a sweet heart  but we all have our place/mission in the world and I think because I have had so much practical horse experience and worked with so many top horse people (too long and too many to list  but if anyone would like me to Ill happily do so!) 

Im afraid I enjoy achieving things with horses i.e. the competition worlds  and yes there are parts of those worlds that are unethical but what will change them quickest is successful people in their field showing what can be achieved i.e. Carl Hester on H&CTV showing he turns his horses out every day will do more for horse health than any 'behaviorist' spouting off.

I feel in a good position to assist a few particularly talented people make a career helping others in the horse world  - plus with my colleagues we educate vets and quite a few professionals as well as the every day horse enthusiast to have a better, safer relationship with the horses with which they come into contact.  I have also worked for the Brooke Hospital for Animals in Jordan and Dehli (working specifically with the vets) - but I cant help thinking there is just as much education needed here in many ways.  

MORGAN 123 asked for The Theory Behind the Dually Halter and then ditto Join Up?  And using dummy riders or buckstopper?  if I do that Ill get banned for advertising! Ifyou get me permission I will do so otherwise Ill post the information on my website for you to see.

LADYINRED said I am afraid Kelly rarely responds to that type of question. She invariably has more pressing business. Hmmm... not quite sure what youre suggesting there  I mean more pressing business than the Horse and Hound forum?!  AS IF!  

But you are more than well educated enough to know the difference between chasing and sending away and just because you work for a clinician doesnt mean you gain anything by putting Montys work down.  Especially as the guy you work for is so utterly polite and delightful ( I had a good chat with him at the Melbourne Equitana in 2010 after the Way of the Horse) and I cant imagine its the way hed behave or something hed wish to be associated with?

Must go!  Pressing business!

Kelly 

PS For anyone who just doesn't like me personally - I can well appreciate it - since seeing myself on TV a couple of times I had no idea before I have the most annoying nervous laugh at times, I make stupid jokes that only about 3 people are going to understand plus have no dress sense whatsoever - on the plus side ... I do 'mean well' ...  xx


----------



## Kelly Marks (4 June 2012)

Oh cheers Sarah!  Crossed post!  Have a lovely holiday.
Kxx


----------



## Pale Rider (4 June 2012)

This business of complaining about folk to the Fat Controller and getting them banned is, I feel a bit silly, I tend to view the odd message from the Fat Controller as a bit of a back handed compliment, lol.

The view some folk take about anyone running a successful business out of horse training or whatever and making some money out of it, is strange. Obviously blatant advertizing is not wanted, but I don't see anything wrong with people making recommendations for products and services, especially when they have first hand knowlege about it.

I suppose there are all sorts of motives behind the serial complainers, but not liking someone elses views seems to pretty high up the list.

Completely off topic this, nice to see you back Kelly.


----------



## Pale Rider (4 June 2012)

SarahWeston said:



			In the absence of Rosie, Ive decided to come on and see if I can answer some of the questions that have been asked. However I must make it clear that I do not speak for Monty or Kelly or even Rosie who may wish to come and offer her own take on things.

Im off on holiday tomorrow too so I wont be able to come and add any more to this discussion. 

I too am a Recommended Associate of Intelligent Horsemanship and I Ive come on here because I hold such high regard for Kelly Marks and IH. Yes, I am a friend of hers as well as an RA but I choose my friends carefully and rather uncompromisingly. I was hurt on her behalf to hear someone say that she was assertive with a horse as its something I have never seen and I have seen her in action over and over again. 

To me the process of Join Up is about opening up a discussion with the horse by moving his feet and directing his energy. For those that say it is unscientific, how many times does something have to be repeated and to be successful for what you want it to do, for it to be accepted that it works? For those that say it is a learned behaviour and that horses get quicker and quicker at offering the desired behaviour, how come the horses even offer it the first time and how come its always the same four behaviours? Unlike people who copy it badly, Monty and Kelly and the RAs would never expect a Join Up to take more than five minutes and would not repeat it more than a few times on separate occasions with a horse. Horses are however quick learners and I accept that they DO get adept at offering to Join Up more quickly each time. 

Why sending away and not chasing? Well, part of it is to do with speed and some of it is about intent. Whilst the body language used is assertive and directed at the horses eye and shoulder, there is no emotional content to it. Im not a person who says that only intent counts but it is a factor at least. Montys Join Ups do tend to be slightly faster than Kellys and any of her students/RAs. I dont know why that came about in the first place but may be because it is needed to be slowed down for students to see how it all worked and also from a health and safety point of view. 

The results of Join Up are often profound and it was a rather badly imitated Join Up that got me into IH in the first place. My own horse Petra who had been terrified of even a rug allowed me to sit on her back bareback after I had Join Up with her only once. Personally I think it works because you have moved the horses feet and directed his energy. When I am working with clients, I rarely use Join Up because so few have the right sort of safe facilities and in any event it can only be taught by a Monty Roberts instructor (such as Kelly) precisely because people need to have a really thorough understanding of why it works and its value and to have an undiluted version of it.

Join Up is so much more than just the opening to a conversation  it can show people just how effective their body language can be in working with a horse and how horses actually work. Its also a great assessment tool too, in that you can assess how a horse is feeling mentally and physically by watching his movement and reactions.

I believe that understanding body language is absolutely critical to working with horses and it has enabled me to specialise in training semi-feral foals, something that even the most experienced horse people can find difficult. As a result, hundreds of wild foals (and older ones too) have gone on to lead useful lives in long term homes right across the country. 

The fact that students are discouraged from doing Join Up with certain categories of horses is also to do with health and safety. You would be cautious too if you were teaching people to do things for the first time or having just one opportunity to demonstrate something to a wider audience of mixed experience. The list includes bottle reared horses which as we know may not have been socialised with other horses and therefore dont necessarily understand even the plainest body language (Equus!) and may have been inadvertently taught to be aggressive or pushy or both. Stallions are on the list too  some may be naturally combative  and any horse that is known to be aggressive. Thats just a sensible precaution. 

I could say to find out more about how Join Up works and to try it yourself go on an IH course but that would be advertising!

I would however say that there is so much more to the Monty Roberts methods than Join Up, much of which is about trying to find a solution to a problem or a way of educating a horse that is logical to the horse. Sadly so much of what happens to horses happens because it was done that way for military reasons or there is some sort of competitive or economic imperative or simply because someone has some sort of axe to grind.
		
Click to expand...

^^nice reply^^


----------



## Marianne France (4 June 2012)

yay - great to see some 'official' feedback from the IH camp, if they haven't all got banned again by the time I post this


----------



## Kelly Marks (4 June 2012)

"nice to see you back Kelly"

That's very kind Pale Rider.


----------



## tess1 (4 June 2012)

I'll be back to comment more later, but right now let me just say that Kelly, you have made some completely inaccurate assumptions.  I did not contact the FC to have you banned - I have never contacted the FC with regard to any of you posts.  Do please feel free to check that in any way you can.  I did complain about Michael Peace's wife - her posts were blatent advertising and I don't think I was the only one who got rather fed up with her.  Neither do I own a saddle chariot (although I have driven Simon Mullholland's piebald pony "Obama" in one, which is possibly the picture you are referring to, as Simon spent a summer at my farm a few years ago whilst we collaborated in modifying the saddle chariot for light agricultural use.  My needs and land provided him with a testing ground for his ideas).  I actually have eight horses in total, and have ridden and still do ride (although I have no interest in competition and do not shoe my horses), and I constantly question the physical and ethical implications of what I ask my horses to do - my comments were in relation to a video posted on facebook which had some amazing footage of horses' lower limb movements - do you think that people who ride should never question the implications of what we do?  Interesting to know that you follow me on Facebook, though!  

If my memory serves me correctly, last time we had a discussion on here it was regarding Monty's approval of Robert Miller's foal imprinting technique and his proud claim on the end of the video that he had used it with orphaned deer at flag is up farms in order to make them more amenable to humans - now, I would imagine the last thing an orphaned deer needs is a grown man inserting a finger where really no fingers need to go unless there's a medical need (because let's not beat about the bush, that is what Miller's imprinting is - one of the very worst forms of flooding), but hey ho, that's what these deer appear to have - as well as all the youngsters at Monty's farm, apparently.  As I recall, you had my posts deleted, and then refused to venture back onto this forum to discuss the issue further saying that you had been contacted by someone from a psychiatric hospital saying that you shouldn't communicate with certain posters on H&H as they clearly had some form of mental illness ... are you sure you feel safe coming on here and "speaking" to me now?


----------



## Kelly Marks (4 June 2012)

OH goodness you're right about the warning from the psychiatric nurse!  She said you were 'a troll' and anything I did was just 'feeding you' ...   OMG I'll sign off here - this kind of thing is WAY out of my league I'll freely admit...


----------



## tess1 (4 June 2012)

Oh, Kelly ... you do make me laugh.  I'll be back later to chat.


----------



## rhino (4 June 2012)

Kelly Marks said:



			OH goodness you're right about the warning from the psychiatric nurse!  She said you were 'a troll' and anything I did was just 'feeding you' ...   OMG I'll sign off here - this kind of thing is WAY out of my league I'll freely admit...
		
Click to expand...

Oh there are some real oddities on the forum.. Best plan is just to ignore the ones _who add nothing to the forum other than being overtly critical of the methods of others_


----------



## Marianne France (4 June 2012)

rhino said:



			Oh there are some real oddities on the forum.. Best plan is just to ignore the ones _who add nothing to the forum other than being overtly critical of the methods of others_ 

Click to expand...

I agree with the theory, but what do you do about those whose comments are libellous and downright malicious?


----------



## Tinypony (4 June 2012)

Kelly Marks said:



			But you are more than well educated enough to know the difference between &#8216;chasing and sending away&#8217; and just because you work for a clinician doesn&#8217;t mean you gain anything by putting Monty&#8217;s work down.  Especially as the guy you work for is so utterly polite and delightful ( I had a good chat with him at the Melbourne Equitana in 2010 after the &#8216;Way of the Horse&#8217 and I can&#8217;t imagine it&#8217;s the way he&#8217;d behave or something he&#8217;d wish to be associated with?

Must go!  Pressing business!

Kelly 

PS For anyone who just doesn't like me personally - I can well appreciate it - since seeing myself on TV a couple of times I had no idea before I have the most annoying nervous laugh at times, I make stupid jokes that only about 3 people are going to understand plus have no dress sense whatsoever - on the plus side ... I do 'mean well' ...  xx
		
Click to expand...

Just butting in to be nosey - who works for who who was at Equitana?  Not Tess surely!


----------



## tess1 (4 June 2012)

lol, no, I don't work for whoever was at Equitana!  I think Kelly was referring to LadyinRed - but I think she has her "facts" muddled up there as well, to be honest.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

by the way ... here's the website that has the video that my comments referred to ... (first video on homepage of site).  It really is an astonishing piece of film.

http://www.ontrackequine.com/


----------



## lizijj (5 June 2012)

I like using this forum as sometimes some really good advice can be found - however, one of my latest posts had replies accusing me of neglecting the welfare of my horse etc. Not nice. My husband reminded me though, one can sit on the computer for hours and become classed as a virtual 'schoolmaster, old nag' etc. But, as most things in the virtual world, how many of these people actually 'are' in real life.... I'll still post on here as there are some sane and helpful people out there whom I am grateful for advice from. Pinch of salt with some of the rest


----------



## Parker79 (5 June 2012)

What I like about MR is that his methods appear 'calmer' more gentle than others, anything that promotes this to the masses is a good thing IMO....there are so many people who are not patient and choose to treat their horses in an unkind manner due to ignorance or impatience...if the likes of MR and KM can promote the kinder ways to these people then it must be better than what we all see every time we go to a show and cringe!

I realise many of you know much more than me on this subject...I am simply putting across my opinions based on what I have seen.....I haven't been keen on other methods and I am not 100% sold on MR either...but I certainly haven't seen anything yet that puts me off (unlike other NH methods).


----------



## Ladyinred (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			lol, no, I don't work for whoever was at Equitana!  I think Kelly was referring to LadyinRed - but I think she has her "facts" muddled up there as well, to be honest.
		
Click to expand...

I kind of thought it referred to me. 

Either way Ms Marks owes me for a new chair as I fell off mine laughing and broke it when I read her post. Talking of making assumptions!

Please note that in spite of a lengthy post none of the questions raised have been answered, as per usual.


----------



## debsg (5 June 2012)

Ladyinred said:



			I kind of thought it referred to me. 

Either way Ms Marks owes me for a new chair as I fell off mine laughing and broke it when I read her post. Talking of making assumptions!

Please note that in spite of a lengthy post none of the questions raised have been answered, as per usual.
		
Click to expand...

Ladyinred, Kelly quite clearly stated that she was happy to put the information required on her own website, so as not to contravene the 'advertising' regs on HHO.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

debsg, if Kelly Marks answers the questions or puts up information on her own site, it will be because she can then avoid any awkward cross-questioning from people like me, who have been banned from there for asking too many difficult questions and pointing out that plausible, alternative viewpoints exist.  However, in light of the "Tragic Accident" thread on the IHDG last night  I can well imagine that she really does have more pressing things on her mind at the moment.  I see the thread has now been removed, but I hope that a full enquiry will be carried out and any lessons learnt to reduce the possibility of such an awful thing ever happening again be made public.


----------



## lizzie (5 June 2012)

I don't think I've ever read such bile and spite. Shame on you all.


----------



## fburton (5 June 2012)

muff747 said:



			I have watched and studied MR methods and have studied horses at liberty in the field and the behaviours MR highlights, such as L&C, circling around and dropping the head along the ground does happen between horses. Why do people (particularly Morgan) on here keep saying there is no evidence that this behaviour is natural, have you never watched your horses or any horses meeting and greeting or sussing out a new horse introduced into the herd???
You may not see it in an established herd where they have already worked out which position they are in in the hierarchy.
		
Click to expand...

Would you say that JU is about establishing dominance or the person's place in the (dominance) hierarchy?




			Also, just a small point - there has been some discussion earlier about when the L&C happening *after* being chased away and the adrenalin is reducing, but I see this behaviour if I just ask my horse to back away from me.  Or if a horse is barging against me, I use pressure on the head collar to ask it to back off, or I sometimes use my fingers against the shoulder to ask it to back off me, and it can L&C then  So I interpret that as the horse saying ok ok I hear you, I'm listening now, which is more or less what MR interprets the action as.
		
Click to expand...

This strikes me as an overly complicated explanation. It _could_ be right, but then I would like to see examples of where L&C is used as a signal from one horse to another, rather than simply something a horse does. For it to be a true communicative signal, it has to affect the behaviour of the receiver. It should therefore be possible to show that the other horse is capable of making use of the information embodied in the signal.

On the other hand, L&C in the situations you describe _could_ still be adrenaline related. You are still applying pressure, albeit momentarily. Given the sensitivity of horses, it doesn't surprise me at all that you see L&C here. Does L&C happen _while_ the pressure is being applied, or _after_ it, during the release?


----------



## fburton (5 June 2012)

lizzie said:



			I don't think I've ever read such bile and spite. Shame on you all.
		
Click to expand...

Sad to say, I've seen a _lot_ worse on the H&H forums - this thread has been relatively polite and civilized in comparison.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (5 June 2012)

Disclaimer before I start *I own and use both dually and rope halters.*

I am going to try to word this appropriately as I don't want a fight said:
			
		


			unless[/I] the horse particularly disliked poll pressure but was okay with nose pressure, or if the horse was more likely to go confrontational with more severe pressure.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising you, I think its great that you have found what works for you and as I say I use both depending on the horse and activity. I am just really curious as to your situation. 

Click to expand...

Hi, not taken as criticism, yes we are talking about the fine rope halters. Like you I do and have used both on  different horses. I can't really answer the why's to be honest, I have used a rope halter to good effect previously and with youngsters, however my new boy is a big strong ID, he pays no attention at all to a rope halter, it has no effect whatsoever. The dually he seemed to understand and respect straight away.


----------



## Wagtail (5 June 2012)

lizzie said:



			I don't think I've ever read such bile and spite. Shame on you all.
		
Click to expand...

My thoughts too! Though I have seen it before on this forum.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (5 June 2012)

Wagtail said:



			My thoughts too! Though I have seen it before on this forum. 

Click to expand...

Ditto...what's the need, there's room for everyone isnt there? What is with this belittling another training method and one which is clearly mainly very successful?


----------



## talkinghorse (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			  Why did Roberts feel the need to include a Buckstop in the list of equipment he had access to during the study of his method?  It has been previously stressed on his forum that this is a tool of last resort used only when all other techniques have failed and this is horse's last chance before being sent for slaughter or similar.  I don't believe any of the horses in the study fell into that category (?). 
		
Click to expand...

You know why and when he chooses to use the buckstopper  it has been hammered to death on other fora in recent years. In this case, the answer is quite simple. He had to list all the items he might use to train horses. As Veronica Fowler's link to the full details explains, once that list was submitted, he could not add a piece of equipment that he might have found he needed.

It reminded me of my conversation with Mark Rashid, after he had stated that the commonlyused 'natural horsemanship' headcollar was vicious, as it was deliberately designed to have the knots exert pressure in the most sensitive area of the horse's head. I said, "I have one of those, but I've never used because I think that the thin rope is too severe if a horse pulls suddenly," (I'd tried it on the back of my neck and tugged, but found it hurt!) 

I asked Mark Rashid should I throw it away. He surprised me by saying, "I have one in my barn at home. I haven't thrown it away, just in case I find a time when I might want to use it." I can't say I understood his rationale, but his experience of horses is greater than mine. He knows it is highly unlikely he will need it, but perhaps, when something he hasn't ever met before happens, then he might want to use it.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

To me, Lucy Rees's observations on dominance hierarchies in horses makes a lot of sense.

Her free e-book can be downloaded from this site http://pottoka.info/lapottoka/libro.php?id=en (click on Pottoka's behaviour and training).  In particular, pages 20 through to 22 discuss social behaviour and dominance hierarchies.  In a nutshell, it appears that the horse who can "move the feet" of the other horses - by controlling their access to food, driving them away and so on is not actually the leader.  "The boss" is not attractive to the other horses - they tend to avoid her.  LR states that "in domestic groups it is hard to spot the leader until they escape.  The horses that live free in the northern sierras usually come down for winter and are hand fed, so the difference between the 'boss' and the leader are clearly seen.  One farmer, describing his bell mare said "she's not the one that wins the food, she's the one that all the others follow".

I have observed this with my own horses.  I have a group of five who I allow out onto the thousand plus acres of common land outside my farm, particularly during the winter when grazing gets boring in their fields.  When I need to fetch them in, I simply go and catch my small, old mare and the rest follow along behind.  This mare is the lowest in the "pecking order" - there is only one horse she can move from the hay pile - although that horse can move two others, which in turn can move the old mare - so there is no linear hierarchy to be observed.  My large, coloured gelding can move everyone - however when I catch him and lead him away, the others stay where they are, or even head off in the opposite direction - led by the small old mare.  The gelding may be the "boss" at the haypile, but he is not the leader.  So to me, the notion that driving a horse away or moving his feet makes us his leader, makes no sense to me.  

Rees also makes the very valid point that horses' natural behaviours are adapted to open spaces and not enclosures.  She suggests that horses don't have signals for submission (unlike dogs, humans and other primates) - the only command the boss has is "go away" - and if the horse does not/cannot get away they may very well get hurt.  Natural horse behaviour is about avoidance, not obedience.    

There is much worth reading in the paper that can be accessed from the above link.  I would suggest that anyone with a relatively open mind and an interest in horse behaviour take a look at it.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			You know why and when he chooses to use the buckstopper  it has been hammered to death on other fora in recent years. In this case, the answer is quite simple. He had to list all the items he might use to train horses. As Veronica Fowler's link to the full details explains, once that list was submitted, he could not add a piece of equipment that he might have found he needed.
		
Click to expand...

No, Catrin, the answer is far from simple.  These were untrained young horses.  In total they had ten hours of training from a standing start to completing an obstacle course and a dressage test.  The justification given on the forum is that the buckstopper is a last ditch attempt to save a horse from slaughter because they buck so badly.  Horses do not get sent for slaughter after ten hours of training, as part of an experiment to test the "kindness" of certain techniques.  He would have used the buckstopper if he had a horse who had objected to the fast, intense training methods that were being used - for example - at least four join ups in the first three and a half hours of training.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			To me, Lucy Rees's observations on dominance hierarchies in horses makes a lot of sense.

Her free e-book can be downloaded from this site http://pottoka.info/lapottoka/libro.php?id=en (click on Pottoka's behaviour and training).  In particular, pages 20 through to 22 discuss social behaviour and dominance hierarchies.  In a nutshell, it appears that the horse who can "move the feet" of the other horses - by controlling their access to food, driving them away and so on is not actually the leader.  "The boss" is not attractive to the other horses - they tend to avoid her.  LR states that "in domestic groups it is hard to spot the leader until they escape.  The horses that live free in the northern sierras usually come down for winter and are hand fed, so the difference between the 'boss' and the leader are clearly seen.  One farmer, describing his bell mare said "she's not the one that wins the food, she's the one that all the others follow".

 notion that driving a horse away or moving his feet makes us his leader, makes no sense     

There is much worth reading in the paper that can be accessed from the above link.  I would suggest that anyone with a relatively open mind and an interest in horse behaviour take a look at it.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks  I will have a read.


----------



## talkinghorse (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			debsg, if Kelly Marks answers the questions or puts up information on her own site, it will be because she can then avoid any awkward cross-questioning from people like me, who have been banned from there for asking too many difficult questions and pointing out that plausible, alternative viewpoints exist.
		
Click to expand...

I think only your ISP or the court system of your country can ban you from viewing a website. If you don't like what you see there, you can then put a post here telling everyone why, and start a new discussion, which it seems several of Kelly's IHRAs are pleased to join.


----------



## Wagtail (5 June 2012)

Tess, I am struggling to work out your views on Monty Roberts methods.


----------



## talkinghorse (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			No, Catrin, the answer is far from simple.  
		
Click to expand...

I have suggested that he would, like any professional, take every possible piece of equipment he might need, even the ones whose probability of being used is almost impossible. Only the amateur leaves things to chance. So why ask us to try to guess an answer, why not just email Monty and ask?


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

Wagtail said:



			Tess, I am struggling to work out your views on Monty Roberts methods. 

Click to expand...



Catrin - you misread my point - I said I couldn't question on there, not I couldn't read it.  Isn't it a bit convoluted for Kelly to post on the DG, then me to respond on here, then half the people respond on the DG again, but some people respond here ... and so on.  If the RAs are so keen to chat to me, perhaps she should let me back on to the forum


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			I have suggested that he would, like any professional, take every possible piece of equipment he might need, even the ones whose probability of being used is almost impossible. Only the amateur leaves things to chance. So why ask us to try to guess an answer, why not just email Monty and ask?
		
Click to expand...

to be honest Catrin, as you know, I've been there, done that and got the t-shirt.  there isn't anything, that anyone could say to me to convince me that it is OK to use a buckstopper on a young horse at the start of his ridden career - especially when it is supposed to be part of an experiment on "kind" starting methods.  I can only draw two conclusions - either the buckstopper was a tool for horses who "objected", or it is standard Monty equipment for starting youngsters.  Neither of which sits well with me.


----------



## talkinghorse (5 June 2012)

At the start of this thread, I posted my personal reasons for following Monty Roberts' methods. Here are some more global ones that show his influence.

Monty is committed to taking violence out of the lives of horses and people. He empowers others to change and take violence out of theirs. He works with young offenders, disadvantaged communities and individuals whose lives are affected by violence. He has rescued 47 foster children from violence or violent lives. He gives tirelessly of his time and never refuses a request to help a horse or child if he can do so. He has been instrumental in having the use of the whip banned or reduced in various countries and situations. He won't stop until the whip in racing is banned. 

Monty is committed to making the management of horses healthier and less stressful. To that end he promotes and teaches ad lib forage feeding; constant access to water, shelter and companions and management and training that reflects the individual horse's needs. He demonstrates the adverse and stressful effect of continuous lunging and promotes alternative methods of training. He has had rules changed to enable horses to perform without shoes. He promotes natural fibres next to the horse's skin and tack and equipment that assists the horse, but does not harm him. 

Monty promotes worldwide, and works constantly in, equine assistance programmes for disabled or disfunctional individuals. He is patron of several in UK. His influence had changed the BHS. President Martin Clunes and Chairman Lynn Petersen are both Intelligent Horsemanship students. Monty also worked with former Chairman Patrick Print.

In a few short years, Monty has changed the perception of horse training in South America, where extremely harsh traditional horsemanship has been the norm for centuries, to such an extent that the gauchos who wanted him killed when he first went, now want to follow his methods instead. On June 24, at the Guards Polo Club, Windsor Her Majesty will present certificates to several whom Monty has recommended. The certificate acknowledges their extraordinary efforts to eliminate violence in the training of horses, followed by their name and the countrys name. Recipients are Adolfo Cambiaso (Argentina), Carlos Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Memo Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Carlos Leite (Brazil), Catherine Cunningham (Guatemala), Eduardo Moreira (Brazil), Joel Baker (USA), Mateus Ribeiro (Brazil), and Satish Seemar (Dubai).

Monty gives 300 days of his year, travelling 200,000 miles to ensure that he helps as many people as he can, while he can. Recognising that with poor health at 77, he can't go on forever, he has created hundreds of hours of film, covering every aspect of horse handling and management, which he makes available for less than the subscription to Horse and Hound. He also answers people's questions, in emails or at demos.

Since he has a non-profit organisation status, every penny that he makes, from sales of books and equipment, is used to promote the education of non-violence world wide.

It is the little guys like us who change the lives of our horses, it is the big guys like Monty that show us what needs to be done.


----------



## talkinghorse (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:





Catrin - you misread my point - I said I couldn't question on there, not I couldn't read it. 
		
Click to expand...

Kelly said she would put it on her website, www.intelligenthorsemanship.co.uk I said you could read it, then you could start a thread here www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums.


----------



## leogeorge (5 June 2012)




----------



## talkinghorse (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			to be honest Catrin, as you know, I've been there, done that and got the t-shirt.    I can only draw two conclusions - either the buckstopper was a tool for horses who "objected", or it is standard Monty equipment for starting youngsters.  Neither of which sits well with me.
		
Click to expand...

This is what Monty replied when you asked him in November 2009, I doubt if anything has changed:


Dear Tess

Thank you for your enquiries regarding the buckstopper. I can't think of a more appropriate time to discuss the use and effects of the buckstopper than right now. Recent circumstances in my career have brought this discussion into focus, I am happy to answer your questions and give you my opinions and recommendations in the most open fashion possible.

Q If the buckstopper is defined as a device which prevents the horse from bucking by inflicting pain when the horse attempts to do so ...

A First of all, I do not agree with the premise that the buckstopper is used 'inflicting pain'. It would be more accurate to characterise it's actions as 'a surprise', 'distraction' and perhaps 'uncomfortable'. The reason for my position is that horses learn very quickly while using the buckstopper and their pulse rates are dramatically reduced during it's use. This leads me to believe that pain is not present.

Scientific tests have proven to me that when adrenalin rises and pulse rates are rapid learning is reduced. In the case of the buck stopper the technical instrumentation clearly indicates that there is lower adrenalin and heart rates. Clearly, horses are far more likely to enter a positive learning curve when there is an indication of lower heart rates than when the heart rates are high.

One should understand that I have used the buckstopper on approximately 1,500 horses by this time in my career. Not one horse, before I did public demonstrations or during, has suffered injury through it's use. This is a strong indication to me that pain and stress levels are kept extremely low. It is highly likely that injuries would have occured if pain and stress was increased.

Often I have made the following statements during the course of my demonstrations "the worst evidence I can attribute to the buckstopper over the hundreds of horses I have used it with is a pink line under the upper lip. This was only in the most extreme cases and never resulted in treatable injury. I have seen far more evidence of tissue damage from winter clipping."

Q.. and should only be used by professionals on extreme cases, what educational value do you feel that the inclusion of this device holds for the audience at your demonstrations?

Another statement I often make is "please allow a professional who has some experience with bucking horses to use the buckstopper. Do not go home and think that you can just get on and ride. I recommend this procedure only to professional horsemen and only for extreme cases." I don't believe that I have worked with a bucking horse without that admonition.

The educational, and in fact, overall value of including the buckstopper in demonstrations is that it saves the lives of horses. I think there is clear evidence that the lives of several hundred horses have been saved with the use of the buckstopper. In addition, there is no way to calculate the number of injuries or even loss of life where people are concerned.

Here in England, one only has to visit with Carrie Adams to understand that her dressage horse Ascot Bewes became safe and rideable because of the buckstopper. This is not to say that Ascot Bewes is the only horse to overcome bucking in England with this procedure, dozens of other owners have reported to me that there is horse is alive only because of the buckstopper.


----------



## Natch (5 June 2012)

I find Kelly odd to deal with. Having watched one of her demos recently I had some questions for her, so I pm'd her on here to ask if I could ask them. No response, when at the time she was still posting on here.

The psychiatric nurse comment is silly and I do hope it was made tongue in cheek. All her presence on this thread seems to have done is to deepen the mystery as she hasn't yet answered any questions!

For anyone interested, my questions which I didn't get to put to her were a) was there a gentler way to deal with the horse who objected to loading (who objected mildly and then more and more strongly going to vertical rears during the demo. I felt that this was down to showmanship not horsemanship, as I had previously witnessed others working with the same horse on the same issue and he was perfectly calm and the training worked), and why she didn't routinely ask owners to ensure pain had been eliminated before their horse was accepted into a demo. The second question was because this came up as an audience question after  she had worked with a horse. She seemed to act a bit like tge question took her by suprise and she agreed that they should have checked that first. They then removed the mare's saddle and ran fingers along her spine - the mare dipped very strongly as pressure was put on a certain spot, indicating she probably was in pain.

I like Kelly's words, I went fully expecting to enjoy the demo but like other famous horse trainers I left feeling it was more about the show than the horse.


----------



## FairyLights (5 June 2012)

I havent read all the thread so maybe what I am going to put has already been said.
1. I find quite a lot of Monty's ideas I have found I have been doing for years just by intuition , and I am sure many more horse owners/carers/riders have been doing too. 
2. BHS stuff is not "wrong", sometimes MR stuff works well sometimes a more traditional English approach works well too.
3. Kelly Marks simply uses a different approach with _people_ to get them to do what is necessary to get the horse to do what you want. eg some people do not respond well to a "take control" approach. But, the horse being a herd animal needs leadership or he will take the lead or just feel unsure and confused he needs "mastery". KM just puts what to do differently so the tree huggers dont think they are "in charge". 
4. These people have made money/ a living but writing book about this and giving demos. Most of us horse owners have been doing what they do for years anyway, I know I have, but just havent tried to make a living at it. 
Just to re-iterate, BHS is not wrong, it works, IH stuff can work well too, its just a different way of doing the same thing.


----------



## jinglejoys (5 June 2012)

Actually Horsesforever1,as for point 4 ,I really don't see why people get so uptight with the modern way of imparting horse knowledge.Years ago people made quite a good living travelling round taking money and doing fantastic things with "untrainable" horses...problem was they did everything they could to keep this knowledge between them and the equine,hence the term "Horse Whisperer".
   Then you got the people who just sneered and said "its common sense" meaning its experiance and I've had horses for years and know the answers but I'm not telling you
   I see nothing wrong with anyone spreading knowledge to everyone even if the charge, when others have been so careful to keep it secret


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

From Monty's email to me:

_Another statement I often make is "please allow a professional who has some experience with bucking horses to use the buckstopper. Do not go home and think that you can just get on and ride. *I recommend this procedure only to professional horsemen and only for extreme cases.*" I don't believe that I have worked with a bucking horse without that admonition._

So, I repeat - since when is a horse with a maximum of ten hours of training, in an experiment to demonstrate "kind" techniques an "extreme case"? And if nothing has changed, then there is no point in me emailing him, because the above is, in my view, absolutely no justification for including the buckstopper in a "scientific study" to "prove" that Monty's methods are kinder.


----------



## Natch (5 June 2012)

Has anybody got a link to that study please? For all that I have taken a keen interest in natural horsemanship under the scientific eye I don't recall having seen that one.


----------



## Natch (5 June 2012)

Oh god I can see someone has posted the link but can't find the post 

Also having just looked back I was reminded of tess' post about  the ontrack promotional video. I can remember it (I use ontrack) and I wondered what it was about the images that made you come to the conclusion that riding horses places more strain on their limbs than would naturally occur? Perhaps I can provide some clarification in terms of exercise physiology, if it is of any interest?


----------



## Parker79 (5 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			At the start of this thread, I posted my personal reasons for following Monty Roberts' methods. Here are some more global ones that show his influence.

Monty is committed to taking violence out of the lives of horses and people. He empowers others to change and take violence out of theirs. He works with young offenders, disadvantaged communities and individuals whose lives are affected by violence. He has rescued 47 foster children from violence or violent lives. He gives tirelessly of his time and never refuses a request to help a horse or child if he can do so. He has been instrumental in having the use of the whip banned or reduced in various countries and situations. He won't stop until the whip in racing is banned. 

Monty is committed to making the management of horses healthier and less stressful. To that end he promotes and teaches ad lib forage feeding; constant access to water, shelter and companions and management and training that reflects the individual horse's needs. He demonstrates the adverse and stressful effect of continuous lunging and promotes alternative methods of training. He has had rules changed to enable horses to perform without shoes. He promotes natural fibres next to the horse's skin and tack and equipment that assists the horse, but does not harm him. 

Monty promotes worldwide, and works constantly in, equine assistance programmes for disabled or disfunctional individuals. He is patron of several in UK. His influence had changed the BHS. President Martin Clunes and Chairman Lynn Petersen are both Intelligent Horsemanship students. Monty also worked with former Chairman Patrick Print.

In a few short years, Monty has changed the perception of horse training in South America, where extremely harsh traditional horsemanship has been the norm for centuries, to such an extent that the gauchos who wanted him killed when he first went, now want to follow his methods instead. On June 24, at the Guards Polo Club, Windsor Her Majesty will present certificates to several whom Monty has recommended. The certificate acknowledges their extraordinary efforts to eliminate violence in the training of horses, followed by their name and the countrys name. Recipients are Adolfo Cambiaso (Argentina), Carlos Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Memo Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Carlos Leite (Brazil), Catherine Cunningham (Guatemala), Eduardo Moreira (Brazil), Joel Baker (USA), Mateus Ribeiro (Brazil), and Satish Seemar (Dubai).

Monty gives 300 days of his year, travelling 200,000 miles to ensure that he helps as many people as he can, while he can. Recognising that with poor health at 77, he can't go on forever, he has created hundreds of hours of film, covering every aspect of horse handling and management, which he makes available for less than the subscription to Horse and Hound. He also answers people's questions, in emails or at demos.

Since he has a non-profit organisation status, every penny that he makes, from sales of books and equipment, is used to promote the education of non-violence world wide.

It is the little guys like us who change the lives of our horses, it is the big guys like Monty that show us what needs to be done.
		
Click to expand...

I really like this post...I am still struggling to understand why people are so anti MR & KM...so you may dislike some methods but as a general rule IMO they offer the kinder solution and teach this to thousands of people...encouraging kinder treatment of horses...surely this should be celebrated...but yet here we are??

I am happy for someone to explain...as perhaps I have missed something


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

Hi Naturally

the link to the study is here http://www.mobileliveryassociates.co.uk/distance-learning-material-for-associates/     hopefully.

I'd be interested in your comments re the ontrack video - although it didn't change what I do/don't do with my horses.  It was just something doing the rounds on facebook which I commented on as I thought it was quite a powerful visual representation of what is happening to horses' lower limbs and hooves during movement  ... I'm a bit puzzled as to how/why it even came to Kelly's attention tbh, I'd have thought she'd have had better things to do with her time than read my facebook comments.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

Parker79, do you know what a buckstopper is?


----------



## Vixen Van Debz (5 June 2012)

Did Monty's trainer actually use the Buckstopper in this study? In academia, if a company provides you with something for free, it often requires mentioning during scientific publication as part of the advertisement in return; theoritically Buckstopper might need to have been mentioned even if there was never any intent to actually use it. I can't see the article on my phone to check though. The pressure of performing such a training and performance feat however may mean that options may need to be cycled through faster than when time is a relative luxury: I think a much more interesting question is whether, without such time- and academic-pressure, Monty and his associates would use the Buckstopper so quickly or on such young horses?

I for one was pleased Kelly Marks appeared on this thread, and am a bit sad she's felt she needs to leave the thread! People are saying boo her for not talking about things here when the advertising rules say you can't, but she stated that she will as long as she's been given permission. I wish more people knew the T&Cs on here: Heather Moffat certainly learned the hard way!  Kelly then says she will put them on her web page as an alternative and that's not good enough for some posters here either. Whether you agree with her methods or not, she has been damned if she does and damned if she doesn't! I would have loved to have seen some healthy, mannerly and respectful debate on both sides while we had the chance with someone so well informed. I am ever so disappointed such an opportunity has so quickly evaporated 80(


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

The study says that each trainer got to choose the equipment they needed. 

If the training could not be done in the allocated time-scale without resorting to pain inflicting gadgets then the study should have been modified - anything else undermines the fundamental premise of "kindness" which this study was meant to be based on.

I sincerely hope that Monty and his associates would not resort to the buckstopper so quickly, or on young horses, as the whole justification for the buckstopper has always been that it is a last resort for horses with extreme problems who are very likely to be destroyed if they are not "fixed".

I would be delighted to respond to anything that Kelly writes on her own forum if the advertising regs here prevent her from doing so here.  However, her post last night reads like an ad, one of talkinghorses posts reads like an ad and so far she has done nothing to address any of the questions asked on this thread, which I do not necessarily believe would contravene regs.  I have tried to remain healthy, mannerly and respectful - not always easy when someone accuses you of being a troll with mental health issues.


----------



## Marianne France (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			I have tried to remain healthy, mannerly and respectful
		
Click to expand...

Good to hear this, I'd hate to catch you on a bad day 

Unfortunately, there's one key word missing in your quote above, it's "truthful"


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

Please tell me where I have lied, Marianne.


----------



## Marianne France (5 June 2012)

I recommend you read back over the last 22 pages, several people have protested at some of your wilder interpretations/definitions of the truth and you've ignored them all.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

Marianne, you have just called me a liar, on a public forum.  Please point out to me _exactly_ where in the last 12 pages I have stated an untruth (I didn't join until page 11).  

And while you're about it, perhaps you could post links to some of the x million studies you mentioned a while back that said join up was kinder than some other training methods ... now that wasn't an "exaggeration" by any chance, was it?


----------



## leogeorge (5 June 2012)

Careful Marianne. If you are not privey to the discussions between Tess, myself and Kelly that span years, not just 22 pages of this thread, you might end up looking very silly defending Kellys comments in her recent post. 

Just saying!


----------



## cobmum (5 June 2012)

I think personally and in agreement with others that YES IH is common sense! 

I never think of Monty Roberts demo's as a 'show' there is a man and a horse showing some useful hints and tips - body language , correct use of dually, use of long line to a bunch of horsey people who can take away and use bits to help them with their horse or themselves. He is not flashy or extravagant like pat or linda P.

Monty nor Kelly nor Sarah proclaim to be the law on how to deal with horses, but have built up a way of relating with a horse in a way it understands. Yes they sell books and merchandise but you dont have to buy it! 

Join up is a diificult one as every horse and every owner is different. Those who may use parts of IH may never actually use join up, i have never 'done it' because i have never felt like i 100% know what to do but have used other methods explained by Monty, Kelly and Sarah (usually simple ones with pictures!!)

Good one Kelly and Sarah for coming on here and giving there opinions, if it were your full time job and passion then i expect anyone would do the same.


----------



## Parker79 (5 June 2012)

You asked me about a buckstopper - I had guessed its a rather harsh piece of kit ...but its not something he actively promotes is it? it isn't something he shows people on a DVD and encourages them to use it?

People are doing far far worse than this IMO...I do not have the background knowledge of the people on this thread...but I am the target audience...and I say that anyone in a position of power that is encouraging good practise on the majority of his demonstrations and literature (buckstopper aside) is doing a lot of good things for the horsey industry.

I have openly stated my horror at other methods from watching demos, dvd's and experiences with intructors....I have had no reason so far to doubt MR's methods.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

Marianne, I would appreciate a response - please tell me exactly where you believe I have lied.  The fact that I have written things that you don't agree with does not make me a liar.


----------



## eahotson (5 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			I find Kelly odd to deal with. Having watched one of her demos recently I had some questions for her, so I pm'd her on here to ask if I could ask them. No response, when at the time she was still posting on here.

The psychiatric nurse comment is silly and I do hope it was made tongue in cheek. All her presence on this thread seems to have done is to deepen the mystery as she hasn't yet answered any questions!

For anyone interested, my questions which I didn't get to put to her were a) was there a gentler way to deal with the horse who objected to loading (who objected mildly and then more and more strongly going to vertical rears during the demo. I felt that this was down to showmanship not horsemanship, as I had previously witnessed others working with the same horse on the same issue and he was perfectly calm and the training worked), and why she didn't routinely ask owners to ensure pain had been eliminated before their horse was accepted into a demo. The second question was because this came up as an audience question after  she had worked with a horse. She seemed to act a bit like tge question took her by suprise and she agreed that they should have checked that first. They then removed the mare's saddle and ran fingers along her spine - the mare dipped very strongly as pressure was put on a certain spot, indicating she probably was in pain.

I like Kelly's words, I went fully expecting to enjoy the demo but like other famous horse trainers I left feeling it was more about the show than the horse. 

Click to expand...

You know, I am suprised to read that. I had understood that the IH team screened horses for unsoundness pain etc. before the demos.Sue Palmer is an RDA who is often at the demos.She is also an ACPAT physiotherapist.She became one when she realized that a lot of the horses referred to her for behavioural difficulties actually have pain.It takes 6 years to become an ACPAT.Three years training to be a human physio, 2 years full time practice and then a masters in animal physiotherapy.Quite some commitment.The back dipping is often (although not always) associated with a badly fitting saddle which is, IMHO more normal than abnormal.


----------



## Natch (5 June 2012)

Parker79 said:



			I really like this post...I am still struggling to understand why people are so anti MR & KM...so you may dislike some methods but as a general rule IMO they offer the kinder solution and teach this to thousands of people...encouraging kinder treatment of horses...surely this should be celebrated...but yet here we are??

I am happy for someone to explain...as perhaps I have missed something
		
Click to expand...

There are others on here who are better placed to explain it, but in a nutshell for me, I feel that MR (and KM to a lesser extent) has/have changed people's attitudes towards training horses for the better, but now that they have been around a while and scientific studies are being published, and my own knowledge has grown, I see things that I don't like in their methods. Whilst I could forgive this is a student it sticks in the throat if its the expert themselves, and I don't like anyone with the attitude of being unwilling to enter a dialogue and learn from other people. 

I now don't think that the method is any kinder than well carried out traditional training, and that it can be as inconsistent and cruel as badly carried out traditional training. I suspect we have got to where we are (decently carried out horse training based on an understanding of what works and what is fair, and which doesn't focus on dominating the horse) faster because MR challenged people to look at horse training from a more empathetic point of view.



tess1 said:



			Hi Naturally

the link to the study is here http://www.mobileliveryassociates.co.uk/distance-learning-material-for-associates/     hopefully.

I'd be interested in your comments re the ontrack video - although it didn't change what I do/don't do with my horses.  It was just something doing the rounds on facebook which I commented on as I thought it was quite a powerful visual representation of what is happening to horses' lower limbs and hooves during movement  ... I'm a bit puzzled as to how/why it even came to Kelly's attention tbh, I'd have thought she'd have had better things to do with her time than read my facebook comments.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link Tess, I'll read it in a bit. 

I think the video shows very nicely that the shod hoof doesn't absorb impact particularly well, but I know there are studies which would disagree with me on that score.  

I have to guess that it is the portrayal of the fetlock sinking low at speed/high pressure that particularly interests you? In a nutshell, (I have a tendancy to get too geeky ) the tendons in the lower limb are able to withstand those sorts of forces, indeed that is why they have evolved as they have done and stand on one digit not three - primarily for forward impulsion and speed but also the disappearance of the other toes allowed the fetlock to become a shock absorption mechanism. 

I think the greatest challenge to the horse's leg tendons is during gallop, where it is subject to a huge increase in heat, force and stretch. I think a study or studies have actually been done which appear to have found that the proteins in the tendon at gallop are very close to catastrophic breakdown due to strain and temperature increases. But as we all know, horses gallop as a natural activity and they rarely break down as a result - they either seem to be able to cope remarkably well working at such close proximity to failure, or we have missed something.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

Parker79 said:



			You asked me about a buckstopper - I had guessed its a rather harsh piece of kit ...but its not something he actively promotes is it? it isn't something he shows people on a DVD and encourages them to use it?
		
Click to expand...

It is a thin line that runs beneath the horse's lip, at the top of his gum, and then is attached to the poll and then the saddle.  When the horse puts his head down to buck, all the force goes to the line at the gum.  Monty uses them in his demos - so I would say, yes, he does show them to people although, as in the previous email, he says they should be for professionals and severe cases.


----------



## Parker79 (5 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			There are others on here who are better placed to explain it, but in a nutshell for me, I feel that MR (and KM to a lesser extent) has/have changed people's attitudes towards training horses for the better, but now that they have been around a while and scientific studies are being published, and my own knowledge has grown, I see things that I don't like in their methods. Whilst I could forgive this is a student it sticks in the throat if its the expert themselves, and I don't like anyone with the attitude of being unwilling to enter a dialogue and learn from other people. 

I now don't think that the method is any kinder than well carried out traditional training, and that it can be as inconsistent and cruel as badly carried out traditional training. I suspect we have got to where we are (decently carried out horse training based on an understanding of what works and what is fair, and which doesn't focus on dominating the horse) faster because MR challenged people to look at horse training from a more empathetic point of view.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you - I think from the level I am watching (leisure riders and some competing a little) its refreshing to see some people looking at the likes of MR and KM for help as none of us are experts....whereas I utterly cringe when I watch others on my yard trying to follow Parelli.


----------



## Natch (5 June 2012)

eahotson said:



			You know, I am suprised to read that. I had understood that the IH team screened horses for unsoundness pain etc. before the demos.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I was surprised to witness it.


----------



## Parker79 (5 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			It is a thin line that runs beneath the horse's lip, at the top of his gum, and then is attached to the poll and then the saddle.  When the horse puts his head down to buck, all the force goes to the line at the gum.  Monty uses them in his demos - so I would say, yes, he does show them to people although, as in the previous email, he says they should be for professionals and severe cases.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you tess1 - is this any worse than a rider yanking on the horses mouth to keep their head up? I'm not trying to argue...its a genuine question out of curiousity.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

leogeorge said:



			Careful Marianne. If you are not privey to the discussions between Tess, myself and Kelly that span years, not just 22 pages of this thread, you might end up looking very silly defending Kellys comments in her recent post. 

Just saying!
		
Click to expand...

Well, I think Marianne is looking pretty silly right now.

I would still like a response, Marianne.  I do not appreciate being called a liar on an open forum simply because someone does not like some of the uncomfortable _truths_ that I have posted.


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

it's a fair question, Parker 79.  In some ways, perhaps it is not - however, it's important to look at why the horse is bucking - for example if the horse is bucking out of pain, or fear then it would be unfair to use a painful device to stop the behaviour.  It would be much more appropriate to identify and treat for pain/ill fitting tack etc and spend some time re-schooling the horse so they don't have a problem with being ridden.  If young, unschooled horses - like those in the study - bucked, it would likely be because they were struggling to cope with the speed of training - or possibly even physically struggling to cope with balancing a rider.  It would be very disturbing to think that a buckstopper might be used as a quick fix in such a situation, especially as the training time in the study was very short, and the demands asked of the horses considerable at the end of only ten hours of training.


----------



## talkinghorse (5 June 2012)

The buck stopper is made from cord similar to cotton washing line. It is made into an oval shape, with another piece like a brow-band. The oval goes over the poll of the horse and into the mouth under the lip and over the gum. There is another piece of line from poll to saddle or surcingle. 

The buck stopper is fitted so that in any normal head carriage there is no pressure on the gum. Only if the horse attempts to put his head down to the ground, will he feel pressure on the gum. As the horse lowering his head puts the pressure on, so if he lifts his head, the pressure is released. 

When bucking, the horse tends to leap forwards with his head high, then plunge his head down as his front feet come to the ground. It is this sudden plunge that causes instant pressure on the gum. Because the horse administers the effect himself, it is instant in its action; it is also instant in its release. It is this instant that can save the life of a rider, and in many cases, the life of the horse.

On the one occasion that I have seen the buck stopper used  I still have it on video  the horse attempts to plunge and instantly lifts his head back up. There was no mark at all on the horse's gum and he never tried to buck again.

Here is some further comment from Monty on the use of the buck stopper. 

_I was in England conducting the science trial at the end of June 2009. A photographer came to me and said that he had a friend in America who absolutely detested my work. She said that the horses were all trained in advanced and that the use of the buckstopper was cruel and ineffective.

Most of you will know that the first part her story is absolutely untrue. I now believe that virtually everyone understands that the horses are not trained in advance. With this in mind I asked the photographer to invite her to come to my farm in California, spend 3 days and watch me at work. Obviously I didnt think she would take me up on the offer but in fact, I was very surprised when she emailed through her acceptance.

Susy Smith (a pseudonym, as I have no permission to use her name), arrived. She seemed a nice young lady in her mid twenties. Susy admitted that she had formed her conclusion based on one demonstration where she felt the solutions seemed to be too easy to come by. Later, she said, I had several professional horsemen tell me that Monty did with the horses was impossible unless they were pre-trained. She had no hard evidence.

There was an open door for Susy to watch me work, interview students, speak with the instructors and question owners throughout the first day. By the end of a long day 1 Susy had concluded that she was wrong to accuse me of having pre trained horses. I worked with about 6 very difficult horses on that day and Susy was able to visit with the owners while the work was going on. One horse was a remedial bucker and a very dangerous one at that.

Using the buckstopper I made a great deal of progress on the first session and I felt that I was going to be able to successfully put this problem to rest. Susy however came to the house that evening with a whole new direction to her criticisms of my work. She said that she was frightened for the horses life during the bucking he did. She stated that the use of the buckstopper was, in her opinion, cruel and abusive.

As luck would have it we were all schedules to go to a fundraiser that evening for the local Riding for the Disabled (RDA) group. The owner of the bucker happens to be on the board of our local RDA. Susy moved right in to tell him how horrible the buckstopper was and that she disagreed with its use, I was standing with them when the owner explained the story behind the subject horse. I did not say a word, the owner said it all.

Mr McInro told Susy that he was the master of the hounds for that area, he told her that he bred champion showjumpers and that while this horse had talent he had been bucking off professional trainers. He told Susy that he came to me and that I agreed to give the horse a try. He went on to tell Susy his hunt was constantly looking for hound food. He literally told her that he had suggested taking the horse into the field where the hounds lived and shooting him.

Thats exactly what he had told me when I accepted the challenge, on the way home Susy began to cry and she said that she was extremely conflicted with regard the whole situation. She watched the horse for two more days and he was being ridden without bucking for the first time in his life. I explained to Susy that because of a lot of criticism I had been turning down buckers by the dozens for the past 2 years. It just wasnt worth the hassle.

Unknowing people, without evidence that it is cruel, will tend to be very cruel to me and speak to the masses on the internet and in magazines. They will speak of cruelty and abuse as if they have experience with the bucktstopper, I told Susy that I had worked with around 1500 horses with no injuries and virtually all of them came to be ridden without bucking. With that statement I had a whole new problem on my hands!

She shouted at me asking me how many horses died because Id been turning them down for the past 2 years? I answered that probably 20-30 horses had been shipped to the butchers unnecessarily because they didnt have the buckstopper to get them through the problem. Susy was furious with me saying that I was a coward and I had no right to turn these horses down just because a few uneducated people were criticising me.

Ultimately Susy came to admit that she could see the fact that I was in a no win situation. Susy cancelled some appointments and stayed longer and watched the horse being ridden comfortably. She has become a supporter of my work and in fact I will be having a meeting with her on December 2nd in Las Vegas, Nevada where we are joining forces against what both of us agree is some unfair competitive activity involving horses.

During this meeting I will ask Susy to agree that her name can be used and possibly do an entry for you so that you can hear her own words as to the revelation that she went through during her stay with me. Please read this and measure it against your own feelings and the statements you might have made in the past. Help me where you can to understand where the horse world wants me to go and what well meaning horse people want from me.

Monty_


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

TalkingHorse ... that is the argument if the horses are heading for slaughter if they are not "fixed".

I have highlighted the questionable inclusion of the buckstopper in an experiment involving training young, unspoiled horses, for ten hours, designed to show that Monty's methods are kinder than everyone else - so the above post isn't really relevant to that argument, is it?


----------



## rhino (5 June 2012)

leogeorge said:



			Careful Marianne. If you are not privey to the discussions between Tess, myself and Kelly that span years, not just 22 pages of this thread, you might end up looking very silly defending Kellys comments in her recent post. 

Just saying!
		
Click to expand...

Do you not think you could keep your personal, petty and frankly pathetic vendetta elsewhere, this is a public forum where people should not have to be 'privy' to years of discussions...

It was a fairly interesting discussion, but there are people adding nothing remotely constructive to it now, just making personal attacks. If you know so much better than those being named, why don't you tell us how *you* would do things differently?


----------



## xxMozlarxx (5 June 2012)

tess1 what is your motive for this questioning and challenge of MR and KM, what are you trying to achieve? Genuine question


----------



## tess1 (5 June 2012)

xxMozlarxx said:



			tess1 what is your motive for this questioning and challenge of MR and KM, what are you trying to achieve? Genuine question 

Click to expand...

I just wanted to see if I could get a thread over 10,000 hits 

Sorry, I'll be serious now.  

Well, it isn't going to take a genius to work out that I am no fan of MR and KM - I don't "buy" their version of join up and I am not keen on pressure halters such as duallys.  I think the interpretation of what goes on in the round pen is misleading, inaccurate and human-centric.  These are not just my personal views - plenty of other people - including people very knowledgable about equine behaviour and training feel the same.  However, I have done that to death in previous posts here and on the DG and would have continued to ignore this thread had the science study not been reported.  I feel that the "study" is really a farce, designed to make Monty look good at all costs, and has been presented in a totally biased manner - however, that didn't really surprise me at all, and I still probably wouldn't have commented.  What did surprise me - astonish me, in fact - was the inclusion of the buckstopper as part of Monty's equipment.  Someone had told me at the EBF seminar that a buckstopper was listed in the equipment (the slides were on and off the screen so fast you could barely read the titles) but I could hardly believe it so I would never have questioned it without concrete evidence.  

So I really just wanted to ask the question how MR and KM can justify including a buckstopper (a device that has previously been described over and over as only for "extreme cases") in a study meant to demonstrate that Monty's methods are "kinder" than conventional techniques, and is using young, unspoiled horses at the very start of their ridden career.  If Monty can "speak the language of equus" why does he need to rely on gadgets such as pressure halters, dummy riders, and buckstoppers to get a horse "trained" in ten hours.  If the conventional guy had been armed with draw-reins and chifneys and a severe array of bits  I am pretty sure there would have been comment from all the NH/IH people - but Monty can get away with blinkering horses, tying dummies on their backs, doing multiple join ups (which, many would argue, is stressful for horses, even though that doesn't fit in with Monty's version of events) and wrapping bits of thin rope under their gums and tying it to the saddle and no one says a word?  How does that fit with really caring about horse welfare and "proving" that a technique is kind(er)?  So I don't expect to achieve anything - but that never stops me questioning something if I don't see it to be right.


----------



## Froddy (6 June 2012)

Tess I "get" your viewpoint as you see it and tbh you do raise some very relevant points.

I do however think you seem obsessed with the issue about the buckstopper, I agree in the wrong hands the buckstopper would be a very nasty piece of equipment but then there are some devices that are quite readily accepted by traditionalists which could equally seen as cruel.

I like to keep an open mind, IH is something I like the sound of but the buckstopper I wouldn't dream of using.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (6 June 2012)

Thanks for the explanation, what would you like MR/KM to do differently? Or is your position that they are a waste of space? Do you see where I'm going with this? I can take what I want from all these trainers and leave the rest, they all have something to offer IMO, I'm not clear what the motives are here.


----------



## Ladyinred (6 June 2012)

lizzie said:



			I don't think I've ever read such bile and spite. Shame on you all.
		
Click to expand...

But it isn't bile and spite, although I appreciate that may be how it comes across. I certainly have no personal agenda here and have nothing to lose or gain from whether people follow IH or not.

My concern, and the reason for the questions, is simply for the well being of the horse. I sincerely believe that some of the IH methods have been misinterpreted and the process by which horse learns is misunderstood.

Wrapping something up in pretty words makes it no less powerful and potentially damaging. At least the 'old school' trainers don't attempt to kid themselves, or other people, as to what some of them do.

I certainly don't want or intend to come out all guns blazing and be thoroughly rude and offensive to either Kelly or any of her RAs, but it would be refreshing if they could think outside of their own particular box and see that possibly there are some flaws. Discussion is the only way to do that but it seems to be a difficult thing to achieve.


----------



## tess1 (6 June 2012)

xxMozlarxx said:



			Thanks for the explanation, what would you like MR/KM to do differently? Or is your position that they are a waste of space? Do you see where I'm going with this? I can take what I want from all these trainers and leave the rest, they all have something to offer IMO, I'm not clear what the motives are here.
		
Click to expand...



There are very few people in this world who are a waste of space.  KM and MR are certainly not a waste of space.  If they help even one person be "nicer" to their horse, then of course they aren't a waste of space.  It doesn't matter what I would like them to do differently, they are going to carry on doing what they doing because enough people buy into it.  If you asked me "what would allow me to have more trust in their work" - well, they could just be honest.  Be honest about what they are doing and why it "works".  How can you profess to run a horse psychology course (as Kelly does) and not teach the learning theory behind join-up?  How can you put a bunch of panels behind a horse to get them into a horsebox and call it "incremental learning"?  To anyone who understands the psychology of teaching and learning, what KM and MR do, and what they say they do, is completely incongruent.  They over-simplify ethology, body language and non-verbal communication and over and over again confuse "leadership" and "dominance" with good training skills.  They use some pretty harsh training techniques - so do conventional trainers, I agree - but they "dress it up" in a way that confuses people so they believe that what they are seeing is "kind" when very often it isn't.

sorry, should have added - there are no "motives" per se - only that I will speak out when I see something so completely out of kilter as someone claiming to have scientific proof that they have the kindest method for starting horses, using a bunch of discomfort/pain/fear inducing gadgets and acting like a predator in an enclosed space with a prey animal.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (6 June 2012)

Mmmmm...interesting that you seek to suggest what question I should ask. I asked what you would like them to do differently, I'm not clear how them being honest would result in more trust on your part if the rest of your response applies to be honest.


----------



## tess1 (6 June 2012)

Because if people are honest, you can trust them (ie, believe what they say) even if you don't agree with them.


----------



## tess1 (6 June 2012)

For example (to take this from something I read earlier on another forum) join up is much more about "you will" rather than "will you" - but Monty says things like "the horse is chosing to be with me" - well, there's not a lot of choice when you are in a small space and someone is chasing you round it by flicking a lunge line at you - at some point the horse is going to stop and figure out plan B - and if they revert to plan A they just get chased again.  So there is no choice as far as the horse is concerned, and if that was clearly presented at least people could make an informed decision about whether they thought join up was a good idea or not - but the whole idea of "becoming the leader" - well, that may feed into human ego, but it may not be in the best interests of the horse to interpret it that way, nor may it be the most accurate interpretation.


----------



## eahotson (6 June 2012)

Trying to write a reply without rambling!!! Like a lot of people, when I first heard of Monty Roberts I was well impressed.This was at a time when I was in a yard which was (according to them a competition yard and traditional!).The prevailing ethos was if it moves hit it, if it doesn't hit it!! O.K I simplify it but it was a violent place.I have since met a REAL traditional guy and he is amazing, no violence,no join up, no carrot sticks just time, consistancy (very important that I think, the horse builds up trust in you because it knows what to expect) patience and knowledge of what he was doing.
I have read some of Kelly Marks books which I enjoy, she has a good dry sense of humour which I enjoy and speaks a lot of sense.Watched some of the programmes and went to a demo.I have never really warmed to Monty as a person and he brags, which is irritating.
The demo was disapointing, very comercial, buy our books DVDs Duallys etc. and I don't think I learned much really.
I have often wondered about the licking and chewing! I think we misunderstand that.The most likely explanation given to me was thats its a physiological reaction to stress.They have been frightened, their mouths have gone dry, the fear is removed and they are just trying to moisten their mouths!! From my own observation of my own horse, when he was tense at first moving home, then relaxed he did just that.My old horse did it when he suffered a fortunately mild bout (sp?) of colic.
I have seen a FORM of join up between 2 horses, my Highland and a silly cocky young gelding who was foolish enough to challenge him in the field.They had a huge kicking match, being bigger stronger and older Callum won! (No harm done, they didn't have shoes on).Callum then proceeded to send him away and move him round the field with just a LOOK!.Eventually said gelding tried to make himself very small, very apologetic and to creep back into the fold.It took several tried before he was allowed! They got on very well after that and it was never repeated as said gelding had learned his lesson.HOWEVER it was definately a disciplinary thing, not Callum trying to make friends or understand him!
I am dubious about join up, think its actually a psychological power game and just because
someone is not actually hitting the horse doesn't make it kind.
The hierachy thing is much misunderstood too both with horses and dogs and V.Gd Traditional man was very good with them too.He seemed to work on a consensual basis with both, mutual co operation and it worked.Both his horses and his dogs had beautiful manners.
Mark Rashid is very good on this sort of thing.


----------



## mayhem4 (6 June 2012)

Hi All!
Just to answer the original question to this thread.
I am a BHSII and Chief Instructor of a Pony Club branch. I find Monty's and 'Intelligent Horsemanship' methods very useful indeed. Both as a stand alone and in conjunction with 'conventional' methods. 
But then when I say methods I really mean approach, Monty and Kelly tell you to weigh up the pros and cons of any approach and use what is appropriate - and that may well be a method that is not their own.
I come from a background where if a horse was not doing what you want you hit it, simple as that. Monty and Kellys approach has improved the life of my horses and all that I deal with.
Sorry some of you dont agree but IMHO anyone who has made you think hard about the way you work with your horses has helped both you and your horses.


----------



## Parker79 (6 June 2012)

mayhem4 said:



			Hi All!
Just to answer the original question to this thread.
I am a BHSII and Chief Instructor of a Pony Club branch. I find Monty's and 'Intelligent Horsemanship' methods very useful indeed. Both as a stand alone and in conjunction with 'conventional' methods. 
But then when I say methods I really mean approach, Monty and Kelly tell you to weigh up the pros and cons of any approach and use what is appropriate - and that may well be a method that is not their own.
I come from a background where if a horse was not doing what you want you hit it, simple as that. Monty and Kellys approach has improved the life of my horses and all that I deal with.
Sorry some of you dont agree but IMHO anyone who has made you think hard about the way you work with your horses has helped both you and your horses.
		
Click to expand...

^^very good point...my opinion is that if 'join up' means a horse will consider you their leader...and therefore wont be 'trying it on' so often then that would probably save that horse a lot of grief in the long run....

for example....novice does join up....horse now responds better and therefore doesn't get walloped every time it does something remotely 'naughty'....in an ideal world this person wouldn't own a horse...but they do! and if MR&KM methods make the lives of the horses better (but not perfect) then surely that is good?


----------



## eahotson (6 June 2012)

I tkink the biggest mistake, which I have been as guilty of as anyone, is to try and find a guru!Partly because I lacked any sort of confidence in myself as a rider/horse person and partly because I was lazy! Ifsomeone else does the thinking for you its all so much easier isn't it?  Imet quite suprising people who have let an EXPERT do things with their horse that they don't really like but think that if THE EXPERT says its right it must be! I guess really the answer is to read, think and listen to as many people as you can and then take what you like, leave the rest and be prepared to make mistakes.Its not a sin.


----------



## Wagtail (6 June 2012)

I like most ofMR and KM's approach. However, I do not like join up and I do not like the buck stop. In my experience, horses that buck seriously enough to use something like a buck stop, are usually in considerable pain. Even if all the checks have been done (as was the case with my gelding - teeth, back, saddle) he was found to have very severe KS despite me being told by a chiro, a physio and the vet that his back was fine!

I don't like to follow one particular horsey guru. IME the best horsemen are those who are intelligent enough to take the best methods from several, and have an individualistic approach.


----------



## Natch (6 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			For example (to take this from something I read earlier on another forum) join up is much more about "you will" rather than "will you" - but Monty says things like "the horse is chosing to be with me" - well, there's not a lot of choice when you are in a small space and someone is chasing you round it by flicking a lunge line at you - at some point the horse is going to stop and figure out plan B - and if they revert to plan A they just get chased again..
		
Click to expand...

Nail, head, thank you! I trained in join up a few times with different people, but most recently was 2 years ago. Last year we re-visited it and discussed when we would and when we wouldn't use join up. I felt and still feel very strongly that its not for a nervous horse or one who isn't challenging your dominance. I also feel it is dangerous to attempt to join-up with a very overtly challenging horse - you are in a small enclosed space with a horse who knows his strength and how to use it against people, and then poking him with a pointy stick aka trying to assert your dominance.

The psychology of send (or in some cases allow) away, invite back can be very powerful in humans - think about prisoners who eventually come to depend on their captors even when given a choice, supernanny's naughty step, and abusive people's rages then apparent displays of affection (with apologies to supernanny for lumping her in with two nasties, I'm not saying she is nasty too!). Companies who empower their employees with training and responsibility have pretty high retention rates because the freedom offered promotes a sense of wanting to stay in that environment. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of this level of psychology happening in join-up, and in other programmes which give the horse a choice or an illusion of choice. But it is interesting to consider that this technique can be used in good practice (e.g. supernanny) and poor practice (abuse), and where on the scale a join-up really sits.

ETA: Actually, most recently wasn't two years ago, it was more like two months ago. We did a human to human simulation and you know what, I was effing terrified when I was acting as the horse. The lady I was working with and I were polar opposites - I was too quiet and didn't really gain her attention, she was too forceful and frightened the bejaysus out of me.


----------



## fburton (6 June 2012)

Parker79 said:



			^^very good point...my opinion is that if 'join up' means a horse will consider you their leader...and therefore wont be 'trying it on' so often then that would probably save that horse a lot of grief in the long run....
		
Click to expand...

Is this really the case? Personally I don't think so. I just don't buy into the "dominant/leader/respect" paradigm, because it doesn't fit well with observations of equine behaviour. As far as I am aware, no one has actually shown that JU works one way and not another - so it remains in the realm of opinion (and dogma).


----------



## eahotson (6 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			Nail, head, thank you! I trained in join up a few times with different people, but most recently was 2 years ago. Last year we re-visited it and discussed when we would and when we wouldn't use join up. I felt and still feel very strongly that its not for a nervous horse or one who isn't challenging your dominance. I also feel it is dangerous to attempt to join-up with a very overtly challenging horse - you are in a small enclosed space with a horse who knows his strength and how to use it against people, and then poking him with a pointy stick aka trying to assert your dominance.

The psychology of send (or in some cases allow) away, invite back can be very powerful in humans - think about prisoners who eventually come to depend on their captors even when given a choice, supernanny's naughty step, and abusive people's rages then apparent displays of affection (with apologies to supernanny for lumping her in with two nasties, I'm not saying she is nasty too!). Companies who empower their employees with training and responsibility have pretty high retention rates because the freedom offered promotes a sense of wanting to stay in that environment. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of this level of psychology happening in join-up, and in other programmes which give the horse a choice or an illusion of choice. But it is interesting to consider that this technique can be used in good practice (e.g. supernanny) and poor practice (abuse), and where on the scale a join-up really sits.

ETA: Actually, most recently wasn't two years ago, it was more like two months ago. We did a human to human simulation and you know what, I was effing terrified when I was acting as the horse. The lady I was working with and I were polar opposites - I was too quiet and didn't really gain her attention, she was too forceful and frightened the bejaysus out of me.
		
Click to expand...

That human to human join up experience.Fascinating!


----------



## fburton (6 June 2012)

Parker79 said:



			for example....novice does join up....horse now responds better and therefore doesn't get walloped every time it does something remotely 'naughty'
		
Click to expand...

Alternatively, teach novices how to get the behaviours they want from their horses (and stop the behaviours they don't want) _without_ walloping - which we all know can be done.




			if MR&KM methods make the lives of the horses better (but not perfect) then surely that is good?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree - though I would add that we should all at least _strive_ for perfection when it comes to horses (just my personal opinion).


----------



## Parker79 (6 June 2012)

Totally agree we should strive for perfection...but what I am getting as is 'teaching the masses' something better than they are doing currently.

The world cannot be fixed overnight...the fate of horses cannot be fixed overnight and teaching one person at a time will take too long (albeit that is the best way).

I am talking about the thousands of people out there who do not have tuition, who have been shown violence and quick methods to deal with their ponies...MR & KM can get a message to these people in their masses...asking them to be kinder and use better (albeit not perfect) methods.

Perhaps once they have become 'open' to learnign they will delve further...but the way MR & KM have presented their methods is designed for ease of understanding and designed to 'sell' the idea to people who may not be interested.


----------



## amandap (6 June 2012)

fburton said:



			Yes, I agree - though I would add that we should all at least _strive_ for perfection when it comes to horses (just my personal opinion).
		
Click to expand...

Ah "perfection" what is that then? Imo nothing designed or theorized by humans could possibly be perfect. Or rather it would only be perfect in their eyes. The Big Lick TWH's are 'perfect' to some human's eye. 

There are posters on this thread who mock me, call me names and most don't give a monkeys what I think so I have avoided posting. They all _know_ my views even if they do mock me.

My guide is my horses and I strive to get them as healthy, comfortable and happy as I can. I have no idea what perfect is because I don't believe anything to do with human interpretation could possibly be perfect. Nature is the only thing that I could say is perfect.
I go by how my horses respond to me and all my management, training and interventions. I am still learning and trying to understand better but I do not have a goal that is "perfection".

Perhaps the 'enlightened' ones can tell me/us all what that is. I probably wont agree though... 

ps. I'm out all afternoon and it is a rhetorical question, I have nothing more to discuss of any possible interest. lol


----------



## xxMozlarxx (6 June 2012)

No idea what perfect is either...just getting by day to day is enough im not seeking the holy grail.


----------



## neelie OAP (6 June 2012)

rhino said:



			Do you not think you could keep your personal, petty and frankly pathetic vendetta elsewhere, this is a public forum where people should not have to be 'privy' to years of discussions...

It was a fairly interesting discussion, but there are people adding nothing remotely constructive to it now, just making personal attacks. If you know so much better than those being named, why don't you tell us how *you* would do things differently?
		
Click to expand...

 Fair comment this is really getting too silly !


----------



## fburton (6 June 2012)

amandap said:



			Ah "perfection" what is that then? Imo nothing designed or theorized by humans could possibly be perfect. Or rather it would only be perfect in their eyes. The Big Lick TWH's are 'perfect' to some human's eye. 

Click to expand...

Touché, Amandap - good point! 

How about striving to _improve_ instead? (i.e. heading in the _direction_ of an unattainable "perfection")

Of course, that still presupposes we can define what is good and bad in a meaningful way - otherwise what does "make the lives of the horses better" mean?

If using a lot of force is bad, then improving would mean using less and less. If walloping a lot is bad, then improving would mean having to wallop less or even not at all. If the horse is unsure, afraid or anxious about something you want him to do, then improving would mean helping him to be more confident, fearless and relaxed. That's the kind of thing _I_ had in mind. YMMV!

But this is getting off topic...


----------



## rosiejones (6 June 2012)

I'm sorry for the delay, a weekend of teaching, jubilee and a lack on internet connection meant that my response is much much later than I expected. I will be back online tomorrow I hope and a little more speedy with other replies! Hoping better late then never!
Your first question is asking a mixture of;
1)	Is join up a positive experience for the horse? And 
2)	Is join up based on natural herd behaviour? And
3)	Why does some science disagree with Monty on these two points?  
Hope I've understood that right, Ill answer as three sections to try and make sure Im being clear!
1) So first lets talk about positive experiences. It's important to be clear that we are not chasing terrified horses round in circles  that is as far from join up as it is from 'correct' lunging. We are using our body language to influence the movement of the horse. Pretty much all horsemanship is about influencing the movement of the horse, whether leading and running up at a show, lunging, long lining, or riding. We are using the least stressful way to do this as possible, and we find students learning join up are often amazed at how subtle the body language can be and how instinctively the horses responds to them. After you have influenced the movement of the horse by moving him from behind in both directions, you can often influence the movement of the horse from in front, with him choosing to be closer to you and to accept your decisions on where and when to go. This is the way I see join up. In my personal experience this is a very positive experience for the horse, who will often be much more relaxed and at ease in my company after the process, and certainly begin to view the round pen as a safe space  for instance I've noticed that   for horses who have done a couple of join-ups, novel objects are not spooky in the round pen but are outside of it. In fact, the way that join up is taught on the IH 5 day courses, it being a positive experience for the horse is kind of the defining factor, and certainly more important than how much the horse runs round the edge or specifically what the process looks like -the POINT of it is to be positive to the horse/human relationship, so if in a specific example the horse was being chased round the edge at speed and stressed, I wouldn't count that as practising join-up at all. I have seen beautiful join ups done in a walk. 
	Join up is all about having a better understanding of body language, timing, reading the horse, emotional control, and using these things to facilitate easier, clearer influence over the horses feet make it comfortable for the horse to be with you, if its stressful on the horse, you're not doing it right. Now of course, stress is all on a scale and I guess any moving about is more stressful that standing grazing, but done properly, join up is certainly never high enough up that scale for me to worry about personally.  There seems to be an underlying worry in your text that horses will feel hurt or upset by being moved about, perhaps they would if you did it with anger or ego, but again, done properly, there is no reason that moving them from behind is upsetting to them any more than moving them from on top is. 

2) I have spent some months in Colorado working with wild mustangs, and seen plenty of feral ponies in the UK, but would not say I have enough breadth of knowledge of truly wild herds to argue that it is a natural herd behaviour from my own experience. However, I have seen plenty of examples of elements of the body language of join up, though perhaps never the whole process in the 10 minute (or so) time frame we conduct it in. I'd find it hard to believe the learning theory explanation since many horses will join up and follow up on their first ever time in the pen, and this does not feel like training as such  the horses just offer the behaviour straight off if you conduct yourself in the right way. Sure, there are some who wait on the edge, but you don't train them to follow by reapplying pressure and releasing it when they come  why would they ever initially try come while you were applying pressure?  You actually have to drop the pressure FIRST. There is no clearly releasing pressure each time they think 'in' and then reapplying it again  this just isn't what we do  to be honest if you wanted to deliberately train a horse to follow you this seems like a pretty hard way to do it and would confuse the horse I would think. For one thing, it would be unlikely they would try the 'face me' response while being 'chased round' (which we don't do!) and for another it would be hard for them to make the leap between 'stand and face in' and 'walk with me'. If I had to train it I would opt instead for either food based training, or leading with gradually thinner and lighter ropes, and I know others get the same effects from whip training with small light whips to keep the comfortable space next to you (though I would never do this and have never felt the need to try the other two examples). I mean, why do you want the horse to follow you anyway? If its for some ego kick or to look clever, then sure, train him to follow, but if its to allow him the opportunity to choose to be with you, then using join up is for you. Incidentally, while talking of natural instincts and behaviours,  I heard from an angler once that join up is not that different from the process used by fish ticklers to catch fish by hand  apparently you sort of follow the fish with your hand and then draw your hand away and the fish follows. I've no idea if this is true but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. We also have to question what we mean by 'natural' anyway, as soon as a person is involved it isn't really entirely natural, and I'm wary of searching for some holy grail of 'naturalness' that would legitimate training ethically,  I think it's more important that our horsemanship is kind, consistent and pain free than necessarily natural as such  though I can of course see why using the horses natural instincts might help us to achieve this. Join up, I'd say, certainly works on the horses natural instincts, since the response is so immediate,  though I'm pretty sure they do not literally believe us to be equine herd members at the time! 
3)I have just written a dissertation that in part, looks at equine behavioural science and some of its short falls. I am very pro-science and think it has so much to offer but I'd say be wary of thinking that because science says it must be so, there is an awful lot of gaps in current scientific approaches to horse-human relatedness in my opinion! (no room for that here!) Though the recent trial into Monty's training methods did show lower heart rate and  the horses scored higher in the final test than those traditionally trained, as some have noted, there is so much more that needs to be looked at and in some ways this trail was just a starting point  we need MORE science in this field! The way I look at it is this, I'm pretty sensible (you'll have to take my word for that!) and I find join up to be a gentle, calm and subtle way to start off training with a new horse in a positive light. So science hasn't completely proved it yet, but the horses do day after day. Sometimes people start with the theories and then colour the facts to fit them  i.e. 'we don't scientifically know how it works so it probably doesn't'! I'd say its more scientific to start with the facts and then shape the theories around them. To me, from my personal experience, Join up done correctly, IS positive and useful in establishing a good relationship with the horse, bring on more science that looks to explore how and why. 

I will try and address the others as soon as possibleas well as catch up on the other posts from the weekend!


----------



## tess1 (6 June 2012)

Parker79 said:



			^^very good point...my opinion is that* if 'join up' means a horse will consider you their leader...and therefore wont be 'trying it on' so often* then that would probably save that horse a lot of grief in the long run....

for example....*novice does join up....horse now responds better and therefore doesn't get walloped every time it does something remotely 'naughty'.*...in an ideal world this person wouldn't own a horse...but they do! and if MR&KM methods make the lives of the horses better (but not perfect) then surely that is good?
		
Click to expand...




Parker79 said:



			Perhaps once they have become 'open' to learnign they will delve further...*but the way MR & KM have presented their methods is designed for ease of understanding and designed to 'sell' the idea to people* who may not be interested.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but I think that your comments are very representative of how a lot of people feel about MR and KM.

I think the main message that people take away from MR and co is that you need to be the horse's "leader" and they should "respect" you.  So, people try join up (and that can go badly wrong if you are novice at it anyway, and be a very unpleasant, if not downright dangerous experience for the horse) and/or they put duallys on and do lots of backing up out of their space and generally moving the horse around.  So the whole focus is on the holy grail of respect, and leadership - and quite often what they completely fail to do is actually train the horse to do the things they want him to do.  For example, the horse may drag them on the leadrope, spook at everything and nap on a ride.  The owner believes this is because the horse doesn't respect them, so will spend lots of time doing what is really quite aversive groundwork exercises with the horse in order to gain dominance/respect/leadership (pick your term - I think in a lot of these instances they are pretty much boiling down to the same thing).  A more accurate assessment may identify that the horse's management is inappropriate, or there are pain issues, or simply, and very commonly, the horse lacks confidence because they have not been gradually, repeatedly and consistently exposed to all the things they need to deal with, whilst at the same time being taught clearly and fairly how to deal with them.  If many "training sessions" involve aversives and the horse being over-faced and/or doing things they find boring or unpleasant the horse will also lack motivation to particpate and interact with the human.  People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then *put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them.* 

So, to me, the whole theory is backwards.  Instead of worrying about becoming the leader, I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can.  Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers.  If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate.  Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task.   They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests.  They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with.  And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong.  I think if more people focussed on developing these qualities, then the "leadership" and "respect" aspects of the relationship would develop as a natural off-shoot - the horse learns to trust the handler because the handler doesn't do stuff to scare the horse, isn't unpredictably or overly aggressive or aversive to the horse and consistently confirms to the horse when he is doing the right thing.  So being a good, thoughtful trainer, I think, would almost automatically make you a good leader - whereas focussing on leadership may well have the outcome of making you a bully in the eyes of the horse - and as Lucy Rees argues, horses don't automatically choose to follow a bully.  I don't think, personally, that the way to establish a good relationship with a horse is to get into an enclosed space and act like a predator, or put devices on their heads that are designed to hurt and then use them to make the horse move around.  You might see something that looks a bit like "respect" - of course the horse will become much more aware and watchful of the human, but that is because the horse has identified the human as something capable of showing unpredictable, aversive behaviour, and the horse cannot escape from them.  Lucy Rees argues that horses naturally avoid, not submit.

What people see when they go to a demo by MR or others is horses being scared - for example with plastic bags, or tarps, or clippers or horse boxes and the horses are being forced to deal with the issue because they are in an enclosed space, with a pressure halter on their head, and have had some pretty strong mind-games played with them before they even confront the thing they fear.  Horses can be taught to deal with all those things without force - if MR can speak the language of equus why does he need to keep jerking on a lead rope attached to a dually - horses don't do that to each other!  MR and KM go half way there - it's better than a lot of the sheer, obvious violence that a lot of people still resort to but it is in no way as kind as it is made out - and the horses do not have choice.  It could be so much better if things were made a bit easier for the horses, and the force was removed.  The question is, could they do it without the coercive gadgets they now rely on?


----------



## MissMistletoe (6 June 2012)

Really well thought out post ^^^^.

For me, it pin points the observations that I have made over the years watching MR and other similar trainers and the owners who have put the methods into practice.

I was, however, impressed watching Michael Peace, but can only judge that on one occasion at one demo. He appeared to display great empathy towards the horses.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (6 June 2012)

The 1 display I went to didn't include any control halter, i use one for leading a big strong horse, mainly to bring in and turn out, it is little different than wrapping the lead rope round the nose which I used to do with my bargy pony, and still need to sometimes when he is on restricted grazing, I train my horses in the main in the tack they are ridden in given that's what I want to do, and am doing with them. I'm sure you're premises may be true for some, but please credit many of us with the ability to simply add these strategies to the other training techniques we use for our horses. Most people want a safe horse that they can ride and enjoy, it's hard to imagine all these people endlessly doing groundwork to exert 'leadership'. I think you are quibbling about semantics quite frankly. Leader...trainer..respect..confidence in all honesty where's the difference.


----------



## ContinentalRescue (6 June 2012)

I haven't read through all the thread, but I think to pigeon hole something as being perfect or not being perfect is a very dangerous thing to do. Just as with people, horses will learn at different levels and using different techniques. I love the idea to try and better them instead, and to get them where they are not only understanding what it is you ask of them, but are willing to do it too.


----------



## neelie OAP (6 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but I think that your comments are very representative of how a lot of people feel about MR and KM.

I think the main message that people take away from MR and co is that you need to be the horse's "leader" and they should "respect" you.  So, people try join up (and that can go badly wrong if you are novice at it anyway, and be a very unpleasant, if not downright dangerous experience for the horse) and/or they put duallys on and do lots of backing up out of their space and generally moving the horse around.  So the whole focus is on the holy grail of respect, and leadership - and quite often what they completely fail to do is actually train the horse to do the things they want him to do.  For example, the horse may drag them on the leadrope, spook at everything and nap on a ride.  The owner believes this is because the horse doesn't respect them, so will spend lots of time doing what is really quite aversive groundwork exercises with the horse in order to gain dominance/respect/leadership (pick your term - I think in a lot of these instances they are pretty much boiling down to the same thing).  A more accurate assessment may identify that the horse's management is inappropriate, or there are pain issues, or simply, and very commonly, the horse lacks confidence because they have not been gradually, repeatedly and consistently exposed to all the things they need to deal with, whilst at the same time being taught clearly and fairly how to deal with them.  If many "training sessions" involve aversives and the horse being over-faced and/or doing things they find boring or unpleasant the horse will also lack motivation to particpate and interact with the human.  People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then *put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them.* 

So, to me, the whole theory is backwards.  Instead of worrying about becoming the leader, I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can.  Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers.  If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate.  Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task.   They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests.  They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with.  And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong.  I think if more people focussed on developing these qualities, then the "leadership" and "respect" aspects of the relationship would develop as a natural off-shoot - the horse learns to trust the handler because the handler doesn't do stuff to scare the horse, isn't unpredictably or overly aggressive or aversive to the horse and consistently confirms to the horse when he is doing the right thing.  So being a good, thoughtful trainer, I think, would almost automatically make you a good leader - whereas focussing on leadership may well have the outcome of making you a bully in the eyes of the horse - and as Lucy Rees argues, horses don't automatically choose to follow a bully.  I don't think, personally, that the way to establish a good relationship with a horse is to get into an enclosed space and act like a predator, or put devices on their heads that are designed to hurt and then use them to make the horse move around.  You might see something that looks a bit like "respect" - of course the horse will become much more aware and watchful of the human, but that is because the horse has identified the human as something capable of showing unpredictable, aversive behaviour, and the horse cannot escape from them.  Lucy Rees argues that horses naturally avoid, not submit.

What people see when they go to a demo by MR or others is horses being scared - for example with plastic bags, or tarps, or clippers or horse boxes and the horses are being forced to deal with the issue because they are in an enclosed space, with a pressure halter on their head, and have had some pretty strong mind-games played with them before they even confront the thing they fear.  Horses can be taught to deal with all those things without force - if MR can speak the language of equus why does he need to keep jerking on a lead rope attached to a dually - horses don't do that to each other!  MR and KM go half way there - it's better than a lot of the sheer, obvious violence that a lot of people still resort to but it is in no way as kind as it is made out - and the horses do not have choice.  It could be so much better if things were made a bit easier for the horses, and the force was removed.  The question is, could they do it without the coercive gadgets they now rely on?
		
Click to expand...

Although I aways try to keep an open mind on these matters , there is 'always another way' of doing things, I agree totally with your post, and that there is no better teacher than the horse, it just depends whether we are prepared to listen or not !


----------



## eahotson (6 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but I think that your comments are very representative of how a lot of people feel about MR and KM.

I think the main message that people take away from MR and co is that you need to be the horse's "leader" and they should "respect" you.  So, people try join up (and that can go badly wrong if you are novice at it anyway, and be a very unpleasant, if not downright dangerous experience for the horse) and/or they put duallys on and do lots of backing up out of their space and generally moving the horse around.  So the whole focus is on the holy grail of respect, and leadership - and quite often what they completely fail to do is actually train the horse to do the things they want him to do.  For example, the horse may drag them on the leadrope, spook at everything and nap on a ride.  The owner believes this is because the horse doesn't respect them, so will spend lots of time doing what is really quite aversive groundwork exercises with the horse in order to gain dominance/respect/leadership (pick your term - I think in a lot of these instances they are pretty much boiling down to the same thing).  A more accurate assessment may identify that the horse's management is inappropriate, or there are pain issues, or simply, and very commonly, the horse lacks confidence because they have not been gradually, repeatedly and consistently exposed to all the things they need to deal with, whilst at the same time being taught clearly and fairly how to deal with them.  If many "training sessions" involve aversives and the horse being over-faced and/or doing things they find boring or unpleasant the horse will also lack motivation to particpate and interact with the human.  People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then *put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them.* 

So, to me, the whole theory is backwards.  Instead of worrying about becoming the leader, I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can.  Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers.  If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate.  Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task.   They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests.  They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with.  And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong.  I think if more people focussed on developing these qualities, then the "leadership" and "respect" aspects of the relationship would develop as a natural off-shoot - the horse learns to trust the handler because the handler doesn't do stuff to scare the horse, isn't unpredictably or overly aggressive or aversive to the horse and consistently confirms to the horse when he is doing the right thing.  So being a good, thoughtful trainer, I think, would almost automatically make you a good leader - whereas focussing on leadership may well have the outcome of making you a bully in the eyes of the horse - and as Lucy Rees argues, horses don't automatically choose to follow a bully.  I don't think, personally, that the way to establish a good relationship with a horse is to get into an enclosed space and act like a predator, or put devices on their heads that are designed to hurt and then use them to make the horse move around.  You might see something that looks a bit like "respect" - of course the horse will become much more aware and watchful of the human, but that is because the horse has identified the human as something capable of showing unpredictable, aversive behaviour, and the horse cannot escape from them.  Lucy Rees argues that horses naturally avoid, not submit.

What people see when they go to a demo by MR or others is horses being scared - for example with plastic bags, or tarps, or clippers or horse boxes and the horses are being forced to deal with the issue because they are in an enclosed space, with a pressure halter on their head, and have had some pretty strong mind-games played with them before they even confront the thing they fear.  Horses can be taught to deal with all those things without force - if MR can speak the language of equus why does he need to keep jerking on a lead rope attached to a dually - horses don't do that to each other!  MR and KM go half way there - it's better than a lot of the sheer, obvious violence that a lot of people still resort to but it is in no way as kind as it is made out - and the horses do not have choice.  It could be so much better if things were made a bit easier for the horses, and the force was removed.  The question is, could they do it without the coercive gadgets they now rely on?
		
Click to expand...

Like a lot.


----------



## fburton (6 June 2012)

ContinentalRescue said:



			I love the idea to try and better them instead, and to get them where they are not only understanding what it is you ask of them, but are willing to do it too.
		
Click to expand...

I do too - it is very important to me.

We all want our horses to cooperate with us willingly. So what is the hallmark of willingness? Can we tell when a horse is willing and when he is 'merely' obedient or well-trained? Are they really the same?? I like to think they are different, though in some cases I think it is quite hard to tell them apart, especially if one only looks at the end product. Can a horse that has been coerced or even forced into doing something later become truly willing to do so through habit and a process of acceptance? Maybe we also need to know how the end product was achieved. What does 'truly willing' actually mean?


----------



## amandap (6 June 2012)

The main message I've got from IH is no violence, listen to the horse and look at all options (from around the world) keeping your mind open and thinking through problems from the horses point of view. I have never got you have to be the horses leader specifically from IH, getting the horse to work _with_ you yes. Never hit or be violent is a fundamental that goes through all this work but many see IH and Monty as violent as has been demonstrated on this thread. Of course we all carry buckstoppers and use them at every available opportunity.   
For me making that fundamental decision never to hit, forces you to look to other ways of doing things. For me that is so important.
IH I have found is composed of people with very different back grounds, aspirations and they are often at very different places in their personal journeys. Generally the respect for horses is carried through to respect for people which certainly is not my experience of some of those who consider themselves kinder, more educated and generally 'better' than others of different thinking.

'Leader' is to me a totally useless descriptor these days as it has become meaningless. I am an owner, care giver, teacher and am responsible for the health and well being of my horses. There is no longer a word that fits this for me.

Judging when horses are well, happy to cooperate and generally content with life is once again very personal. No method or theory will guarantee happy and willing horses despite how 'kind' people think and believe it is. The only judge is the horse (as always) and my goal in my horse life is to learn to read my horses better so I can gauge how I'm doing as objectively as I can. No theory or rationale imo will automatically produce a content horse.

ps.fburton what is "YMMV" please?


----------



## fburton (6 June 2012)

amandap said:



			ps.fburton what is "YMMV" please?
		
Click to expand...

From the online Urban Dictionary: "Literally, 'Your Mileage May Vary,' coming from the small print in (American?) automobile commercials in the 70's and 80's. It has come to mean an acknowledgement that the opinion of the poster may not be shared by everyone." I should try harder in future not to use arbitrary TLAs (or even FLAs), sorry! 

I like what you wrote, especially the bit about the horse being the only judge.


----------



## Ladyinred (6 June 2012)

fburton said:



			From the online Urban Dictionary: "Literally, 'Your Mileage May Vary,' coming from the small print in (American?) automobile commercials in the 70's and 80's. It has come to mean an acknowledgement that the opinion of the poster may not be shared by everyone." I should try harder in future not to use arbitrary TLAs (or even FLAs), sorry! 

I like what you wrote, especially the bit about the horse being the only judge.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, me too. Very true words.


----------



## FairyLights (6 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but I think that your comments are very representative of how a lot of people feel about MR and KM.

I think the main message that people take away from MR and co is that you need to be the horse's "leader" and they should "respect" you.  So, people try join up (and that can go badly wrong if you are novice at it anyway, and be a very unpleasant, if not downright dangerous experience for the horse) and/or they put duallys on and do lots of backing up out of their space and generally moving the horse around.  So the whole focus is on the holy grail of respect, and leadership - and quite often what they completely fail to do is actually train the horse to do the things they want him to do.  For example, the horse may drag them on the leadrope, spook at everything and nap on a ride.  The owner believes this is because the horse doesn't respect them, so will spend lots of time doing what is really quite aversive groundwork exercises with the horse in order to gain dominance/respect/leadership (pick your term - I think in a lot of these instances they are pretty much boiling down to the same thing).  A more accurate assessment may identify that the horse's management is inappropriate, or there are pain issues, or simply, and very commonly, the horse lacks confidence because they have not been gradually, repeatedly and consistently exposed to all the things they need to deal with, whilst at the same time being taught clearly and fairly how to deal with them.  If many "training sessions" involve aversives and the horse being over-faced and/or doing things they find boring or unpleasant the horse will also lack motivation to particpate and interact with the human.  People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then *put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them.* 

So, to me, the whole theory is backwards.  Instead of worrying about becoming the leader, I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can.  Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers.  If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate.  Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task.   They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests.  They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with.  And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong.  I think if more people focussed on developing these qualities, then the "leadership" and "respect" aspects of the relationship would develop as a natural off-shoot - the horse learns to trust the handler because the handler doesn't do stuff to scare the horse, isn't unpredictably or overly aggressive or aversive to the horse and consistently confirms to the horse when he is doing the right thing.  So being a good, thoughtful trainer, I think, would almost automatically make you a good leader - whereas focussing on leadership may well have the outcome of making you a bully in the eyes of the horse - and as Lucy Rees argues, horses don't automatically choose to follow a bully.  I don't think, personally, that the way to establish a good relationship with a horse is to get into an enclosed space and act like a predator, or put devices on their heads that are designed to hurt and then use them to make the horse move around.  You might see something that looks a bit like "respect" - of course the horse will become much more aware and watchful of the human, but that is because the horse has identified the human as something capable of showing unpredictable, aversive behaviour, and the horse cannot escape from them.  Lucy Rees argues that horses naturally avoid, not submit.

What people see when they go to a demo by MR or others is horses being scared - for example with plastic bags, or tarps, or clippers or horse boxes and the horses are being forced to deal with the issue because they are in an enclosed space, with a pressure halter on their head, and have had some pretty strong mind-games played with them before they even confront the thing they fear.  Horses can be taught to deal with all those things without force - if MR can speak the language of equus why does he need to keep jerking on a lead rope attached to a dually - horses don't do that to each other!  MR and KM go half way there - it's better than a lot of the sheer, obvious violence that a lot of people still resort to but it is in no way as kind as it is made out - and the horses do not have choice.  It could be so much better if things were made a bit easier for the horses, and the force was removed.  The question is, could they do it without the coercive gadgets they now rely on?
		
Click to expand...

Excellent post.


----------



## Equilibrium Ireland (6 June 2012)

Tess1, great post. 

Terri


----------



## rosiejones (7 June 2012)

I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can. Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers. If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate. Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task. They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests. They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with. And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong

This is about as acurate a description of ih as you can get!! Your arguing for our approach as part of your argument against it!
I just taught a 2 day practical skills course that focussed specifically on these skills, on working out how to stretch the horses training at a speed that is comfortable, how to keep training enjoyable, how to use problem solving thinking to come up with individualised training plans that work for each horse and owner. 
You would love kellys books as actually some of what you are saying is coming from a very very similar place! It's almost a catchphrase of kellys to say "set the horse up for success". 
Did you notice that in recent demos the loading horses work over wooden boards, under tarpaulin tunnels and through narrow spaces before trying to load? It's a clear example of incremental learning, which is a massive part of ih training.

You know RAs are put working with problem horses and owners day to day, in different facilities and with different owner skill set and owner attitudes, we are pretty used to finding adaptive solutions! Yes leadership is part of the story, surely though you have noticed that training is always more successful with calm, confident, consistent handler/riders? It's just that ih actively tries to train these qualities in handlers and riders. 

I also think your overcomlicatibg join up to refer to it as mind games! That's very anthropomorphic, it's just using body language to encourage the horse to engage positively with you, and to set up a line of subtle communication that will help to establish aids without any stress or evasion from the beginning, for instance, look at how easy it is to teach a horse the aids on longlines after join up.


----------



## rosiejones (7 June 2012)

Interesting about willingness, I specialise on turning round nappy or sour horses and getting them enjoying work again. This certainly can't be done by force, apart from my own ethical feelings on that, many are so far gone into fighting with peoples requests that it would beimpossible. So I spend a lot of time working out how to get the horse to engage happily with his work again. I've got enough thoughts on if to fill a book so won't go into masses of detail here but just wanted to sat it's a subject that I love! Mainly, in a nutshell, I think it's about finding something the horse does say yes to and working from there, which often requires close observation of which rewards work for the horse, how they show minor level stress and how this is eased, lateral thinking to come up with each stage of training, and an acute awareness of body language and timing to really set you up for success, since the most important thing with training willingness is that you never put the horse in a situation where he needs to say no, you only ever work through yes and maybe. Sounds all very abstract and obvious I suppose without specific horses to show the varioUs practical techniques!


----------



## rosiejones (7 June 2012)

People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them
So to me the whole theory is backwards.


Just to be clear: totally agree with you this theory is backwards... It so definitely NOT ih though!! It's exactly what we are teaching against!


----------



## rosiejones (7 June 2012)

For example (to take this from something I read earlier on another forum) join up is much more about "you will" rather than "will you" - but Monty says things like "the horse is chosing to be with me" - well, there's not a lot of choice when you are in a small space and someone is chasing you round it by flicking a lunge line at you - at some point the horse is going to stop and figure out plan B - and if they revert to plan A they just get chased again. So there is no choice as far as the horse is concerned, and if that was clearly presented at least people could make an informed decision about whether they thought join up was a good idea or not"

I'd have to say the idea that a horse follows because he has to within 10 minutes is madness! He could very easy not follow: he could kick out, keep running, or simply evade catching. I I've met small ponies who had learned to evade being caught in a stable!


----------



## wilder (7 June 2012)

when i first approached the ih method  i admit i was amazed at what they could do with the horse and wanted to find out more so i went to the demos, sadly i was disappointed by what i saw i was also very uncomfortable and it was actually going to the demos that made me look for something else that fell into my ethos of working with the horse, i do not like the dually and could not work with it due to my horse having nose damage but it seems this is part of the standard kit, it was actually an ra at one of the demos that i thought had got it all wrong her body language was very agressive and so was her yanking on the dually although i will admit there was a male ra who was very good and the horse responded accordingly
years later i have moved on and i really think the monty roberts method is  just that it is an introduction when you know nothing else but as time goes by you have questions that they just can not answer and you move on and as you move on you become a little more dubious about the ethics and ethos of the non-violence message when you have a more experienced eye watching what they do
years later i was at a stables and proceeded to watch a man (who is fully endorsed by montys methods) fetch a horse who he could do nothing with, he unloaded the horse (with the use of 6 panels) into a schooling arena and then yank yank yank on the dually the poor horse just wanted to look at her new surroundings, i knew then that moving on was the right choice


----------



## eahotson (7 June 2012)

Thanks for taking the time to reply Rosie.Just a couple of things.You say join up can be done very subtly and in a walk but all those I have seen done on the DVDs and at, admittedly one demo,show very assertive body language and have never been done in the walk.
Everything seems to have to be done in a hurry! Nature of demos I supose but WHY must a horse be backed SO quickly.What do you gain from it?I know you don't want to take for ever but most people seem to take between, roughly 3 to 6 weeks from start to haveing the horse ride out in 3 paces  calmly.This practice smacks to me of the ranches where horses had to be broken quickly because there was a lot of them, they were needed for work and no one had much time.
  I worry that IH is becoming a bit personality led like,for instance, the Parellis.
You talk about customizing training but, again admittedly from the small amount I have seen EVERYTHING starts with join up.No one ever says 'We are not doing join up with this horse because or we are doing join up with this horse because'.Perhaps Kellys courses which are, of course, more leisurely than a demo can make things clearer.
I don't like the absolutes sometimes.Stops you from thinking very often.You must NEVER use titbits.Well I know an excellent trainer who does and his horses have manners to die for.He does use them consistently though, not randomly, the horses know when they get them and when they don't.Don't allow your horse to invade your space its disrespectful.I was standing in my stable with my nice kind cob.He comes to stand next to me, quite close actually, so that we can look out over the yard together.It felt safe and friendly, like he wanted to spend time with a friend. I liked it.No I didn't send him away.
Again a completely personal point of view.Kellys horses, while clearly mannerly looked relaxed and happy with her and she is clearly fond of them.Copy, who was ridden by Monty looked wooden to me and as though he had just given up.


----------



## amandap (7 June 2012)

I'd like to thank Rosie Jones, Sarah Weston etc. for taking the time to explain to others who see IH in only a negative light. 

As for IH only being for "those who know nothing", well, that might be true in my case but I believe it is for those who are getting in a pickle and need some guidance and support on how to be more clear for their horses. Everyone is encouraged to move on and develop in their own way. It is also for those who want to learn the basics of communicating in a more effective way with horses and those who want to stop having a daily fight with their horses. 

Perhaps those who think they know better ways can increase their exposure and get their message out in a bigger way rather than riding on the back of constant criticism of those trying to do that. That would make a refreshing change.


----------



## fburton (7 June 2012)

amandap said:



			I'd like to thank Rosie Jones, Sarah Weston etc. for taking the time to explain to others who see IH in only a negative light.
		
Click to expand...

Seconded! Thank you.


----------



## amandap (7 June 2012)

fburton said:



			Touché, Amandap - good point! 

How about striving to _improve_ instead? (i.e. heading in the _direction_ of an unattainable "perfection")

Of course, that still presupposes we can define what is good and bad in a meaningful way - otherwise what does "make the lives of the horses better" mean?
		
Click to expand...

Apologies, I didn't respond. Also it is off topic. lol

I do agree striving to improve is necessary. The problem for me comes when we start to try and quantify it and assume there is a defined end goal.

I can only see it as a continuum with mini goals along the way. I cannot untangle our personal journey/growth and continued learning to give a 'perfect' goal because I believe it is ever changing as we learn more in general and more about our individual horses and ourselves. Perfection is no where in my thinking as that immediately puts our human preconceived notion on something and imo causes us to be limited and even blinkered. 

Constantly striving to learn more and practice, practice what we learn that is ethical to us at that time. It is a constantly changing and improving picture in my eyes. I have found improvements are often noticed in retrospect so taking time to evaluate is important. 

Don't know if that makes sense.


----------



## RuthM (7 June 2012)

I haven't read the whole thread (ye gads!), but I think the biggest problem is that 'famous' folk in general are aiming at profit from the biggest market available and that means encouraging people to break horses at home.

I really get why people want to break their own horses but generally I think it's second best to do so. The experience of breaking horse after horse after horse is priceless, the first dozen or so just begin the education, but in a reputable yard that education is under very close scrutiny and hugely supported - and so it goes on. By the time a person is fully up and running they have so many solutions inside their head and so much to draw on when things are truly difficult. I don't think it's thesort of skill that can really be demo'd or successfully passed on in writing dvd etc, I think it takes years of daily practice, harsh criticism, high standards and hands on education. 

Of course none of the above applies unless the yard has the reputation to match, locally, where it's not about headlining a flash in the pan triumph but instead a steady, consistant flow of positive results that stay positive when the horse goes home. 

Apart from anything else, unless the community supports such yards the skills won't keep going down the generations and they will be lost over time. Busy, good yards hold some of the most valuable assets the horseworld has. But, there's more money in fame and merchandise.


----------



## Tinypony (7 June 2012)

RuthM said:



			I haven't read the whole thread (ye gads!), but I think the biggest problem is that 'famous' folk in general are aiming at profit from the biggest market available and that means encouraging people to break horses at home.

I really get why people want to break their own horses but generally I think it's second best to do so. The experience of breaking horse after horse after horse is priceless, the first dozen or so just begin the education, but in a reputable yard that education is under very close scrutiny and hugely supported - and so it goes on. By the time a person is fully up and running they have so many solutions inside their head and so much to draw on when things are truly difficult. I don't think it's thesort of skill that can really be demo'd or successfully passed on in writing dvd etc, I think it takes years of daily practice, harsh criticism, high standards and hands on education. 

Of course none of the above applies unless the yard has the reputation to match, locally, where it's not about headlining a flash in the pan triumph but instead a steady, consistant flow of positive results that stay positive when the horse goes home. 

Apart from anything else, unless the community supports such yards the skills won't keep going down the generations and they will be lost over time. Busy, good yards hold some of the most valuable assets the horseworld has. But, there's more money in fame and merchandise.
		
Click to expand...

Does Monty encourage people to break horses at home?  I didn't think he did, I thought he encouraged owners to go to Kelly and her RA's.  Pat Parelli definitely doesn't encourage people to start their own horses, he actively discourages it, telling students regularly that they have to be at a certain (high) Parelli level before attempting young horse starting.  In fact, I've been to loads of demos and clinics, and I can't think of one trainer who would encourage the regular horse owner to start their own.  

I do think that horse owners are questioning some of the accepted wisdom on how to start and bring on a young horse though, and that is why there is such an interest in people like the RA's and others to do the job.


----------



## neelie OAP (7 June 2012)

RuthM said:



			I haven't read the whole thread (ye gads!), but I think the biggest problem is that 'famous' folk in general are aiming at profit from the biggest market available and that means encouraging people to break horses at home.

I really get why people want to break their own horses but generally I think it's second best to do so. The experience of breaking horse after horse after horse is priceless, the first dozen or so just begin the education, but in a reputable yard that education is under very close scrutiny and hugely supported - and so it goes on. By the time a person is fully up and running they have so many solutions inside their head and so much to draw on when things are truly difficult. I don't think it's thesort of skill that can really be demo'd or successfully passed on in writing dvd etc, I think it takes years of daily practice, harsh criticism, high standards and hands on education. 

Of course none of the above applies unless the yard has the reputation to match, locally, where it's not about headlining a flash in the pan triumph but instead a steady, consistant flow of positive results that stay positive when the horse goes home. 

Apart from anything else, unless the community supports such yards the skills won't keep going down the generations and they will be lost over time. Busy, good yards hold some of the most valuable assets the horseworld has. But, there's more money in fame and merchandise.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes you have raised some very valid points here agreed, but these good busy yards are becoming few and far between now unfortunatley, hence MR,KM,IH etc etc !


----------



## amandap (7 June 2012)

This is Sarah Weston's blog so you can see the sort of stuff she gets up to. 
http://www.sarahweston.co.uk/


----------



## PaddyMonty (7 June 2012)

Havn't read all this thread but the one thing that stood out from the parts I did read was that most of NH is common sense.  I dont actually agree with this. Its only common sense if you understand the issue you are dealing with.
As for all the various NH methods? My thoughts.....
If you start from the premis that all horses have simple goals /reactions ie
They want to feel safe, survive and will take the path of least resisitance to achieve this then you are on the right track.
With this in mind it follows that to train a horse you simply need to make the desire behaviour the one that is easiest for the horse.
Now the tricky part is making that happen.  To do that you need to understand the horse you have in front of you and select the method appropriate to that horse as an individual. This is what can not be gained from a book, DVD or any other media. Only from years of working with many different horses can this be learned.
Once you understand the horse in front of you it becomes fairly simple to work out the stimulus you need to apply to get the required behaviour.
That is where true horsemanship starts be it NH or any other label.
There is not and never will ba a one size fits all.


----------



## Chavhorse (7 June 2012)

PaddyMonty said:



			Havn't read all this thread but the one thing that stood out from the parts I did read was that most of NH is common sense.  I dont actually agree with this. Its only common sense if you understand the issue you are dealing with.
As for all the various NH methods? My thoughts.....
If you start from the premis that all horses have simple goals /reactions ie
They want to feel safe, survive and will take the path of least resisitance to achieve this then you are on the right track.
With this in mind it follows that to train a horse you simply need to make the desire behaviour the one that is easiest for the horse.
Now the tricky part is making that happen.  To do that you need to understand the horse you have in front of you and select the method appropriate to that horse as an individual. This is what can not be gained from a book, DVD or any other media. Only from years of working with many different horses can this be learned.
Once you understand the horse in front of you it becomes fairly simple to work out the stimulus you need to apply to get the required behaviour.
That is where true horsemanship starts be it NH or any other label.
There is not and never will ba a one size fits all.
		
Click to expand...

100% this

An old friend of mine who was a total horseman, approached each horse as an individual (his strong belief was that one size certainly did not fit all), who took pieces from many trainers, never stopped learning, was always open to new methods and owner opinion and was still going off to demonstrations, courses etc at the age of 70, summed it up thus;

"Make the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult and give your horse all the help it needs to suceed"

His other great comment that has stuck with me is;

"You will make mistakes, your horse will make mistakes, as long as you work through them together as a team all will be well".


----------



## eahotson (7 June 2012)

Chavhorse said:



			100% this

An old friend of mine who was a total horseman, approached each horse as an individual (his strong belief was that one size certainly did not fit all), who took pieces from many trainers, never stopped learning, was always open to new methods and owner opinion and was still going off to demonstrations, courses etc at the age of 70, summed it up thus;

"Make the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult and give your horse all the help it needs to suceed"

His other great comment that has stuck with me is;

"You will make mistakes, your horse will make mistakes, as long as you work through them together as a team all will be well".
		
Click to expand...

That you will make mistakes etc.Love.


----------



## Caol Ila (7 June 2012)

Sorry, I was away and this thread expanded.

Completely agree with PaddyMonty.  NH is only "common sense" if you have a good grasp of horse psychology and behaviour.  To be honest, I can't say that I see a lot of NH techniques like join-up and groundwork being used and abused (although I read about it all the time on fora).  What I do see is a lot of antagonistic techniques, treating the horse like a naughty teenager, being employed ineffectively, resulting in barn-fulls of confused horses and frustrated riders.  It's not only a question of technique and what you're actually doing to the horse, but rather the whole philosophy with which you approach the animal.  What I see being propagated is the attitude of "make him do it," based on the fundamental assumption that the horse's main goal is to "get out of work" and your job is therefore to "make him work."  

The NH I grew up learning was not wedded to any one trainer's style or method, but rather approached horses with the basic philosophy that they are cooperative creatures and they also, as Paddy said, want to feel safe and secure and avoid unpleasant things.  You then had to seek out the methods which showed the horse that he could feel safe and secure cooperating with you.  I have always employed any techniques that seemed to work with whatever individual horse I had, ranging from classical dressage, to TTEAM, to round penny stuff.  

This is why my favourite "NH" books are those by Mark Rashid, who writes more "meta-training" books than training books.  They are not step-by-step guides to how to do x, y, and z with your horse, but rather present a more wide-angle view of his whole philosophy through anecdotes, in which you do get an idea of what techniques he uses.  Mark himself is open to a variety of methods depending on the horse he has in front of him.  

There is no good reason why "conventional" riding and NH riding should be so disparate.   In fact, the biggest improvement I made in my dressage happened when I changed my attitude from "make her go on the bit" (which wasn't working very well) to "provide a space for her to go on the bit, encourage her to go there, and make it the nicest space she could possibly be in."  That meant riding, well.. classically.  Soft hands, really soft hands in fact, following seat, clear aids, all the things you should be doing.  Amazing, the difference it made in that horse.  There's the common sense horsemanship for you.  To use that example, ask yourself why a horse would want to come on the aids if your bracing through your arms and hanging on its face?  As far as it can tell, the bit is unpleasant and it is no wonder horses under those circumstances put a great deal of effort into avoiding it.

Anyway, someone earlier asked about my philosophy and that's it.  Every time I see a horse putting a lot of energy into fighting its rider, I think that something has gone wrong in its training and interactions with humans, where it feels that fighting the only way to feel safe and secure and "in balance" (Rashid writes a great deal about this).


----------



## Ladyinred (7 June 2012)

This is why my favourite "NH" books are those by Mark Rashid, who writes more "meta-training" books than training books. They are not step-by-step guides to how to do x, y, and z with your horse, but rather present a more wide-angle view of his whole philosophy through anecdotes, in which you do get an idea of what techniques he uses. Mark himself is open to a variety of methods depending on the horse he has in front of him.
		
Click to expand...


It is surprising how many people are unable to grasp his books and dismiss them as 'stories'. I think he says some pretty profound things, and words that I will carry with me. I don't always agree with his methods but I love his whole philosophy.


----------



## amandap (7 June 2012)

I happen to be a big fan of Mark Rashid btw.  His writing is very thought provoking imo. I haven't read it yet but I believe his new book is very good.


----------



## fburton (7 June 2012)

Caol Ila said:



			The NH I grew up learning was not wedded to any one trainer's style or method, but rather approached horses with the basic philosophy that they are cooperative creatures and they also, as Paddy said, want to feel safe and secure and avoid unpleasant things.  You then had to seek out the methods which showed the horse that he could feel safe and secure cooperating with you.
		
Click to expand...

What about the NH that emphasizes the need to establish the respect that the alpha mare demands and receives from the horses further down the totem pole, where authority and obedience rule the roost? There's quite a lot of that out there too (though perhaps rather more in the US than the UK).

P.S. Big fan of Mark Rashid too!


----------



## fburton (7 June 2012)

amandap said:



			Constantly striving to learn more and practice, practice what we learn that is ethical to us at that time. It is a constantly changing and improving picture in my eyes. I have found improvements are often noticed in retrospect so taking time to evaluate is important. 

Don't know if that makes sense. 

Click to expand...

Perfectly!


----------



## Caol Ila (7 June 2012)

fburton said:



			What about the NH that emphasizes the need to establish the respect that the alpha mare demands and receives from the horses further down the totem pole, where authority and obedience rule the roost? There's quite a lot of that out there too (though perhaps rather more in the US than the UK).

P.S. Big fan of Mark Rashid too!
		
Click to expand...

I'm still refining my own thinking on this based on various things I read and observe but one thing I am sure of is that it always has to be informed by pragmatism.  You do need to establish respect with a horse, as they weigh over 1000lbs and you don't. I for one would rather 1200lbs of Shire-cross not run over me. However, it is my feeling that cooperation and hierarchy are one and the same.  Horses find security in the hierarchy of and relationships within the herd.  By that logic, if they know where they stand in the relationship with their human and accept the human as "alpha," they will feel more secure and confident.  An acting-out horse is often an insecure, worried one who figures that he has to look out for himself as the humans around him seem useless.  

On the other hand, I am reading more and more research which suggests that herd dynamics are more fluid than the strict dominance hierarchy suggested.  

I don't want readers here to think I'm going all hippy dippy and saying we should "bond" with our horses and let them do as they like.  I feel that when I am working with my mare, I am slowly approaching the ideal, as I see it, of getting cooperation, respect, obedience, what-have-you, without "dominance" and antagonism.  It's more difficult to describe it in words on the internet.


----------



## FairyLights (7 June 2012)

One thing I dont like about IH is that many of ts supporters seem to think theres is the only way and everyone else is cruel. Which is absolute rubbish. I've met some real fruit-cakes who spout IH methods. Wouldnt want to let them near any horse with a barge pole TBH. 
they also think they are the only ones who can break and school horses and again TBH most of these  usually women, have great heavy fat doppey cobs which are half dead anyway. There horsemanship is dreadful but they think they are wonderful....................


----------



## Caol Ila (7 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			One thing I dont like about IH is that many of ts supporters seem to think theres is the only way and everyone else is cruel. Which is absolute rubbish. I've met some real fruit-cakes who spout IH methods. Wouldnt want to let them near any horse with a barge pole TBH. 
they also think they are the only ones who can break and school horses and again TBH most of these  usually women, have great heavy fat doppey cobs which are half dead anyway. There horsemanship is dreadful but they think they are wonderful....................
		
Click to expand...

I still have never met any of these people.  And that's living in two different countries, assorted cities, counties, and stables, and I still must be under a rock somewhere.  I only hear about these NH/IH/whatever followers who think "their way is the only way" when I'm footering about on the internet.  Weird!


----------



## Vixen Van Debz (7 June 2012)

Thank you Tess for clearing up the exact situation with the Buckstop in that article for me.

Can I say one thing that I've enjoyed about this thread? The amount of people who engage their brains about what to do and why it works, and the appreciation that one size does not fit all. Unfrotunately, the latter approach I find people can be dogmatic about, be it about training, riding, going unshod etc, and not only does it come across holier than though, such an approach does not appreciate what works best for each individual horse. I've rather enjoyed the thread from this regard 80)


----------



## neelie OAP (7 June 2012)

PaddyMonty said:



			Havn't read all this thread but the one thing that stood out from the parts I did read was that most of NH is common sense.  I dont actually agree with this. Its only common sense if you understand the issue you are dealing with.
As for all the various NH methods? My thoughts.....
If you start from the premis that all horses have simple goals /reactions ie
They want to feel safe, survive and will take the path of least resisitance to achieve this then you are on the right track.
With this in mind it follows that to train a horse you simply need to make the desire behaviour the one that is easiest for the horse.
Now the tricky part is making that happen.  To do that you need to understand the horse you have in front of you and select the method appropriate to that horse as an individual. This is what can not be gained from a book, DVD or any other media. Only from years of working with many different horses can this be learned.
Once you understand the horse in front of you it becomes fairly simple to work out the stimulus you need to apply to get the required behaviour.
That is where true horsemanship starts be it NH or any other label.
There is not and never will ba a one size fits all.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more


----------



## Beetleaway (7 June 2012)

30 pages on I may as well get my bit in there!


-	The IH website states that The organisation is dedicated to bringing the best horsemanship ideas together from around the world to promote understanding and fair treatment of horses through courses , demonstrations and educational materials.. Thought it obviously has a strong connection with Monty Roberts it obviously is not purely an organisation which reflects his methods, they are two separate entities. A lot of people criticising MR/KM and IH seem to be lumping them in together, Im not sure this is wise. Furthermore KM is the head of IH, I wouldnt call her someone who promotes her own method, she also has around 40 Recommended associates many of which have a number of strings to their bow other than the RA status so shouldnt all be regarded as using identical methods.

-	There are a lot of claims as to what an IH method is, many of them conflicting. IH is not MR and vice versa. The IH courses do provide an opportunity to gain the MRPCH and IH also promote join up and dually use where appropriate but these are just tools for certain situations/horses and far from the only things they explore or offer. However Id really recommend a read of The Listening Post which is the IH members magazine (yes I am a memberone membership of many!), the variety of articles really do explore everything and I would wager that you rarely came across the words  IH methods. As the above section from the website suggest it does come across that the fundamental aim is to explore understanding of horses, there is a strong non violence stance which does push the articles in a certain direction but I find it one of the most exploratory magazines available. Whilst I think MR does promote a method I think of IH more as a frame of mind.

-	The fact is that for every person who has had a terrible experience with MR/KM/IH or an RA there is someone who has had a life changing moment, a much improved horse or a positive experience. So the problem is a lack of consistency in the output, not necessarily weakness in the concept itself. 

-	With the above in mind I agree with PaddyMonty that I wouldnt let a lot of people near my horse with a barge pole, IH or otherwise! People spout all kinds of rubbish claiming it comes from a particular method or person because it sounds so much better. In a similar way one person can understand a direction in a very different way to another. Treat each person and their approach as individually as you think your horse should be treated. Just because someone is claiming to use a method doesnt mean they a. Understand the original intention or b. Have the ability to carry them out.


----------



## neelie OAP (7 June 2012)

Beetleaway said:



			30 pages on I may as well get my bit in there!


-	The IH website states that The organisation is dedicated to MR does promote a method I think of IH more as a frame of mind.

-	The fact is that for every person who has had a terrible experience with MR/KM/IH or an RA there is someone who has had a life changing moment, a much improved horse or a positive experience. So the problem is a lack of consistency in the output, not necessarily weakness in the concept itself. 

-	With the above in mind I agree with PaddyMonty that I wouldnt let a lot of people near my horse with a barge pole, IH or otherwise! People spout all kinds of rubbish claiming it comes from a particular method or Understand the original intention or b. Have the ability to carry them out.[/person because it sounds so much better. In a similar way one person can understand a direction in a very different way to another. Treat each person and their approach as individually as you think your horse should be treated. Just because someone is claiming to use a method doesnt mean they a. QUOTE]

There seems to be so many people claiming to be and do all sorts of wonder things with horses out there now, but the actual ability to carry them out seems to be quite another matter, what do they say, yes can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk I wonder
		
Click to expand...


----------



## tess1 (7 June 2012)

rosiejones said:



			I think it would help to just focus on acquiring a really good understanding of how to train horses and how to meet their daily needs as best we can. Good trainers are calm and consistent; they don't get over-emotional, or lose their tempers. If it goes wrong, they take a step back and re-evaluate. Good trainers learn the value of breaking each task down into steps, reinforcing or rewarding every try the horse makes, working at the speed that is correct for that horse and that task. They don't set their horses up to fail, so they don't put the horse in a situation whereby the horse will become too scared or too excited and therefore simply can't respond to the trainer's requests. They expand the horse's comfort zones (and their own) at a pace both can cope with. And they don't blame the horse when it goes wrong

This is about as acurate a description of ih as you can get!! Your arguing for our approach as part of your argument against it!
I just taught a 2 day practical skills course that focussed specifically on these skills, on working out how to stretch the horses training at a speed that is comfortable, how to keep training enjoyable, how to use problem solving thinking to come up with individualised training plans that work for each horse and owner. 
You would love kellys books as actually some of what you are saying is coming from a very very similar place! It's almost a catchphrase of kellys to say "set the horse up for success". 
Did you notice that in recent demos the loading horses work over wooden boards, under tarpaulin tunnels and through narrow spaces before trying to load? It's a clear example of incremental learning, which is a massive part of ih training.

You know RAs are put working with problem horses and owners day to day, in different facilities and with different owner skill set and owner attitudes, we are pretty used to finding adaptive solutions! Yes leadership is part of the story, surely though you have noticed that training is always more successful with calm, confident, consistent handler/riders? It's just that ih actively tries to train these qualities in handlers and riders. 

I also think your overcomlicatibg join up to refer to it as mind games! That's very anthropomorphic, it's just using body language to encourage the horse to engage positively with you, and to set up a line of subtle communication that will help to establish aids without any stress or evasion from the beginning, for instance, look at how easy it is to teach a horse the aids on longlines after join up.
		
Click to expand...

I'd like to make clear that I have respect for the RAs and the job they do.  In my book, anyone who goes out and successfully helps owners and horses is a good thing.  You may well be working with owners in a way I've described (to be honest, I've heard mixed reports, good and bad about RAs, but I've never experienced one personally, so have no grounds to comment.  The only time I ever saw an RA handle a horse I will say that she relied a lot on the dually - but she was not demonstrating training).  However, I know that a lot of what goes on in demos does not fit my description.  There may be a variety of reasons for that; time constraints, keeping the audience entertained, needing to show a result and so on.  But I feel that often horses are taken beyond the point where it would be wise to stop.  Horses are not worked "under-threshold" at demos - they are frequently pushed to the point where they have a reaction (fight or flight), which would occur far less (and only as a result of an error) if the focus were less on time and entertainment and more about the horse.  And let's not forget that there is a huge reliance on the dually in these demos.  Over and over again Monty or Kelly will "school" a horse with a dually (ie, jerk or yank on the lead rope when the horse tries to "leave").  This very quickly teaches the horse that trying to escape is pointless and horses will become temporarily shut-down.  This may well look like "acceptance", but the horse is simply between a rock and hard place - not comfortable with what is happening, but knowing that to try to escape or retaliate will result in more discomfort. 

 I do notice that horses are led over or through a variety of obstacles in demos, and I think it's a good way to train - it's just that quite often I don't like the way it is done.

I don't think it's anthropomorphic to consider that acting like a predator in an enclosed space with a prey animal may well be psychologically difficult for the horse.  Certainly not as anthropomorphic as Monty telling the audience that the horse would like him to be "chairman" of the meeting, or that "this horse thinks wow, I have my own personal predator".  Do you really think that's an accurate assessment of what is going on in the horse's mind?


----------



## mulledwhine (7 June 2012)

Ok here goes, we may not like everything we read, see , watch.

When I had my mini jockey, I found there was a life long load of books telling me what to do!!!!

I bought the ones that seemed to suit me, I bought about 3 of them , and then picked and choosed the parts that suited me and baby!!

So I use that for my equines as well, although I dont really buy horse books, as I find I have a better common sense when it comes to them ( although use here for a second op  )

Just trying to say that one way may not suit all, but bits and bobs put together may make for the perfect situation!!!

Sorry


----------



## tess1 (7 June 2012)

rosiejones said:



			For example (to take this from something I read earlier on another forum) join up is much more about "you will" rather than "will you" - but Monty says things like "the horse is chosing to be with me" - well, there's not a lot of choice when you are in a small space and someone is chasing you round it by flicking a lunge line at you - at some point the horse is going to stop and figure out plan B - and if they revert to plan A they just get chased again. So there is no choice as far as the horse is concerned, and if that was clearly presented at least people could make an informed decision about whether they thought join up was a good idea or not"

I'd have to say the idea that a horse follows because he has to within 10 minutes is madness! He could very easy not follow: he could kick out, keep running, or simply evade catching. I I've met small ponies who had learned to evade being caught in a stable!
		
Click to expand...



You're right, it would be madness to think that join-up took place in ten minutes.  Join-up is a combination of the horse's natural behaviour and learning.  In a demo situation, prior to being worked in the round pen by Monty the horses are worked by RAs - during this time the horses learn about duallys, and about what happens if they don't keep slack in the leadrope and stay in a particular "bubble" of space by the handler.  They learn this in the round pen.  Generally speaking learning can be very context specific, and the round pen is an important context for the learning about the dually, and the appropriate leading behaviour.  So there's a very specific context, and a very salient set of reinforcers and punishers associated with what is frequently a new piece of kit to the horse (the dually).  

When Monty takes a horse into the round pen, prior to join up he works the horse on the dually.  Quite often I don't even think the audience realise what he is doing, because he will be chatting away, but at the same time continually positioning the horse where he wants it to be, stopping, starting, backing up and changing direction. Sometimes he will get a bit of plastic on a stick or something to "show the audience how spooky the horse is" which often results in the horse trying to "leave".  Of course he fails, which reinforces in the horse's mind that trying to get away results in discomfort/pain (depending on how hard he tries).  But all of this is teaching the horse that there is a "bubble" where there is no physical discomfort, and outside of that "bubble" things get scary and uncomfortable or painful.  

When Monty takes the horse off the line and drives the horse away, quite often the horses don't even want to leave - they've already figured out the "rules".  When they are first driven away they do sometimes kick out and are obviously looking to evade - however it doesn't take them long to figure out there is no escape.  As Monty says himself, they will run the flight distance or thereabouts, and then start looking for another solution to the problem.  The four signals seen are obviously natural body langague (although not used as horses use them with one another) but they are reliable and Monty has obviously identified them as a set of signals that horses display when the are uncomfortable with the status quo.  When the signals are observed the pressure is gradually reduced on the horse.  When the horse stops, and the pressure is removed by the passive body language of the human, many horses will immediately want to return (albeit a little tentatively at first) to the "bubble" where they felt safe.  If horses don't walk forward Monty walks infront of the horses in an arc (in a similar way to asking a reluctant horse to step forward on the lead line).  Sometimes, if the horse is particularly "stuck", he will even take hold of the halter and move the horse forward through pressure, then releasing it.  Both of these signals remind the horse that it is better to be close to the human than feeling pressure from the dually and line, and so they follow the human.  If it seems like they are about to move away, Monty often changes direction - earlier when he worked the horse it would have been obvious that the horse had figured out that it is much easier to change direction when the handler does than deal with the consequences - pressure from the headcollar.  It does not matter that the line is not attached - the negative reinforcement and positive punishment is salient enough for the horse to want to return to the "safe bubble" - but you are right, it is not happening in ten minutes, it is happening all the time the horse is being handled prior to the join up - and it is because the horse is being _taught_ where the safe area is through the continued use of aversives when he is outside the "bubble" - not because he is independently choosing to go there.  So, yes, I do think this is a very powerful mind game to play with the horse - "stay with me, or life becomes a lot harder for you.  If it was human to human we would call it bullying, or domestic violence ... or am I being anthropomorphic again


----------



## tess1 (7 June 2012)

rosiejones said:



			People frequently "throw horses in at the deep end" with little preparation and then put the blame on the horse when things go wrong by saying he's dominant, or he doesn't respect them
So to me the whole theory is backwards.


Just to be clear: totally agree with you this theory is backwards... It so definitely NOT ih though!! It's exactly what we are teaching against!
		
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, my post said "learn to be a good trainer, and the horse will learn to trust you, and the 'respect' and 'leadership' aspects will happen as a natural off-shoot of good training skills".

In the book Perfect Manners, Kelly Marks says "First things first.  Before doing anything else you *first need to establish trust and respect* and create a bond with your horse".  This is on page 87 - "The art of join up".

So, yes, to me, the theory still reads backwards.  Kelly advocates join-up as the way of gaining trust and respect - as opposed to good, solid training skills which give the horse a basis to build his trust on.  And, on the IH forum, when people have "problems" with their horses, many of the answers contain the inevitable "he's testing your leadership".  So, it seems to me that Kelly, and a lot of IH followers believe that "respect" comes before "training".


----------



## eahotson (8 June 2012)

tess1 I noticed Monty working the horses on the dually in the round pen before join up.I noticed that he talked a lot, telling stories and thought that it was possibly to distract the audience.I made a point of screening out the chat and watching! He did exactly what you said.


----------



## rosiejones (8 June 2012)

Hi tess, 
Only a couple of points then I'm done! 
1) horses are not schooled by RAs before being handed to monty, he actually asks you not to as he wants the audience to see everything.
2) your description of join up is slightly off in terms of timing. You don't release the pressure after you see the signs, the horse will only show the signs if you have taken enough pressure off first. Similarly, you don't release the pressure when he stops ( why would he stop while you are 'chasing' him? You use body language to invite him to you then he turns in. These small details re timing add more weight to the argument that it isn't learning theory and the horse is not forced. He could very easily not come in or not follow or not be caught. It's like suggesting you could teach an war shy horse not to lift his head by pinching his ears when he does, or a bolting horse to stop by hitting him when he runs. The target behaviour is not encouraged by the stimulus, chasing the horse o teach him to follow just wouldnt work, and certainly not that quickly.

3) confused by your dislike of the dually, what do you do if a horse tries to leave or run into you? 

4) my main learning point from your posts is that we need to make sure we get the adaptive, subtle, clever, flexible, horse centred ih across in  Kellys demos. It seems like we really are on the same page in many ways so it's sad that you have not felt positively engaged with ih.

Not sure il get time to come on here again for a while it's been hard to keep up with it but Thankyou all for the engaging discussion!!


----------



## HuntingPink (8 June 2012)

Thank you Tess and all, you've explained something that's been niggling at me for a while.  

I started out with Parelli but found it too harsh so moved onto IH.  I have to say that it worked but there was something that I couldn't put my finger on, it still seemed to be all about dominance.  Now I haven't got a problem with boundaries and teaching manners but I'm not convinced thatMonty or IH are about kindness, it's still about forcing the horse to comply IMHO.

I'd been advised to watch Join Up videos without the sound and was really shocked.  What seems rather magical when you listen to Monty prattling on suddenly seems not so magical.  I've done some reading and lurking on various forums and realised that Join Up is about giving the horse a choice between a rock and a hard place.  It isn't about speaking the horse's language and it isn't anything to do with trust.  Why would you trust someone who chased you away for no apparent reason?  

I've done a lot of thinking about this and have gone from being 'traditional' to thinking that I was being kind and back to traditional again.  I actually think that the traditional way of handling is more honest and less manipulative than any of these natural horsemanship cracks.

BTW Tess, I found this thread because of Kelly Marks, it would seem that you've rattled her cage, well done 

http://ihdg.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gh11&action=display&thread=122724

Methinks she doth protest too much!


----------



## HuntingPink (8 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			The pressure-release (dually)stuff is just standard so OK if you agree wiht pressure-release as the basis of your training methods, but I don't think the dually is all that 'kind' which is what it is marketed as. He said in a demo that it 'shouts praise and whispers corrections' which made me laugh. Release of pain - or uncomfortableness, at the very least - is not exactly shouting praise. 

I think there are much kinder ways of treating horses, but some of what he does is OK. he is certainly a very likeable person and has a nice way with horses, but I don't like what he actually does with them a lot of the time, if you see what I mean!
		
Click to expand...


I hate the Dually halter.  I've got one and I've used it and it doesn't whisper anything, it's another example of Minty's deception.  That 'schooling ring' is harsh and could cause a lot of pain.  It whispers nothing apart from comply or else.  I'd actually rather use a rope halter which I've always been dead set against as I thought they were too thin and could cause a lot of discomfort, at least they don't put pressure on the nose like the Dually, the thought of that makes my eyes water.


----------



## pip6 (8 June 2012)

I've taken several horses to demos. You may think I'm an inexperienced horseowner to have done this, but I did it as I try to keep my mind open to different approaches. Two were for starting, one loading (having taught many youngsters to load, this was the first that refused, she was terrified of the ramp), & another youngster who after extensive veterinary treatment for a bad injury to her hock was terrified of having her leg touched).

The first starter was used in a demo. No-one fully sat on him (got to leaning over), as MR thought it was too far for him & didn't want to be pushy with him just to satisfy the audience. This was a very green horse (belonged to a friend) who had never even worn a rug before. He has since been very easy to back & is a fab competition horse.

Second starter they didn't use in the demo, but started by an RA for us the afternoon before the show so we hadn't had a wasted journey. She is now having a very successful start to her eventing career & is a lovely person.

The loader whose legs turned to jelly when her feet touched the ramp was used in a demo. Before I get lectured I had spent about a year leading her over all different surfaces from tarps to sheets of plywood. As soon as a lorry or the (extra large Ifor) trailer was put in front of her, the shutters went down. MR sent out KM lorry, with panels & helpers to collect her. Even with panels & manpower, it still took 45mins to get her in the lorry. She travelled well. Tried to load her again once we'd got to other end, didn't want to know so hadn't 'cured' her. She went into the demo, responded willingly (at no point looked stressed) & learnt to load. We came home uneventfully, & kept practising. She has since been sold to an eventing home. We took her to a local showjumper to back her, she loaded beautifully.Aged 3 she has gone out in her new owners trailer & lorry, loads perfectly. This is no half-dead cob, but  a 3 yr old sportshorse (Kiltealy Spring x Catheston Dazzler), who qualified for Trailblazers on her first attempt by winning her class.

The fourth is my 4 yr old arab. Somehow she got her hind legs over electric fencing (set high enough to keep the arab stallion apart from the mares) & took a huge amount of skin off her hock getting her legs back over. The treatment wasn't pleasant for her, despite being sedated each time. This left her scared to let anyone touch that leg. I spent a year trying gently to get her over this. I took her to a MR demo, & she wasn't picked. MR spent an hour working with her that afternoon. I know have a calm, confident horse, whose leg I can handle, the vet can trim her etc. There was no audience, no playing to the crowd, just a guy working with a horse. He did lovely work, took the time to run through with me what he was doing & why. He didn't have to do it, there were plenty of other things he should have been getting on with. He saw a young filly who been physically injured that had left a mental scar. He helped both of us to work through it. Anyone is free to call me a 'novice' owner (after 30 years experience & many horses), I don't care. The only thing that matters is that my girl is no longer stressed.

None of my horses appeared stressed whilst being worked with. None experienced a dually before the demo or before they were worked in the afternoon having not been picked. The horses do go in the pen to check for lameness, & that there is a problem so yes the stimulus is introduced. Let's be honest, MR would look pretty daft if he said this horse is scared of xyz, then it just stood there calmly. People believe what they see, so they want to see there's an issue. From going to several demos, personally I think a lot of 'problems' are due to spoilt horses behaving badly. If a stronger person (such as a nanny) was to take charge of spoilt children, toys would go out the pram   before they just got on with what they were asked to do. If we're going to compare human / horse, then I think this is a reasonable analogy.

As for the dually, I do own 2. I'd rather use them than deal with horses in a bridle or a normal headcollar. All my horses are very friendly, people loving, willing, happy, with excellent work ethics. The 2 youngsters (1 to my vet) I've sold have had impeccable characters, are loved by their owners & I get regular updates which I love. They are all happier, less stressed animals (as they don't get upset as the fear stimulus has gone or had an easy time being ridden away) than they were before their meeting with MR.

I ma not a member of IH, have not been on their courses, have no business interest, not a cult member & don't think it's the only'method'. I can only say it has been a positive experience for my animals & am pleased that they went to the demos. It's not for everyone, I too don't like the showmanship, but under that is someone who is a horseman.


----------



## HuntingPink (8 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			Yes - well i have found other things that DO work for me and my horse and I'm happy wiht them so that's fine.

I guess really what I'm syaing is that there are lots of inconsistencies in the method, and nobody 'in the know' will address them so they are obviously therefore some kind of flaws, so just maybe these are things other people might want to consider before they undertake this method too.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think that they are deliberately not answering or aren't answering because they don't actually know themselves?  The impression that I've got is that they believe in the Monty method but actually don't understand how it works, why it works or the ACTUAL effect that it has on the horse.


----------



## eahotson (8 June 2012)

pip6 said:



			I've taken several horses to demos. You may think I'm an inexperienced horseowner to have done this, but I did it as I try to keep my mind open to different approaches. Two were for starting, one loading (having taught many youngsters to load, this was the first that refused, she was terrified of the ramp), & another youngster who after extensive veterinary treatment for a bad injury to her hock was terrified of having her leg touched).

The first starter was used in a demo. No-one fully sat on him (got to leaning over), as MR thought it was too far for him & didn't want to be pushy with him just to satisfy the audience. This was a very green horse (belonged to a friend) who had never even worn a rug before. He has since been very easy to back & is a fab competition horse.

Second starter they didn't use in the demo, but started by an RA for us the afternoon before the show so we hadn't had a wasted journey. She is now having a very successful start to her eventing career & is a lovely person.

The loader whose legs turned to jelly when her feet touched the ramp was used in a demo. Before I get lectured I had spent about a year leading her over all different surfaces from tarps to sheets of plywood. As soon as a lorry or the (extra large Ifor) trailer was put in front of her, the shutters went down. MR sent out KM lorry, with panels & helpers to collect her. Even with panels & manpower, it still took 45mins to get her in the lorry. She travelled well. Tried to load her again once we'd got to other end, didn't want to know so hadn't 'cured' her. She went into the demo, responded willingly (at no point looked stressed) & learnt to load. We came home uneventfully, & kept practising. She has since been sold to an eventing home. We took her to a local showjumper to back her, she loaded beautifully.Aged 3 she has gone out in her new owners trailer & lorry, loads perfectly. This is no half-dead cob, but  a 3 yr old sportshorse (Kiltealy Spring x Catheston Dazzler), who qualified for Trailblazers on her first attempt by winning her class.

The fourth is my 4 yr old arab. Somehow she got her hind legs over electric fencing (set high enough to keep the arab stallion apart from the mares) & took a huge amount of skin off her hock getting her legs back over. The treatment wasn't pleasant for her, despite being sedated each time. This left her scared to let anyone touch that leg. I spent a year trying gently to get her over this. I took her to a MR demo, & she wasn't picked. MR spent an hour working with her that afternoon. I know have a calm, confident horse, whose leg I can handle, the vet can trim her etc. There was no audience, no playing to the crowd, just a guy working with a horse. He did lovely work, took the time to run through with me what he was doing & why. He didn't have to do it, there were plenty of other things he should have been getting on with. He saw a young filly who been physically injured that had left a mental scar. He helped both of us to work through it. Anyone is free to call me a 'novice' owner (after 30 years experience & many horses), I don't care. The only thing that matters is that my girl is no longer stressed.

None of my horses appeared stressed whilst being worked with. None experienced a dually before the demo or before they were worked in the afternoon having not been picked. The horses do go in the pen to check for lameness, & that there is a problem so yes the stimulus is introduced. Let's be honest, MR would look pretty daft if he said this horse is scared of xyz, then it just stood there calmly. People believe what they see, so they want to see there's an issue. From going to several demos, personally I think a lot of 'problems' are due to spoilt horses behaving badly. If a stronger person (such as a nanny) was to take charge of spoilt children, toys would go out the pram   before they just got on with what they were asked to do. If we're going to compare human / horse, then I think this is a reasonable analogy.

As for the dually, I do own 2. I'd rather use them than deal with horses in a bridle or a normal headcollar. All my horses are very friendly, people loving, willing, happy, with excellent work ethics. The 2 youngsters (1 to my vet) I've sold have had impeccable characters, are loved by their owners & I get regular updates which I love. They are all happier, less stressed animals (as they don't get upset as the fear stimulus has gone or had an easy time being ridden away) than they were before their meeting with MR.

I ma not a member of IH, have not been on their courses, have no business interest, not a cult member & don't think it's the only'method'. I can only say it has been a positive experience for my animals & am pleased that they went to the demos. It's not for everyone, I too don't like the showmanship, but under that is someone who is a horseman.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't like to suggest that because people tried different methods/ideas that they were novice or inexperienced.Not at all.The worst people are those that think they know everything and have nothing new to learn.I know that you are not personally suggesting that.The over all picture I did get at the demos that I attended though was that a lot of the horses were probably unsuitable for their owners and had got maybe confused/spoilt/nervous.In all fairness to the Monty Roberts/Parellis and Kelly they do bang on quite a lot about getting the right horse for you as you are NOW not as you would like to be in the future.Monty says 'Use your head not your heart when choosing a horse' and Pat Parelli says 'Choose your partner not your poison' but a lot of their disciples never seem to hear those bits unfortunately.Kelly thinks that some women in particular are drawn to difficult relationships with their horses as they are with their partners and some people do seem to sell a horse as unsuitable and then buy another just like it!!


----------



## Ladyinred (8 June 2012)

HuntingPink said:



			Do you think that they are deliberately not answering or aren't answering because they don't actually know themselves?  The impression that I've got is that they believe in the Monty method but actually don't understand how it works, why it works or the ACTUAL effect that it has on the horse.
		
Click to expand...

HuntingPink I think you have got it in one!!


----------



## eahotson (8 June 2012)

One good writer albeit with horribly expensive books but worth it is Marlitt Wendt.www.pferdsein.de The website can be got in English as are the books.The 2 I have read are How horses feel and think  and Trust instead of dominance.


----------



## rosiejones (8 June 2012)

Oh gosh now your tempted me back and I had called it quits!! What is the question you feel is Being avoided? Il give it a go


----------



## rosiejones (8 June 2012)

BTW Tess, I found this thread because of Kelly Marks, it would seem that you've rattled her cage, well done 

Bit mean isn't it?! I mean, she is a real person, and really quite a nice one who is incredibly motivated to do the right thing for any horses or people she comes in contact with. Do you know when I worked for Kelly as an envelope licking poo picking wannabe she actually sent me to go see all sorts of other practitioners so that my equine education was well rounded. She couldnt be more open minded and positive. I don't think it's nice to try to rattle anyones cage deliberately, but certainly not someone who I know will never have been looking to diminish anybody else on a public forum. It's really not her style to get tough or nasty with people (or horses!) so she can't/won't really defend herself against this type of attitude but I think someone needs to say hang on, play nice!


----------



## HuntingPink (8 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			The buck stopper is made from cord similar to cotton washing line. It is made into an oval shape, with another piece like a brow-band. The oval goes over the poll of the horse and into the mouth under the lip and over the gum. There is another piece of line from poll to saddle or surcingle.
		
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that you've lost me now.  

I don't mean that you've lost me in that I don't understand but that you've lost any credibility with me now and I was reading your comments with interest as you're obviously well acquainted with Monty's methods.  How can something which is similar to a cotton washing line FORCED SHARPLY against the sensitive gums not cause pain?

Ms Marks did herself no favours with that very strange and very personal response to Tess.  If you can't defend your chosen method without resorting to that sort of behaviour then you need to question your method.  I thought that the thread was very civil up to that point, then Ms Marks did what that classical dressage trainer did a few weeks ago and made a fool of herself.  It's becoming increasingly obvious that the Monty clan do what they do but don't understand the whys and wherefores.  I had my doubts before but you've now shown me that I was right to have those doubts.

It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt


----------



## HuntingPink (8 June 2012)

I apologise, it probably was a bit mean but I only found this thread because of the rather mean post from Kelly Marks on the IHDG.  I don't know Tess, although I've seen her on various forums, but Ms Marks was obviously having a dig at her which is why I made the comment.  Glass houses and stones come to mind.  However, I was wrong, I shouldn't have stooped to her level and I apologise for that.


I have to go now but would like to say thank you for an interesting thread and a special thank you to Tess (who I don't know and have never met despite the 'accusation' in the pm) who has both answered and brought up a lot of good points.


----------



## neelie OAP (8 June 2012)

Ladyinred said:



			HuntingPink I think you have got it in one!!
		
Click to expand...

 Well said 'Hunting Pink' think you have nailed it,  can you just imagine what a mine field it must be for all these people that are less experienced or confident for whatever reason, that are having problems with their horses, having their heads filled with all sorts of idea's, some good some not quite so good, to my mind trust and respect comes before anything else, and that you have to earn, for horses/animals read us far better than they are ever given credit for.


----------



## Alyth (8 June 2012)

I read Montys book and tried the join up as my first foray into natural horsemanship!!  Yes, join up followed the pattern as stated, but it didn't make sense in my mind to establish a connection and then shove a bit into the horses mouth and start long reining!! What about teaching the horse to follow a feel?  Nothing said about rewarding every try.... just go for it!!  So I moved on and found PNH.  OK, that's not perfect either!!  But it does start at the very beginning and gives us the basics....after which we should move on and find our "specialist" trainers/mentors....so my feeling is that we should use the brains we have been blessed with and decide what is kind and considerate to both the horse and ourselves and do the best we can....


----------



## tess1 (8 June 2012)

rosiejones said:



			Hi tess, 
Only a couple of points then I'm done! 
1) horses are not schooled by RAs before being handed to monty, he actually asks you not to as he wants the audience to see everything.
2) your description of join up is slightly off in terms of timing. You don't release the pressure after you see the signs, the horse will only show the signs if you have taken enough pressure off first. Similarly, you don't release the pressure when he stops ( why would he stop while you are 'chasing' him? You use body language to invite him to you then he turns in. These small details re timing add more weight to the argument that it isn't learning theory and the horse is not forced. He could very easily not come in or not follow or not be caught. It's like suggesting you could teach an war shy horse not to lift his head by pinching his ears when he does, or a bolting horse to stop by hitting him when he runs. The target behaviour is not encouraged by the stimulus, chasing the horse o teach him to follow just wouldnt work, and certainly not that quickly.

3) confused by your dislike of the dually, what do you do if a horse tries to leave or run into you? 

4) my main learning point from your posts is that we need to make sure we get the adaptive, subtle, clever, flexible, horse centred ih across in  Kellys demos. It seems like we really are on the same page in many ways so it's sad that you have not felt positively engaged with ih.

Not sure il get time to come on here again for a while it's been hard to keep up with it but Thankyou all for the engaging discussion!! 

Click to expand...

Hi Rosie

1.  Horses are worked prior to the demo to indentify their suitability for the demo.  that's enough for them to be learning things - if an animal is awake, he's learning.

2.  Here's what Kelly says about join-up in the book "perfect manners" - 
"By now, in a 50 ft round pen, the horse will have travelled approximately 1/4 of a mile.  This is the average 'run' of any predator that would be chasing him in the wild.  By now, the horse will either have got clean away or be taken as dinner.  Be clear that we are not imitating a predator in this process _(my question - is the horse clear on this point, surely that is what counts?)_ but we are using our knowledge of how horses interact with each other.  *However, it is still interesting to note that, perhaps because of this predator/prey process that is inherently in their mind, after about a quarter of a mile some horses will often start giving clear signals to 'renogiate the deal'.[/BI must confess, this does seem to be a very confusing description - in the round pen is the human meant to be acting like a horse, or acting like a predator?  I guess only the horse can decide.

So there is no mention of dropping the pressure before the first signals are seen, however it is quite clear that the pressure needs to come off bit by bit so the horse can begin to feel "safe" enough to "communicate" - ie, show the stress and displacement signals.  Even Kelly says licking and chewing means "phew" - so to lick and chew the adrenaline must be coming down (to simplify) and therefore the horse must be realising he isn't going to be lunch.  By default, of course, this means that the horse was stressed, and feared for his safety in the earlier part of the process.  And, as I have said, the "triaining" for join up (ie, the "safe bubble/keep the lead loose and stay with the human) is happening long before the lead is unclipped.  Stick with the human has become the default behaviour before the horse is sent away - so it makes sense that the horse would return to the "safe" default at the earliest opportunity.  I think the "send away" must be extremely stressful and confusing for the majority of horses.

Here are some interesting interepretations - from Kelly - of language in join up.

The ear locked on signifies "respect".  I think an alternative explanation is "I need to keep a close eye on the predatory like human in this cage with me ... Lord knows what they are going to do next".

Making the circle smaller.  Kelly recommends that the handler needs to be sure that the horse is trying to come closer "because they want to" and not because "it is an aversion to the pen wall".  Never mind about it being an aversion to the pen wall, I should think they want to get back to the human/middle of the pen because they are averse to running pointlessly around the outside of it with no opton to escape.

Lowering the head - apparently this is a "bow".  Isn't that a bit anthropomorphic  Apparently it is submissive, and not a signal that should be forced.  Kelly then goes on to say "what greatly assists in achieving this response is to let up the pressure in the area of the pen where the horse shows any sign of this gesture; for instance, look closely for the slightest dip or relaxation of the neck.  He will tend to do this on the same spot where he feels most comfortable on each circuit.  When he gets to this spot, keep him moving but don't throw the line at all, or put any additional pressure on ... if you still haven't had the lowering of the head at this spot you can try letting your horse really relax ... and even let him walk for a stride or two to see if that will encourage the head to drop". So what we have here is the negative reinforcement of head lowering - removing the aversive stimulus (pressure) whenever the horse shows the slightest sign of beginning to relax and continually reinforcing that posture by removing the pressure when it is seen.

Licking and chewing - apparently this is a throwback to what the foal does with the mares and more dominant members of the herd   In the paragraph on licking and chewing it is referred to as "submissive", "a sign of anxiety" and also "respectful"   Submissive - well others would argue horses do not submit, only avoid.  Anxious - yup, I'll buy that.  Respectful ... where does that come in - unless of course round pen training is meant to be setting the human up to be the "dominant" member of the herd - again a theory that his been dismissed by many other equine experts.  So it seems licking and chewing is most likely to be a sign of anxiety.  I really like to avoid making horses anxious when I train them.

3.  Please don't be confused about my dislike of the dually - it's really simple, I don't like devices that tighten across horses noses in order to control them.  I particularly don't like the use of these devices when they are being used to coerce the horse into doing something they are afraid of, or pushing the horse too fast in the training process, thereby producing a flight reaction which is then inhibited by the sharp use of the dually.  As I have mentioned earlier, in many instances the horse is difficult to lead, load or whatever because they are scared, incorrectly managed, or uneducated.  I would address these issues through changing management and appropriate training at the horse's pace - not simply forcing the horse to comply through discomfort.  Sometimes there is a particularly difficult situation where stronger control-type devices do need to be employed for the safety of all concerned and I happily accept that.  However, when someone says "my horse will load with the dually, but not otherwise" you know it's because the horse has learnt the dually is uncomfortable, not that loading is an acceptable process.  Monty and Kelly and the RAs rely hugely on the dually - far, far, too much, imo.

Yes, if IH is adaptive, horse centred, etc, that needs to come across far more - whilst modifying the questionable interpretations of body language and fanciful notion that chasing a horse in a small, enclosed space is the way to achieve "respect".  Less coercion and more training would be good, as well.*


----------



## FairyLights (8 June 2012)

Excellent post ^^^^^
interesting comments about the Dually. Many moons ago I used to post on IHDG. When i queeried the need for controlling type halters [ eg Dually] [ whats wrong with a decent ordinary leather headcollar----the many horses I have trained over the years have never needed more than a headcollar or bridle ] [ and lunging cavesson when being lunged, obviously] I found that my post was deleted. I persisted only to be eventually banned. Any post queerying MR methods was also deleted. censorship big time. And very childish.


----------



## neelie OAP (8 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			Excellent post ^^^^^
interesting comments about the Dually. Many moons ago I used to post on IHDG. When i queeried the need for controlling type halters [ eg Dually] [ whats wrong with a decent ordinary leather headcollar----the many horses I have trained over the years have never needed more than a headcollar or bridle ] [ and lunging cavesson when being lunged, obviously] I found that my post was deleted. I persisted only to be eventually banned. Any post queerying MR methods was also deleted. censorship big time. And very childish.
		
Click to expand...

 At long last the mention of the most useful bit of kit the 'lunging cavesson' a far better tool than this modern day 'dually', which in my opinion only encourages the horse to rear, when yanked and tightened around its nose, like was seen on the S4C program when the coloured horse was trying to get away from the plastic on the stick thing being waved at in, it just wasn't very pleasant to see, no a cavesson for me does the job yes maybe old fashioned, but to me much more useful !


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			When i queeried the need for controlling type halters [ eg Dually] [ whats wrong with a decent ordinary leather headcollar----the many horses I have trained over the years have never needed more than a headcollar or bridle ] [ and lunging cavesson when being lunged, obviously]
		
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a plain head collar or no head collar (in a safe environment) for training. Perhaps you can explain to those struggling with dangerous, bargy horses how to manage them day to day until they can be taught/relearn how to lead nicely? 
Hopefully everyone will realize that we are training our horses all the time and wont let them learn panic or pushy behaviours and learn to spot 'problems' a horse is having earlier and nip it in the bud rather than the crash and burn approach. 

My credibility is already trashed on here as I believe in an holistic approach that includes ruling out physical problems first, horse centred management and eek barefoot thinking. However, I don't recall ever being nasty as well. 

ps. Lungeing cavessons are something imo that need to be chosen carefully. Have you felt the weight of some of them? Yikes!


----------



## Wagtail (8 June 2012)

I don't use a dually, but I do use a rope halter on occasion. Those people who disagree with anything other than a normal head collar, what do you do when a horse that is nine times out of ten a wonderfully behaved, well mannered horse that you can do absolutely anything with, but on the tenth occasion is bargy and runs over you? I have two such horses on my yard. One is a typical opinionated cob. Most the time he is extremely cooperative in all respects, but occasionally, when you are not bringing him in fast enough from the field for his liking, he will bolt off! If I know he is going to try it on, then I thread the rope over his nose and this stops him and he walks respectfully by me. He knows it is there and so doesn't even try it. The second horse is a lovely well behaved and respectful mare. However, when she had her foal, she became impossible to handle in her ordinary head collar and so we have changed it to the rope halter, and we can manage her safely in this. I have no doubt, once the foal is a little older and she is less anxious, we will be able to return to using her normal head collar, except for when the vet comes and she will throw people against the walls to avoid being jabbed!

What I am saying, is that even horses that have been well trained and are normally well mannered can sometimes behave out of character, either through fear or through naughtiness (as in the cob's case). And I don't see anything wrong in using a stronger method of control in these circumstances.


----------



## rosiejones (8 June 2012)

1) horses are looked at before the demo in their own headcollars not Duallys, and  led to and from the rp by the owners. We specifically can't train. Once I was holding a horse to look at a tractor problem and renember feeling out of control as all i could do is literally hold the end of the rope to see what he did when a tractor came in the other end of the building, yes horses alway learning but no deliberate training to be near. 

Somantics aside, I still hold that you would have a hard job training a horse to follow by using chasing as the negative stimulus to be removed, that simply isn't all there is to it, it couldn't be it wouldn't work, you cannot easily teach a horse to slow down by whipping him till he does or to speed up by pulling his mouth til he does. It's not as simple as any pressure will do if removed at the right time, to learn so quickly via learning theory along the pressure has to be one that instinctively generates the target behaviour. 

 I like to think of the eat on as attention. I personally agree that lickig and chewing is also consolidating/relaxing/after an event: you will see this often when you dismount, fall off, put the horse in his stable, finish a jumping round. It could follow trauma but does not indicate trauma took place. 
The nice thing about ih is we have these discussions all the time and are always watching the horses Ns  improving our understanding of reading body language, which is never finished and complete. 

You say that the horse is uneducated who does bot k ow how to lead safely, I'd agree but wonder how you would retrain a horse that pushed through you? I have found the dually extremely effective, recently took a 3 to to bath and west an he was by far the most beautifully behaved in both his classes with judge comments on how happy an mannerly he was, he was a delight all day and the dually was a big part of his education.

Finally, we all have our own ethical boundaries, I always make sure my own training fits within those of the owner and don't insist my ideas of kindness or cruelty should be universal. 
All horsemanship is more stressful than living in a quiet herd in the sun I guess! 
Hammering a horse round a pen and jerking hard on the dually are beyond my ethical boundaries too, but good ih training is more a way of thinking and a bringing together lots of techniques that could be productive and picking the ones you agree with. Sone of my owners feel it's cruel to ever hack a horse on his own and they are group animals. Some feel shoes are cruel. Some dislike bits altogether. Some are professional point to point yards who get me out because it works not because it's kind at all.

I really must go and stop coming back as I can tell there will always be one more negative comment... Only had time to come back today due to weather meaning that this mornings appointment doing the first sit on a baby in an outdoor arena was not a good idea! But the next week is hectic so please don't take my absence as avoidance, I just don't have time anymore!!! Rosie


----------



## rosiejones (8 June 2012)

Just to add sorry for the typos iPhone! Also meant to add that I think licking and chewing is not just one thing going on, I think there are potentially various things it can mean so can't really be analysed out of context with the rest of the body language and behaviour.
Also should add, young horse with tractor nothing happened, I felt out of control as not training but was of course in a safe space and the tractor only came in enough to see he that he was worried then went away again, etc etc so no real danger to horse human or deep sea whales!!


----------



## eahotson (8 June 2012)

rosiejones said:



			Just to add sorry for the typos iPhone! Also meant to add that I think licking and chewing is not just one thing going on, I think there are potentially various things it can mean so can't really be analysed out of context with the rest of the body language and behaviour.
Also should add, young horse with tractor nothing happened, I felt out of control as not training but was of course in a safe space and the tractor only came in enough to see he that he was worried then went away again, etc etc so no real danger to horse human or deep sea whales!!
		
Click to expand...

Pleased about the deep sea whales Rosie I did wonderhttp://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif


----------



## eahotson (8 June 2012)

Got the smiley icon wrong. Sorry.On the whole though, I don't think the comments have been negative.People are just saying what they have observed and what they think about it.They could be wrong they could be right but I don't think its healthy for people to be totally uncritical devotees.A lot of people will find a lot they like about the IH organization and some things they don't.I personally think that is good.


----------



## Morgan123 (8 June 2012)

Hi all - back from moving house - wow this has moved on a lot. Just saw that someone on the IH forum has said that RosieJones took the time to reply and I dind't have the decency to say thank you, whihc is of course true but just wanted ot explain that it's not lack of decency I've just been moving house - Thank you RosieJones, I have lots of furhter questions whihc I will come to when I have a second.

AMAZING article by Kelly on the IHforum, thansk for posting that, she manages to completely not address any of the points being raised and dismiss anyone who is doing any research into this area as not thinking about the horses' emotions and just not understanding. WOW. I think that's a real shame since that is completely not the case, and if we all talk about this rationally and try and understand eachother's points of view surely we'll have a much more useful discussion than this 'oh you just don't understand' view point.

anyway back later....


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

eahotson said:



			I don't think its healthy for people to be totally uncritical devotees.
		
Click to expand...

Chopped your post but I wholeheartedly agree with this about IH and *all *other thinking and belief systems and even science. 

In the end we do all see things differently and in these discussions there is a fundamental difference of opinion, so complete agreement will never be reached until we all think the same.  God forbid that!


----------



## Natch (8 June 2012)

Having read Kelly's post on her own forum I have decided to try to speak to Kelly openly on a forum in order to discuss the questions I put forward to her in a PM some months ago, and put on this thread a few pages back.

I have asked to join IHDG boards (membership pending approval from staff) and have asked TFC to clarify advertising rules.


I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly that science and horse trainers need to "join up," indeed, many have already. I would also like to point out in response to her post that there are good and bad scientists just as there are good and bad horse trainers, and I suggest that she examines wording closely. Science should not be saying that the horse is not a conscious animal with the capacity to trust, love, exhibit cognition etc; however it will, justifiably so, say that there is currently no scientific evidence to support a hypothesis. In order for science to be valid, it must deal with the measureable, and therefore it does not (yet) deal with animal emotions; how can it, when we can't currently scientifically measure animal emotion? It is, however, interesting to note that join-up _can _be explained wholly with reference to learning theory.



eahotson said:



			That human to human join up experience.Fascinating!
		
Click to expand...

I really would recommend anybody interested does this simulation human to human, to try to experience it from the horse's point of view. Also to experience being led around and asked to perform various tasks by a mute human through only a hold on a headcollar and rope. 



rosiejones said:



			You would love kellys books as actually some of what you are saying is coming from a very very similar place! It's almost a catchphrase of kellys to say "set the horse up for success". 
Did you notice that in recent demos the loading horses work over wooden boards, under tarpaulin tunnels and through narrow spaces before trying to load? It's a clear example of incremental learning, which is a massive part of ih training.

I also think your overcomlicatibg join up to refer to it as mind games! That's very anthropomorphic, it's just using body language to encourage the horse to engage positively with you, and to set up a line of subtle communication that will help to establish aids without any stress or evasion from the beginning
		
Click to expand...

I personally DO enjoy reading/hearing Kelly's words... its just watching the practical stuff which I find doesn't reflect the words.

The official MR position on join-up seems to describe it as a mind game though - "staying with me is easier than not wanting to be with me" - that's a mind game, wouldn't you agree?

As I say, whether or not a leadership/respect/other process is going on during join-up is unproven, but what happens during join-up can be 100% explained using learning theory. Specifically negative reinforcement, punishment, positive reinforcement and shaping.



amandap said:



			I'd like to thank Rosie Jones, Sarah Weston etc. for taking the time to explain to others 

...

"You will make mistakes, your horse will make mistakes, as long as you work through them together as a team all will be well".
		
Click to expand...

Just picked out two quotes which I wholeheartedly agree with. Thanks from me for taking part in an open and challenging debate.



rosiejones said:



			2) your description of join up is slightly off in terms of timing. You don't release the pressure after you see the signs, the horse will only show the signs if you have taken enough pressure off first. Similarly, you don't release the pressure when he stops ( why would he stop while you are 'chasing' him? You use body language to invite him to you then he turns in. These small details re timing add more weight to the argument that it isn't learning theory and the horse is not forced. He could very easily not come in or not follow or not be caught.
		
Click to expand...

To put another point of view across; horses show the signs because there is only a certain amount of time they can run for. Evolution dictates that it doesn't make sense to exhaust yourself if you're not actually going to get eaten. Learning theory applies in the form of negative reinforcement. Pressure is on, horse offers behaviour a) run to escape it. Pressure is still on, horse tries behaviour b) kick, fight, whatever they try next. In the meantime pressure changes in order to keep the horse's focus, but it stays on. Horse is motivated to find a way to get the pressure taken off, and eventually gets around to trying behaviour c) circling smaller/ear locked on, licking, head lowering etc. Pressure relents a bit, horse stops exhibiting c), pressure goes back on . Horse has eureka moment - exhibits c) some more - pressure relents more.  Horse finally does what the trainer is looking for, which includes stepping towards human, and all pressure is released. And, if you're like me, I believe the environmental atmosphere changes - human smiles with heart, rather using the stern harder energy they used to drive horse away - postive reinforcement for the horse to continue to behave desireably.






rosiejones said:



			I really must go and stop coming back as I can tell there will always be one more negative comment... Only had time to come back today due to weather meaning that this mornings appointment doing the first sit on a baby in an outdoor arena was not a good idea! But the next week is hectic so please don't take my absence as avoidance, I just don't have time anymore!!! Rosie
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that this board has only offered negative comments. Speaking for myself it wasn't my intention, but I am frustrated at the lack of communication in response to my enquiries to Kelly. If people have a position then unless you convince them otherwise they will not change it, but I for one enjoy having my views challenged and being able to challenge other people's views - I find it a useful way to learn about the world.

Either way perhaps if you come on here again you will see my thanks, if not and anybody knows Rosie personally then please thank her on my behalf for contributing to an interesting and mostly civilised debate


----------



## FairyLights (8 June 2012)

amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, thats a bit of a sweeping statement, lol.


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

I did state horses should be properly trained to start with. I disagree about the bridle but having a bit in the mouth for 'control' and training is your choice, it would not be mine.

"What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do."
This is simply not true. I have been in many robust discussions with some on this thread and they are adamant that IH is cruel... 

I may well be uneducated and ignorant by your standards but that is a very sweeping statement and you may well be insulting some very experienced, knowledgeable people with those words. IH doesn't
 'target' anyone in particular and I believe Kelly is working with the BHS a bit so I assume you don't mean them?


----------



## FairyLights (8 June 2012)

oh dear I seem to have upset some. 
I hold steadfast to my opinion and thoughts on the matter of IH. I will agree to differ from the opinions and statements of some others on the board. 
I now consider my input on this subject closed, Taditional BHS methods have worked for me  and my horses very well over the years. I will not change for fashions sake nor to I think targeting vulnerable unsure people with psyco-bable is a good thing.


----------



## neelie OAP (8 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes a very good point you have raised, I agree  people with little experience with horses in the main are targeted mostly, ok fine, but if these people go away not fully understanding what they have seen, because maybe it has not been quite fully explained to them, or not had their questions answered in a way that they can understand, or being side tracked by some idle/story to detract their attention away from whats actually happening, there is always going to be some doubt !


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

Hang on a minute here, people have to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Owners are ultimately responsible for their horses and there is too much hiving it off onto vets, trainers, farriers etc. imo. IH certainly isn't for everyone (or many it seems. lol) and if you have doubts just walk away. We are all free to do as we wish and yes most of us have chosen bad or poor professionals at some point but I'm sure all of us do what we believe is best at that time. What we must do is learn from our mistakes and learn to be careful about who we choose to work with our horses or how we choose to work with them. We have to learn all we can and then try to make informed choices. 

I've been through countless farriers and trimmers etc. but I keep learning so I can judge better the effects of their work. In all this people are individuals and there are good, bad and indifferent at their jobs in every walk of life.
Of course IH isn't perfect but it does try to offer help and guidance, to see it as going round searching out vulnerable people is frankly... well I am actually lost for words. lol You can say that about anything when there are people who are beginners. 

ps. I am not upset just bemused at an educated, non ignorant persons view.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 June 2012)

neelie OAP said:



 Yes a very good point you have raised, I agree  people with little experience with horses in the main are targeted mostly, ok fine, but if these people go away not fully understanding what they have seen, because maybe it has not been quite fully explained to them, or not had their questions answered in a way that they can understand, or being side tracked by some idle/story to detract their attention away from whats actually happening, there is always going to be some doubt !
		
Click to expand...

Aren't people who turn up at a riding school targeted, by the no nonsense stick up their a***, BHS approved types, who put them on some poor horse, dead to every aid and send them round in circles for months not learning diddly squat.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (8 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			amandap in reply to your question re controlling dangerous bargy horses. Firstly, a youngster should never have been allowed to grow up "bargy" , but if the horse is being strong then a lunging cavesson or bridle are perfectly adequate. Also a stick, not to hit the horse with at all but to hold in front , if horse rushes forwards he will walk into it and give himself a bop on the nose. They soon learn to lead nicely and not rush using this method. I've never known it fail with any which have passed through my hands. ALso instilling "Stand" is a good thing. The horse must be under control at all times and not allowed, by a wishy-washy unsure person to take the initiative. He must behave nicely and mannerly.
What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

...oh for a perfect world, of course youngsters shouldn't have been allowed, but it isn't as simple as that. Horses are horses and if you seriously think that they all can be controlled by holding a stick in front ( you must mean hitting the horse with it?) or by instilling 'stand' when a horse is reactive or, has learnt it's own strength as some breeds do then there is some experience you
 havent had yet, and no, a bridle or lunging cavesson isn't always adequate.
Joanna and Roger Day embraced NH, and combined them with their traditional methods, would you call them ignorant or uneducated? 
It's really arrogant of you to suggest that bargy horses or similar only come from wishy  washy people handling them, or that NH is for nervous novices, it simply isn't the case


----------



## Pale Rider (8 June 2012)

xxMozlarxx said:



...oh for a perfect world, of course youngsters shouldn't have been allowed, but it isn't as simple as that. Horses are horses and if you seriously think that they all can be controlled by holding a stick in front ( you must mean hitting the horse with it?) or by instilling 'stand' when a horse is reactive or, has learnt it's own strength as some breeds do then there is some experience you
 havent had yet, and no, a bridle or lunging cavesson isn't always adequate.
Joanna and Roger Day embraced NH, and combined them with their traditional methods, would you call them ignorant or uneducated? 
It's really arrogant of you to suggest that bargy horses or similar only come from wishy  washy people handling them, or that NH is for nervous novices, it simply isn't the case
		
Click to expand...

^^agreed^^


----------



## Morgan123 (8 June 2012)

whatever I think of IH (would just like to note that, jsut like Naturally, my approval ofr joining their forum is also 'pending' which seems a bit of a shame since surely all reasonable discussion around the method is a good thing!?!?!), I do disagree with people arguing that it being aimed at novices and iexperienced people is a reason to dislike it, 

1) because it's not true, REALLY - I can't really think of any way in which it's aimed more at novies than anyone experienced?? And of course there are also lots of experienced people who take it up.

2) While it is probably true that more 'average' level riders than Pros become IH people,  that may well be that they haven't totally found their sort of trianing niche and style yet and are looking around more, which isn't IH's fault, it's just a fact. 

I think it's more useful to think about the behaviours we're seeing and whether those are/aren't 'ethical' (minefield sort of word), natural, etc etc...


----------



## debsg (8 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			Hi all - back from moving house - wow this has moved on a lot. Just saw that someone on the IH forum has said that RosieJones took the time to reply and I dind't have the decency to say thank you, whihc is of course true but just wanted ot explain that it's not lack of decency I've just been moving house - Thank you RosieJones, I have lots of furhter questions whihc I will come to when I have a second.

AMAZING article by Kelly on the IHforum, thansk for posting that, she manages to completely not address any of the points being raised and dismiss anyone who is doing any research into this area as not thinking about the horses' emotions and just not understanding. WOW. I think that's a real shame since that is completely not the case, and if we all talk about this rationally and try and understand eachother's points of view surely we'll have a much more useful discussion than this 'oh you just don't understand' view point.

anyway back later....
		
Click to expand...


Morgan123, 'lack of manners' comment by myself on IH forum was not aimed at you but at another poster on this thread who was making a huge fuss that her questions were being ignored. Hope your move went well xx


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

Ah what is ethical is a total mine field because it is so very personal.

I've done those discussions to death I'm afraid on IHDG including the biggie... dominance. The arguments remain basically the same and imo boil down to different personal ethics and philosophies. They invariably get nasty and insults get thrown when people feel they have put a compelling argument forward and there isn't total agreement or a mass cry of  "I never thought of that you are so right and I am wrong".  People start to get nasty/frustrated when they don't feel their questions are answered to their satisfaction. 

Have a look at archived threads and hall of fame you will find pages and pages of it and recognize a few posters from here.


----------



## Morgan123 (8 June 2012)

debsg said:



			Morgan123, 'lack of manners' comment by myself on IH forum was not aimed at you but at another poster on this thread who was making a huge fuss that her questions were being ignored. Hope your move went well xx
		
Click to expand...

Lol not to worry, I didn't take offence, it was a lack of manners on my part not to have got back to Rosie sooner to say thank you anyway!! 

Amandap - absolutely, I agree it's all v personal and we've all talked about this A LOT - don't think this one's really got nasty though, there are a few heated moments but in general it's been nice to have a civilised discussion, so thanks all


----------



## tess1 (8 June 2012)

eahotson said:



			One good writer albeit with horribly expensive books but worth it is Marlitt Wendt.www.pferdsein.de The website can be got in English as are the books.The 2 I have read are How horses feel and think  and Trust instead of dominance.
		
Click to expand...

Hi, thank you for the links to those books.  They are not too expensive - one for 14.00 and one for 20.00 I think.  I have some birthday money left and they look good!  How do you get the website in English, please?  I couldn't see a "translate" button anywhere?




HuntingPink said:



			I have to go now but would like to say thank you for an interesting thread and a special thank you to Tess (*who I don't know and have never met despite the 'accusation' in the pm*) who has both answered and brought up a lot of good points.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, dear ...   I can confirm that I do not know Hunting Pink, either from this forum nor any other, but I'm glad you enjoyed the thread HP 



Horsesforever1 said:



			Many moons ago I used to post on IHDG. When i queeried the need for controlling type halters [ eg Dually] [ whats wrong with a decent ordinary leather headcollar----the many horses I have trained over the years have never needed more than a headcollar or bridle ] [ and lunging cavesson when being lunged, obviously] *I found that my post was deleted. I persisted only to be eventually banned. Any post queerying MR methods was also deleted. censorship big time. And very childish.*

Click to expand...

yup 




rosiejones said:



			1) 

You say that the horse is uneducated who does bot k ow how to lead safely, I'd agree but wonder how you would retrain a horse that pushed through you? I have found the dually extremely effective,/QUOTE]

I use positive reinforcement to teach the horse what I want them to do, as opposed to punishing what I don't want (which would be using the dually).



Morgan123 said:



			AMAZING article by Kelly on the IHforum, thansk for posting that, she manages to completely not address any of the points being raised and dismiss anyone who is doing any research into this area as not thinking about the horses' emotions and just not understanding. WOW. I think that's a real shame since that is completely not the case, and if we all talk about this rationally and try and understand eachother's points of view surely we'll have a much more useful discussion than this 'oh you just don't understand' view point.
		
Click to expand...

Agree ... completely 


Great post by "Naturally" and yes, definite thanks to Rosie Jones for her contributions.  (Naturally and Morgan123, I think memberships to the forum are always "pending" until someone deals with them, it doesn't mean they might not accept you.  I'd love to join the discussion you will have on there ... but I'm not allowed  )


OK, so, I'm just going to ask this question one more time, to make sure that there is on one out there who would like to answer me   So this is what I asked on page 11 ...

_Why did Roberts feel the need to include a Buckstop in the list of equipment he had access to during the study of his method? It has been previously stressed on his forum that this is a tool of last resort used only when all other techniques have failed and this is horse's last chance before being sent for slaughter or similar. I don't believe any of the horses in the study fell into that category (?)._

Click to expand...


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

ps. to you new IHDG joiners, it is a forum allied to IH not an open forum such as this. Kelly does not tolerate disrespect of MR. I was threatened with a ban on a CT forum for being challenging once. I decided to leave in the end cos it was bloomin hard work cos almost all they did was moan about Monty and IH. I hope they've moved forward to more constructive topics.


----------



## Morgan123 (8 June 2012)

amandap said:



			ps. to you new IHDG joiners, it is a forum allied to IH not an open forum such as this. Kelly does not tolerate disrespect of MR. I was threatened with a ban on a CT forum for being challenging once. I decided to leave in the end cos it was bloomin hard work cos almost all they did was moan about Monty and IH. I hope they've moved forward to more constructive topics. 

Click to expand...

I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.

Shame about that on the clicker training forum though, agree very unconstructive!


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			No, Catrin, the answer is far from simple.  These were untrained young horses.  In total they had ten hours of training from a standing start to completing an obstacle course and a dressage test.  The justification given on the forum is that the buckstopper is a last ditch attempt to save a horse from slaughter because they buck so badly.  Horses do not get sent for slaughter after ten hours of training, as part of an experiment to test the "kindness" of certain techniques.  *He would have used the buckstopper *if he had a horse who had objected to the fast, intense training methods that were being used - for example - at least four join ups in the first three and a half hours of training.
		
Click to expand...

I've no idea why you continue to ask a question to which you seem to *know* the answer to, but hey keep asking anyway if that's what floats your boat. 

I'm signing of too now.


----------



## eahotson (8 June 2012)

amandap said:



			I've no idea why you continue to ask a question to which you seem to *know* the answer to, but hey keep asking anyway if that's what floats your boat. 

I'm signing of too now. 

Click to expand...

Tess I think wants them to admit this on an open forum.What I would like an answer too is What do you and the horse gain from this intensive and rushed backing.?


----------



## irishcob (8 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.

Shame about that on the clicker training forum though, agree very unconstructive!
		
Click to expand...

As a member of the IHDG, I can assure you that it's NOT true that only those in agreement with IH can join!  The whole point of IH is to be open minded, and open to learning.  There are plenty of discussions with people of all sorts of backgrounds and ethical view points.  What isn't tolerated by the moderators is rudeness and disrespectful or slanderous comments -which I think is common sense on ANY forum!

To all those awaiting confirmation of their new membership on IHDG - I look forward to meeting you all there!


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

The only person that can answer that question is Monty Roberts. Oh and those who can read his mind. 

Be it right or wrong to have a  tool kit I wonder if that was it his kit... I couldn't make an assumption he would use it but what do I know being ignorant and uneducated?


----------



## neelie OAP (8 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			Aren't people who turn up at a riding school targeted, by the no nonsense stick up their a***, BHS approved types, who put them on some poor horse, dead to every aid and send them round in circles for months not learning diddly squat.
		
Click to expand...

 I did say in the main, not all, and yes  the riding schools are there for the sole reason of teaching people to ride, but if the instructor isn't very good at the job, people will just not continue going, they will find somewhere else better suited to them,!


----------



## debsg (8 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.

Shame about that on the clicker training forum though, agree very unconstructive!
		
Click to expand...

I really don't think that only people who agree with MR's methods are 'allowed' to post. In the past there have been posts that appear to be purely provocative and abusive, and the poster has subsequently been barred. Lively debate has always been encouraged and enjoyed by all.


----------



## amandap (8 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			I do think that it's a shame to only allow people in if you agree with the method. Not only does it make it look like you've got somehting to hide, but also it is really narrow minded not to be interested in considering other people's view points. Of course, if people are being openly rude or abusive or whatever then fair enough to not include them but if (like most of this forum) it's simply a matter of discussing differnet views then how can that NOT be a good thing? It is very propaganda-esque of IH and does not seem very 'intelligent' at all.
		
Click to expand...

I missed this.

There are many who are not members of IH (including me ) and many who don't agree with some stuff... it is when people become abusive or severely disruptive bans are issued as far as I can see. Joining to question is one thing, joining to score points and question when you know the answers and don't agree with them is a bit pointless imo. On here joining to cause discord and you are called a troll.


----------



## eahotson (8 June 2012)

pferdsein.de If you get it on internet explorer right click on your mouse and it will offer a translation button.Not perfect but o.k Marlitt is not uncritical of IH.She doesn't actually name them but makes it plain who she is referring to and says they are ruthless in their application of psychological pressure.


----------



## tess1 (8 June 2012)

eahotson said:



			pferdsein.de If you get it on internet explorer right click on your mouse and it will offer a translation button.Not perfect but o.k Marlitt is not uncritical of IH.She doesn't actually name them but *makes it plain who she is referring to and says they are ruthless in their application of psychological pressure*.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you.  I think me and Marlitt will get on just fine.


----------



## neelie OAP (8 June 2012)

debsg said:



			I really don't think that only people who agree with MR's methods are 'allowed' to post. In the past there have been posts that appear to be purely provocative and abusive, and the poster has subsequently been barred. Lively debate has always been encouraged and enjoyed by all.
		
Click to expand...

 Agreed, I say if it works for you then go for it, if it doesn't suit, don't knock it because for someone else it might be great, keeping an open mind is far the best imo as there is always something to learn with horses, they are all individuals so are we ,


----------



## Natch (8 June 2012)

amandap said:



			ps. to you new IHDG joiners, it is a forum allied to IH not an open forum such as this. Kelly does not tolerate disrespect of MR. I was threatened with a ban on a CT forum for being challenging once. I decided to leave in the end cos it was bloomin hard work cos almost all they did was moan about Monty and IH. I hope they've moved forward to more constructive topics. 

Click to expand...




irishcob said:



			As a member of the IHDG, I can assure you that it's NOT true that only those in agreement with IH can join!  The whole point of IH is to be open minded, and open to learning.  There are plenty of discussions with people of all sorts of backgrounds and ethical view points.  What isn't tolerated by the moderators is rudeness and disrespectful or slanderous comments -which I think is common sense on ANY forum!

To all those awaiting confirmation of their new membership on IHDG - I look forward to meeting you all there!
		
Click to expand...

Just to make this very clear - I merely wish to have an open and honest discussion to clarify things. I have managed to get by on HHO without so much as a smacked wrist in 5 years, so I hope to be able to do the same with Kelly, whether on IHDG or HHO. I hope not to be censored nor do I want to feel that I am in danger of being banned if I politely disagree with something that is said.

If anyone who isn't pending approval (I am sure that is just because people aren't glued to their computers 24/7 and that I will receive approval in due course) is on there, please could they link Kelly to the thread with TFC's answer on it; she is welcome to come to HHO to directly questions without fear of being banned for advertising. I hope she will see this and pop back on if we all promise to play nicely


----------



## xxMozlarxx (9 June 2012)

I would like to invite anyone to come and meet my horse and see the use of the dually first hand, both for it's necessity and non punitive effectiveness 
and I'm not a MR or KM fan, I take what I like and leave the rest...


----------



## lizzie (11 June 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qryz0EfOwA4&feature=youtu.be

See this link re the starting stall blanket........


----------



## 1stclassalan (11 June 2012)

I've just had a rough trawl through the preceding posts and not surprised to find the usual cliquey pros and cons you find in every feedroom!

I go back to the day when many folk thought that breaking a horse meant just that and indeed, I spent most of my youth trying to be a cowboy - or my idea of one and ended up quite disappointed that I couldn't find a true bucking bronco in my part of wildest west  Middlesex.

Most of the horses and ponies I worked were suffering from various degrees of mistreatment and were in consequence either dithering plods or hyped nutters with a killer streak. 

Quite by chance when dealing with one of the latter I discovered a kind of join up even if the horse in question came at me with paddling feet and beared teeth! To my fearless heroic mind - at least this meant I didn't have to chase him about, haha.

This horse taught me that very small things can make a difference - don't look directly into his eye, predators do that, don't approach with open fingers, they look like claws and most of all - any horse will come to you.... eventually so if one messed about, I'd only go with plenty of time and the minute he did come I'd turn him away again, something I repeated several times - it does work.

However, I'm unconvinced about MR as a person, what he promotes is far better than what he grew up with as a child rodeo star but is now a moneymaking engine above all else. As far as I can tell - all of those horses he befriends at shows have been well handled beforehand etc., etc.


----------



## pip6 (11 June 2012)

What I intensly dislike about IH is that it targets uneducated ,ignorant or simply unsure people and gives the impression that any other way is cruel. That is an awfully wrong thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

That'll be the Queen then?


----------



## talkinghorse (11 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			 I trained in join up a few times with different people,  I felt and still feel very strongly that its not for a nervous horse or one who isn't challenging your dominance. I also feel it is dangerous to attempt to join-up with a very overtly challenging horse - you are in a small enclosed space with a horse who knows his strength and how to use it against people, and then poking him with a pointy stick aka trying to assert your dominance.
		
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused by this. Did you learn it in different countries? Only Monty Roberts' advanced instructors can teach Join-Up. In UK that means only Kelly Marks. 

All qualified teachers teach you about horses that you should never attempt Join-Up with. Your comments that you feel it is dangerous at certain times appear to reflect your opinion, yet it should have been something that you were taught. 

" one who isn't challenging your dominance " is also an odd comment from someone taught Join-Up by somebody who is authorised to teach it, either that, or you didn't understand what you were being taught.


----------



## Fellewell (11 June 2012)

Here's a thing........

I have noticed that Dually halters have a tendency to twist and stick and 'practitioners' are constantly straightening them and loosening the ring ropes during training.

If reward for the horse is the immediate release from pressure when the desired behaviour is offered, then how is this achieved when the apparatus has to be constantly manually released and adjusted?

Just thought I'd ask


----------



## talkinghorse (11 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			One thing I dont like about IH is that many of ts supporters seem to think theres is the only way and everyone else is cruel.
		
Click to expand...

I've been an IH member for almost ten years and meet at least monthly with other members who have done the courses. Not one of them thinks this at all. Intelligent Horsemanship is inclusive and ever changing. If you have a method that gets the result that you want, by doing what is best for the horse and without any form of violence, then you just add it to your IH toolkit. Monty, Kelly and Ian Vanderberghe often mention whom they learned some new idea from. If they thought theirs was the ONLY WAY, then they would not learn ways from someone else to improve it.


As for thinking other people are cruel, I don't know any IH member or supporter who thinks that. They may find other methods less effective or less ethical, but that is a far cry from thinking that the people who use them are cruel.


----------



## Natch (11 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			I'm a little confused by this. Did you learn it in different countries? Only Monty Roberts' advanced instructors can teach Join-Up. In UK that means only Kelly Marks. 

All qualified teachers teach you about horses that you should never attempt Join-Up with. Your comments that you feel it is dangerous at certain times appear to reflect your opinion, yet it should have been something that you were taught. 

" one who isn't challenging your dominance " is also an odd comment from someone taught Join-Up by somebody who is authorised to teach it, either that, or you didn't understand what you were being taught.
		
Click to expand...

That's interesting. You find my comments odd, but I find yours odd.  Surely you would agree that in learning one should keep an open mind, ask questions and form one's own opinion?

Yes I have been taught Join UpTM both in the UK and abroad, from both Monty Roberts instructors and different takes on join up from others who were perfectly well qualified to teach their own versions. Yes I have indeed been taught about the suitability of the method for individual horses and the purpose and throry behind both Join UpTM and other takes on it. I have discussed and debated the method many a time, with many people, and I have formed my own opinions which concur with some and disagree with others, even the experts.

There is a reason I don't automatically agree with the person teaching me, no matter what their credentials are. The worst mistake I ever made with horses was to blindly trust a very highly qualified and experienced riding instructor over my own judgement, and it was my poor horse who suffered the consequences  I am determined not to let a highly qualified and far more experienced than me expert cause me to do wrong by a horse again.


----------



## talkinghorse (11 June 2012)

eahotson said:



			One good writer albeit with horribly expensive books but worth it is Marlitt Wendt.www.pferdsein.de The website can be got in English as are the books.The 2 I have read are How horses feel and think  and Trust instead of dominance.
		
Click to expand...

Not easy to negotiate the website in its 'blog' format, even if you speak german. I went to read the article on the 'Dominance Myth' and don't agree with the explanation of positive and negative reinforcement, so I assume that the author favours just positive (and has no barriers or fences in her fields).


----------



## amandap (11 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			There is a reason I don't automatically agree with the person teaching me, no matter what their credentials are. The worst mistake I ever made with horses was to blindly trust a very highly qualified and experienced riding instructor over my own judgement, and it was my poor horse who suffered the consequences  I am determined not to let a highly qualified and far more experienced than me expert cause me to do wrong by a horse again.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is something we all need to take on board generally and question and then make your own mind up if you and your horse might benefit or not and if it fits with you personally. No point in doing anything you are not comfortable with however ethical you are told it is.


----------



## talkinghorse (11 June 2012)

HuntingPink said:



			I'm afraid that you've lost me now.  
 How can something which is similar to a cotton washing line FORCED SHARPLY against the sensitive gums not cause pain? 
		
Click to expand...

I doubt it can. Where did I mention FORCED SHARPLY? It lies loosely over the gum. It exerts no pressure at all, but will do so, if a horse tries to put its head down to buck. It certainly causes far less discomfort in use than a jointed snaffle, when someone tries to lead a horse with the reins over its head.


----------



## Natch (11 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			I doubt it can. Where did I mention FORCED SHARPLY? It lies loosely over the gum. It exerts no pressure at all, but will do so, if a horse tries to put its head down to buck. It certainly causes far less discomfort in use than a jointed snaffle, when someone tries to lead a horse with the reins over its head.
		
Click to expand...

See this frustrates me. How can you possibly know this? I'm going to quote science again, but has the pressure on the roof of the mouth and tongue in a snaffle been measured? (yes, by Mr Cook and possibly by Klauss F.H. but neither will/can publish the results, but that's a different story ) How about the pressure exerted by the buckstop? Physics would lead me to believe that a thin line could exert a LOT of pressure, especially with the weight of the horse at speed exerted on it.


----------



## talkinghorse (11 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			See this frustrates me. How can you possibly know this? I'm going to quote science again, but has the pressure on the roof of the mouth and tongue in a snaffle been measured? (yes, by Mr Cook and possibly by Klauss F.H. but neither will/can publish the results, but that's a different story ) How about the pressure exerted by the buckstop? Physics would lead me to believe that a thin line could exert a LOT of pressure, especially with the weight of the horse at speed exerted on it.
		
Click to expand...

I can't believe this is a serious question! Put a piece of cotton washing line comfortably across your gum, under the top lip. Get someone to hold the ends, with no pressure at all, over the top of your head. Now jerk your head forward! Did you use the whole 8 stone of your bodyweight? Did you stop when you felt something 'odd' against your gum?

Now get a jointed snaffle with reins attached. Place the bit over one outstretched hand and close the other hand over the top. Now get your assistant to pull you towards them with the reins. 

Still need the science?


----------



## Natch (11 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			I can't believe this is a serious question! Put a piece of cotton washing line comfortably across your gum, under the top lip. Get someone to hold the ends, with no pressure at all, over the top of your head. Now jerk your head forward! Did you use the whole 8 stone of your bodyweight? Did you stop when you felt something 'odd' against your gum?
		
Click to expand...

Does a horse wearing one of these really stop mid- or even pre- buck (and we're not talking a small one) first time? It is a genuine question, I don't have an awful lot of knowledge on these. Perhaps I shouldn't have commented - I assumed from what I can vaguely remember having seen MR use it in a video, that the horse certainly did not stop having felt an odd sensation, but continued to buck in full several times.

To answer assuming my memory is accurate, I don't have a long neck and a heavy skull which acts as a pendulum. I dont have the strength in my neck to lift my head from ground to air repeatedly all day long. Despite my draft horse-like body (Thank you for assuming I was 8 stone. I'm not ) I would not be able to put the force into the line which a horse who is bucking could. The comparison simply is not accurate - that is why I would test it with science.


----------



## talkinghorse (11 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			Does a horse wearing one of these really stop mid- or even pre- buck (and we're not talking a small one) first time? It is a genuine question, I don't have an awful lot of knowledge on these.  The comparison simply is not accurate - that is why I would test it with science.
		
Click to expand...

I have seen it used once and the horse attempted to buck once and met the buckstopper, he then started to lower his head a second time and stopped.

How did you get on with the snaffle bit?


----------



## Natch (11 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			I have seen it used once and the horse attempted to buck once and met the buckstopper, he then started to lower his head a second time and stopped.

How did you get on with the snaffle bit?
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I haven't had a go with a snaffle tonight. I don't own one - can't stand them.


----------



## cambrica (11 June 2012)

When I first saw Monty Roberts back in the 1990's I always said that he was the one person, if I could, I would like to spend an hour of my life with. Luckily for me this happened this year.
Legend is not (unlike my kids) a word I would use lightly, but he is a living legend in the equine world. 
When most Californian's are taking early retirement on the golf course Monty sets out to change the worlds view on creating a better existance for horses.
He does in one day of his life what I couldn't achieve in a lifetime. Yes, he is a showman but what Californian isn't (having lived there I know). 
Having 40 yrs + experience with horses and always learning I wouldn't say that I was a young novice.
Having bred one and started several youngsters I know that having brought a 3yr old Welsh sec D I am capable of producing a nice all-rounder. 
However, earlier this year the opportunity arose when I put Roberto's name forward for 'start-up' at a Monty demo. Why? because to see one of the greatest horsemen work on my horse was certainly something I would never forget.
Myself and my daughter spent time with Monty and Kelly during the day and as Roberto was chosen for the evening demo at no time did I question if I was asking too much of Roberto. He was checked fully by an equine physio and even in front of a large crowd, did not appear stressed or afraid.
The demo was one of the best - and seeing Monty with Roberto it was clear that his heart belongs with the horse, people and money are secondary to that.
Long may he continue his tireless campaign - especially on working in South America. Maybe one day he will take a deserved day off to enjoy his fortune.


----------



## fburton (12 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			Does a horse wearing one of these really stop mid- or even pre- buck (and we're not talking a small one) first time? It is a genuine question, I don't have an awful lot of knowledge on these. Perhaps I shouldn't have commented - I assumed from what I can vaguely remember having seen MR use it in a video, that the horse certainly did not stop having felt an odd sensation, but continued to buck in full several times.
		
Click to expand...

I don't have first hand experience with these mechanical devices either. Is the buckstopper at all like the gum-line, as used by Pat Parelli on Catwalk? There was a report that a vet had examined Catwalk after the demo and had found reddening of the gums - "a bright red lesion" was what one witness reported - though I believe another vet checked the horse subsequently and found nothing medically wrong with him. In any case, one can infer that the degree of discomfort must be sufficient to overcome whatever emotions are motivating the horse to buck in the first place.

ETA: I don't mean to imply that putting a cord in a horse's mouth necessarily leads to injury - of course not. It's possible that the gum-line was misused in Catwalk's case or the tissue damage was accidental.


----------



## fburton (12 June 2012)

cambrica said:



			Long may he continue his tireless campaign - especially on working in South America.
		
Click to expand...

Plenty of opportunity there to improve the lot of horses, I imagine!


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

fburton said:



			Plenty of opportunity there to improve the lot of horses, I imagine!
		
Click to expand...

Monty is returning to UK shortly to make a joint presentation on June 24th, with HM to those leading lights who have used his work to help end violence in their own countries: Adolfo Cambiaso (Argentina), Carlos Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Memo Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Carlos Leite (Brazil), Catherine Cunningham (Guatemala), Eduardo Moreira (Brazil), Joel Baker (USA), Mateus Ribeiro (Brazil), and Satish Seemar (Dubai).

He has made big advances from his first visit to Argentina, when, after his first and only demonstration, he had to be hastily removed from the country to save his life.


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			Monty is returning to UK shortly to make a joint presentation on June 24th, with HM to those leading lights who have used his work to help end violence in their own countries: Adolfo Cambiaso (Argentina), Carlos Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Memo Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Carlos Leite (Brazil), Catherine Cunningham (Guatemala), Eduardo Moreira (Brazil), Joel Baker (USA), Mateus Ribeiro (Brazil), and Satish Seemar (Dubai).

*He has made big advances from his first visit to Argentina, when, after his first and only demonstration, he had to be hastily removed from the country to save his life.*

Click to expand...


Was it _that_ bad?   Or were the extreme clicker fundamentalists after him?


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Was it _that_ bad?   Or were the extreme clicker fundamentalists after him? 

Click to expand...

I think 'extreme clicker fundamentalists' was just a cover. The gauchos were not impressed with his first demo as it implied they were all doing it wrong and would be out of a job. The next morning his host, who should have been taking him to his next demo that day, told him there had been a postponement and they had time for a round of golf first. Monty was a little surprised at the change of plan, fishing was more his kind of relaxation, not golf. He was even more surprised that they had a golf club at the airport. Once at the airport, his host explained that the gauchos had put a contract out on him! 

Kelly had someone from South America on a course who wanted to see what he was up against. He was so overwhelmed with the Monty Roberts approach that he didn't go back, but stayed to work in UK. He said there would be too much 'heavy obstruction' to his work if he tried to introduce the ideas back home, but he certainly couldn't go back and carry on as he had done. 

Fortunately persistence pays and time moves on. Monty having a high profile makes him able to influence people who are highly regarded in their own country. Every little helps.


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

_I think 'extreme clicker fundamentalists' was just a cover._ 

Good grief Catrin, was that an attempt at humour ... I'm impressed 


_The gauchos were not impressed with his first demo as it* implied they were all doing it wrong* and would be out of a job._

Yes, I've noticed that about Monty's demos.  Fortunately we are more civilised in the UK, as traditional British horsemanship - and any other kind he doesn't agree with - have put up with his claims that it is "abusive" for years.



_Every little helps._

Now, now, no advertising ...


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			 _The gauchos were not impressed with his first demo as it* implied they were all doing it wrong* and would be out of a job._

Yes, I've noticed that about Monty's demos.  Fortunately we are more civilised in the UK, as traditional British horsemanship - and any other kind he doesn't agree with - have put up with his claims that it is "abusive" for years.
		
Click to expand...

The only kind of horsemanship that he doesn't agree with is one that uses violence or damages a horse. If people think the cap fits them, they will just have to "put up with" wearing it. It is their choice, not Monty's. I'd rather he spoke up than shut up where violence is concerned. At least he shows there is a better and simpler way than swinging or beating a horse.

However, I hardly think swinging a horse  accepting the death of "the most spirited ones" as inevitable  is common in British horsemanship, though it was the norm in South America. Abusive is not a subjective value judgement, Monty is quite clear on this. He isn't comparing, or judging others, but showing that abuse isn't necessary. If others judge themselves as abusers, that is their assessment based on what they know of their own training methods. So Monty is to be applauded if he is the first person to raise their awareness of themselves.


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

The problem is, I think, that Monty has an interesting definition of violence.  Some acts are undoubtedly extremely violent and barbaric, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.  But then, there are other acts where I think shades of grey come in - so it does become relative and subjective.  For example, according to Monty flooding is not violent, putting a horse into learned helplessnss is not violent, yanking on a dually is not violent, using buckstoppers (even on young horses in a study meant to show how kinds his methods are) isn't violent, and join up isn't violent - even though others perceive it to put horses under pretty extreme psychological pressure.  If your definition of violent is "don't hit the horse" (I appreciate that there are some training methods much, much worse than simply hitting) then no, Monty's methods are not violent.  But if you consider violence to be inflicting physical pain or psychological pressure onto a horse, then the definition becomes untenable.


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

sorry, not quite clear in my last post, I should have said "If you consider violence to be infliciting physical pain or psychological pressure onto a horse, then the definition that Monty's methods are non-violent becomes untenable"


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			The problem is, I think, that Monty has an interesting definition of violence.    But then, there are other acts where I think shades of grey come in - so it does become relative and subjective.  If your definition of violent is "don't hit the horse" (I appreciate that there are some training methods much, much worse than simply hitting) then no, Monty's methods are not violent.  But if you consider violence to be inflicting physical pain or psychological pressure onto a horse, then the definition becomes untenable.
		
Click to expand...

Monty's definition is quite clear. Anything that causes a horse pain or distress is violence. You have your opinion about the result of Monty's work, and will continue to hold it no matter what I say. There are no shades of grey, the horse has choice, the horse is not forced. 

He may use flooding, but I have never seen it and he doesn't teach it. He never inflicts physical pain and until you have a way to measure the psychological pressure your opinions are just that. At least Monty has tried to use whatever equipment he can to measure what happens when he is working.

As Monty says, "Horses should be given the freedom of choice." You cannot do that if your choice is violence.


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

_Anything that causes a horse pain or distress is violence_

Wow, OK, so yanking on a dually and using a buckstopper doesn't cause a horse pain and distress, and does give a horse a choice?  Fascinating.

_He may use flooding, but I have never seen it_ 

Have you never seen the video of Blushing ET where the horse, dripping with sweat, simply sits down in the starting stalls?  Even Kelly explains that releasing the horse to buck around the roundpen with the saddle on is a form of flooding.

_At least Monty has tried to use whatever equipment he can to measure what happens when he is working._

Yes, the heart rate monitor.  But there seems to be objection to the validity of those measurements, if Dr Andrew McLean is to be believed.  No cortisol swab analysis, and no behavioural indicators.  Rather limited measurement, I would say.

_You have your opinion about the result of Monty's work, and will continue to hold it no matter what I say_

You are so right, but at least having these discussions gives other people the chance to see both sides of the argument, and help them make up their minds what to believe.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (12 June 2012)

Fellewell said:



			Here's a thing........

I have noticed that Dually halters have a tendency to twist and stick and 'practitioners' are constantly straightening them and loosening the ring ropes during training.

If reward for the horse is the immediate release from pressure when the desired behaviour is offered, then how is this achieved when the apparatus has to be constantly manually released and adjusted?

Just thought I'd ask

Click to expand...

I'm not a 'practitioner' just someone who finds the dually a lifesaver for a big strong ID.
Good question, my view is that this happens when the dually isn't properly fitted, when it's snug but not tight I experience very little movement.  I wonder as well in what circumstances you have seen them used. I feel it very important to take time to train in a calm and non reactive situation, I lead in from the field and frequently practise halts and releases. 
Once the lead rope is loose there is no pull or pressure on the halter so whilst minor adjustments may be needed before the next manoeuvre the pressure has been released..well that's my experience. It is incidental to me that this is a Monty Roberts halter, I would have bought one whoever developed it.


----------



## Natch (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



_At least Monty has tried to use whatever equipment he can to measure what happens when he is working._

Yes, the heart rate monitor.  But there seems to be objection to the validity of those measurements, if Dr Andrew McLean is to be believed.  No cortisol swab analysis, and no behavioural indicators.  Rather limited measurement, I would say.
		
Click to expand...

Although it doesn't give a complete and  specific answer to stress, I believe  heart rate is a more accurate measure of accute stress than cortisol


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

Agreed, but I think that a combination of measurements would have given the most accurate assessment of what went on.  Cortisol swabs were taken, and videos made of all the training sessions, but only the heart rates have ever been used in the results.  I appreciate that time and cost influences how results are analysed, but it seems a bit odd to make provision for all these different assessment methods, and then just rely on the one.


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



_Anything that causes a horse pain or distress is violence_

Wow, OK, so yanking on a dually and using a buckstopper doesn't cause a horse pain and distress, and does give a horse a choice? 
		
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence of the pain? Have you had anyone tug a Dually rope across part of your body? 

Monty doesn't cause pain, if a horse bucks when wearing the buckstopper there is discomfort. Have you examined a horse to find any evidence of its effect, or are you giving your opinion?

The horse chooses to walk quietly, or pull away. If he refuses to back up, when asked to, Monty gives one or two sharp tugs. The horse can then choose whether to comply or not. Some do so immediately, but as the horses you see demonstrated have problems, depending on their previous mishandling, many do not.




			 Have you never seen the video of Blushing ET where the horse, dripping with sweat, simply sits down in the starting stalls?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. That is not part of his training.




			 Yes, the heart rate monitor.  But there seems to be objection to the validity of those measurements, if Dr Andrew McLean is to be believed.  No cortisol swab analysis, and no behavioural indicators.  Rather limited measurement, I would say. 
		
Click to expand...

You are one of the peer group?




			 You are so right, but at least having these discussions gives other people the chance to see both sides of the argument, and help them make up their minds what to believe.
		
Click to expand...

It most certainly does!


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

Well, I haven't actually wrapped a dually around my head with the noseband wrapped around my nose and have someone give a few sharp tugs on it, no.  To very "robust" horses with not such strong handlers it may be discomfort - to more sensitive, thin-skinned animals I feel it would be more inclined towards pain.  After all, it is on a very sensitive part of the body, designed to tighten to maximise the pressure across the nose.  Where along the spectrum it changes from discomfort to pain I think depends on the individual horse, and the strength of the user.  But it's not much of a "choice" is it?  They are going to give in in the end.

What is the choice with the buckstopper - give in, or have your gum damaged by the line?  I think we are moving into the realms of delusion to imagine that that does not hurt.  

I don't understand when you say that the Blushing ET video was not part of his training.  He is training the horse in the video.

I don't have to be one of a "peer group" to know enough to question something.


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			Well, I haven't actually wrapped a dually around my head with the noseband wrapped around my nose and have someone give a few sharp tugs on it, no.   
		
Click to expand...

I'm relieved to know that, it would hardly replicate what happens to the horse and could be quite harmful to a human. 




			To very "robust" horses with not such strong handlers it may be discomfort - to more sensitive, thin-skinned animals I feel it would be more inclined towards pain.
		
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous statement. There are two ways in which the Dually can work either the handler puts the pressure on, as in the schooling tug. I can create a force of around 40 N, I suppose Monty might get up to 100 N. The other way is the horse can run into the pressure if it tries to flee. If you resist the horse, you might use your whole weight to apply the force, so you would use a force of 900 N, if you are a 15 stone man. Are you seriously saying that there are hundreds of horses who have had the front of their faces crushed from trying to flee in a Dually? As usual you are presenting your opinion, with no rationality, logic or fact.




			After all, it is on a very sensitive part of the body, designed to tighten to maximise the pressure across the nose.
		
Click to expand...

So why do all headcollars and lunge cavessons fit there? Have you complained to the makers of bosals and hackamores as well?




			 What is the choice with the buckstopper - give in, or have your gum damaged by the line?
		
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence of gum damage? Usually the horse will feel the line and lift its head. I assume that all riders drop the reins when the horse bucks do they? Otherwise they'd better stop using bits.





			I think we are moving into the realms of delusion to imagine that that does not hurt.
		
Click to expand...

At least there you'll feel at home.




			I don't understand when you say that the Blushing ET video was not part of his training.  He is training the horse in the video.
		
Click to expand...

The TV company said they wanted him to train the worst horse they could find and make it into a programme. Monty agreed, they showed him the horse at his worse: he attacked people and threw himself on the ground within a few yards of the starting gate.

Monty works in the stable, where Blushing ET is quiet and docile and in the round pen where he attacks him. He fits the starting blanket and a saddle and wraps the stirrups in cloth. If there is flooding when Blushing ET tears the cloth to pieces, it was hardly deliberate, as it could not have been foreseen that it would occur. 




			I don't have to be one of a "peer group" to know enough to question something
		
Click to expand...

What qualifications do you have to dispute the findings of the peer group?


----------



## Pale Rider (12 June 2012)

Horsesforever1 said:



			oh dear I seem to have upset some. 
I hold steadfast to my opinion and thoughts on the matter of IH. I will agree to differ from the opinions and statements of some others on the board. 
I now consider my input on this subject closed, Taditional BHS methods have worked for me  and my horses very well over the years. I will not change for fashions sake nor to I think targeting vulnerable unsure people with psyco-bable is a good thing.
		
Click to expand...

You can take a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think. Lol.


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

Why do you think horses only feel pain when their faces are "crushed".  I should think that pain starts to register long before bones actually cave in.

Head collars and lunge cavessons do not tighten to increase the pressure.  I do not think that people who use hackamores or borsals pretend that this equipment gives horses "choices".

The evidence that the buckstopper is painful is demonstrated by the horse.  The horse will only attempt to buck a few times (at most) with the buckstopper in play.  Whatever motive drives the horse to buck, the buckstopper gives them a stronger motive to stop.  These horses will have already been ridden by riders who will have tried pulling their heads up and driving them on to prevent the bucking (well, unless they are babies being used in the study to "prove" the kindness of Monty's techniques).  Therefore, it would appear that the buckstopper may be more severe than your average bit.  I am not advocating the use of harsh bits and yanking horses heads up to stop them bucking either ... but when you are trying to set yourself up as the "kindest" trainer in the world, it seems a questionable technique to use. 

I was actually referring to the flooding which resulted in learned helplessnss when Blushing ET simply gives up and sits down in the starting stalls.  There is no sign of him throwing himself to the ground or attacking anyone - he just gives up.  I don't know what video you've seen, but it's different to the one I saw - Blushing ET is shown as quiet in the roundpen, panicking in the stable and falling to floor when the blanket is put on him (and then charging out of the stable nearly flattening the camera person when Monty tries again) and there is no footage of him ripping the cloth to pieces.  However, irrespective, Monty agreed to be filmed training the horse, and it is his training that puts the horse into learned helplessness.  So it is Monty's training.

There are more holes in Monty's "study" than there are in a fisherman's net.  The design is flawed and it does not test (or "prove" - a very unscientific concept) what was intended.  My critique of the study comes from Andrew McLean's comments, and what we were told at the EBF conference by Veronica Fowler.    If/when the study is ever published by Anthrozoos I will be very interested to read the entire work, where (by rights) they should include the drawbacks/weaknesses of the study and suggestions for further research into the area.


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			 I was actually referring to the flooding which resulted in learned helplessnss when Blushing ET simply gives up and sits down in the starting stalls. 
		
Click to expand...

I can't see how you can *flood* a horse in this situation, unless you imprison him in the starting stalls until he stands up. In Blushing ET's case, they couldn't get him in there. There is no opportunity for _continuous presentation of the stimulus_ until the horse accepts it.


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

In the video the horse is hot and sweaty, clearly they have been working at it for some time (remember this is a two year old we are talking about).  The jockey rides the horse forward into the stalls, the horse enters the stalls and slowly collapses onto his back legs so he is in a sitting position.  Monty can be heard urging the rider to "stay on top" but the rider gets off and climbs onto the side of the starting stalls.  He holds onto the reins, and he obviously doesn't fear an attack from the horse.  The horse continues to sit there - no aggression, no biting, just sitting there.  Even the voice-over calls it "the saddest moment".  In Martin Seligman's experiment on learned helplessness, the dogs continued to tolerate the electric shocks even when opportuntiy was given to them to escape.  You can throw all the theoretical phrases at it that you want.  The horse was overwhelmed, he'd given up.  Monty's training got him in that state.


----------



## HashRouge (12 June 2012)

Please can someone explain what "flooding" and "learned helplessness" are? I'm struggling to follow....


----------



## Pale Rider (12 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			In the video the horse is hot and sweaty, clearly they have been working at it for some time (remember this is a two year old we are talking about).  The jockey rides the horse forward into the stalls, the horse enters the stalls and slowly collapses onto his back legs so he is in a sitting position.  Monty can be heard urging the rider to "stay on top" but the rider gets off and climbs onto the side of the starting stalls.  He holds onto the reins, and he obviously doesn't fear an attack from the horse.  The horse continues to sit there - no aggression, no biting, just sitting there.  Even the voice-over calls it "the saddest moment".  In Martin Seligman's experiment on learned helplessness, the dogs continued to tolerate the electric shocks even when opportuntiy was given to them to escape.  You can throw all the theoretical phrases at it that you want.  The horse was overwhelmed, he'd given up.  Monty's training got him in that state.
		
Click to expand...

You cannot make a comparison between the behaviour of dogs and that of horses.

Horses have a set of techniques that they use to escape from whatever they perceive as the threat to them. Horses fear death not getting hurt, which is why they will sometimes damage themselves by moving into pressure in an attempt to escape.
Once the horse has exhausted all the options he feels he has available, flight first obviously, then fight, kicking, striking, biting or whatever, rearing and bucking are to dislodge things from his back, as some find to their cost, he will sometimes give up.

Basically, all his options are taken away and nothing is left, but death for him, and yes this is the 'saddest moment'.

To describe this as training and saying that training has got him to this place is flawed I feel, because you are not training at this point. What you are doing is thwarting his massive attempts to escape.

Once the horse has gone down and given up completely, then the rebuilding starts and what you would conventionally call training.
Using whatever technique you choose.

This is really breaking a horse in the true sense of the horse being mentally broken, dressing it up with any scientific or psuedo-scientific language dose not alter the fact of what has been done.

In fairness, when this happens in a domestic setting, the escalation is usually lead by the horse and the trainer is reacting to the ever increasing level the horse takes them to until it cannot go any more.


----------



## talkinghorse (12 June 2012)

HashRouge said:



			Please can someone explain what "flooding" and "learned helplessness" are? I'm struggling to follow.... 

Click to expand...

Flooding: using something that you know causes the animal to exhibit an unwanted behaviour continuously until the behaviour stops. Flooding has to be *prolonged* exposure to a stimulus at a level that causes the behaviour *until* the behaviour eventually stops. So with flooding we would have to know that the stimulus we applied caused the horse to fall down and we would keep applying the stimulus until the horse got over its fear of the starting stalls.

This didn't and couldn't happen in this situation: you cannot continuously 'put the horse in the starting stalls' and not stop 'putting in' until he accepts it. In this context you can't 'flood'. You can flood if the horse dislikes noisy tractors, by putting a noisy tractor in a small enclosed area until the horse learns to ignore the noise. 

Learned helplessness can result from flooding. The animal learns that it cannot escape the continuous stimulus and stops trying to avoid it (so it stops running away from the tractor, the stimulus). When it gets the chance to escape, it still stays with the stimulus. 

In the case of Blushing ET, flooding wasn't used, so learned helplessness didn't occur either. The horse eventually accepted Monty in the enclosed space, from on the back of another horse. (He had already accepted him happily in the stable, it was the confined space, like the starting stall that caused him problems.) 

You can read about how Monty trained Blushing ET in his book _From My Hands to Yours_ http://www.montyroberts.com/book-excerpts/blushing-et-and-the-hallway-system/


----------



## Natch (12 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			Horses have a set of techniques that they use to escape from whatever they perceive as the threat to them. Horses fear death not getting hurt, which is why they will sometimes damage themselves by moving into pressure in an attempt to escape.
Once the horse has exhausted all the options he feels he has available, flight first obviously, then fight, kicking, striking, biting or whatever, rearing and bucking are to dislodge things from his back, as some find to their cost, he will sometimes give up.

...
To describe this as training and saying that training has got him to this place is flawed I feel, because you are not training at this point. What you are doing is thwarting his massive attempts to escape.

...
This is really breaking a horse in the true sense of the horse being mentally broken, dressing it up with any scientific or psuedo-scientific language dose not alter the fact of what has been done.
		
Click to expand...

If a highly averside stimulus (doesn't have to be a threat of death) is repeatedly applied and nothing the horse/dog/human/lab rat does makes it stop, and they give up trying, that IS learnt helplessness, and I agree it is what happens during "breaking a horse's spirit" and is very sad. It IS a form of training - you are training the horse to not respond to a highly aversive stimulus. 

Habituation is similar to flooding, but with the stimulus at a lower intensity.



talkinghorse said:



			Where is your evidence of gum damage? Usually the horse will feel the line and lift its head. I assume that all riders drop the reins when the horse bucks do they? Otherwise they'd better stop using bits.
		
Click to expand...

Out of interest, why was a gum line used instead of attaching it to a bit? Would a bit have been as effective? My theory is thus;



tess1 said:



			Whatever motive drives the horse to buck, the buckstopper gives them a stronger motive to stop.  These horses will have already been ridden by riders who will have tried pulling their heads up and driving them on to prevent the bucking... Therefore, it would appear that the buckstopper may be more severe than your average bit.
		
Click to expand...

(quote edited by me to reflect my exact opinion)

...But I suspect you may have a different opinion of why a gumline instead of a bit, and I am interested to hear it


----------



## Natch (12 June 2012)

Talkinghorse I like your explanations, and if I could just add to them to clarify things a little: 



talkinghorse said:



			Flooding: using something that you know causes the animal to exhibit an unwanted behaviour continuously until the behaviour stops. Flooding has to be *prolonged* exposure to a highly aversivestimulus at a level that causes *any sort of reactive behaviour until the behaviour stops*. So with flooding we would keep applying the stimulus until the horse stopped reacting tothe stimulus (in the example of the starting stalls the aversive stimulus would be the stall, which would have to be "applied" to the horse (Somehow), and not removed until the horse ceased to make any attempt to remove the stimulus).

 You can flood if the horse dislikes noisy tractors, by putting a noisy tractor in a small enclosed area until the horse learns to ignore the noise. The same tractor and school with a different horse who was not highly fearful of tractors  wouldn't be classed as flooding, but habituation. Another common example of habituation (which Monty does and I approve of ) is to run your hands all over a horse in approach and retreat. You approach an area which the horse objects to, but retreat before it gets to a strong objection. You then repeat until there is no reaction. Habituation involves keeping the stress levels of an animal manageable. Flooding involves taking the stress levels through the roof. So in the example of touching all over, to flood the horse you would touch and keep touching the tickly spot which they really object to whilst the horse does whatever it can to get you off it, and remove your hand when they give up trying to escape your hand.  

Learned helplessness is the result from flooding. The animal learns that it cannot escape the continuous stimulus and stops trying to avoid it (so it stops running away from the tractor, the stimulus). When it gets the chance to escape, it still stays with the stimulus. 

Apart from the ethics, the downsides of flooding are that if you are unable to see it through the horse may become even more highly reactive to the aversive stimulus, and even if it has been successful, the horse may regress at some point in the future.

Click to expand...


----------



## tess1 (12 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			Flooding: using something that you know causes the animal to exhibit an unwanted behaviour continuously until the behaviour stops. Flooding has to be *prolonged* exposure to a stimulus at a level that causes the behaviour *until* the behaviour eventually stops. So with flooding we would have to know that the stimulus we applied caused the horse to fall down and we would keep applying the stimulus until the horse got over its fear of the starting stalls.

This didn't and couldn't happen in this situation: *you cannot continuously 'put the horse in the starting stalls' and not stop 'putting in' until he accepts it.* In this context you can't 'flood'. You can flood if the horse dislikes noisy tractors, by putting a noisy tractor in a small enclosed area until the horse learns to ignore the noise. 

Learned helplessness can result from flooding. The animal learns that it cannot escape the continuous stimulus and stops trying to avoid it (so it stops running away from the tractor, the stimulus). When it gets the chance to escape, it still stays with the stimulus.
		
Click to expand...

But you can continually keep trying to force the horse to _go in_ to the starting stalls - and when he finally does give up and go in there he collapses.  Just because the horse wasn't _in the stalls the whole time doesn't mean he wasn't being flooded - he was in the vicinity of the stalls and he knew what the people were trying to make him do.  That constitutes prolonged exposure to the aversive stimulus when all avenues of escape have been blocked off - and Monty was using mesh panals to keep the horse very close to the stalls._


----------



## Pale Rider (13 June 2012)

I would argue that once a horse has reached a stage where it has given up, ie gone down on the floor, this is a far higher level than flooding. As is suggested, that in flooding the horse has been subjected to the aversive stimulus until the reactive behavoiur stops and the averse stimulus has been 'accepted'.

I don't believe that the extreme reaction of the horse by giving up is a sign that the horse has accepted the adverse stimulus, in fact quite the reverse is probably true.


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

I read the books & watched a demo back in the 90's in my teens, & have had the odd delve since. But for me anyway, & on yards I've worked on a lot of the everyday stuff regarding basic body language is very similar. Long before monty was popular, stuff like squaring up to a dominant horse, or keeping an uncatchable horse moving was already practiced. Stuff like removing the pressure when handling before the horse moves was something well practiced beforehand too. And in all honesty, I don't see a great deal of difference between a dually & a stallion chain, same principles. If it works for you, that's fine, but its not something I have felt a need to practice myself. Will keep an open mind, but my ( non bhs lol) ways have worked for me with my own, project horses & other peoples problem horses too. 
  In the last 4 yrs though I have learnt that in some situations it wouldn't work. I have a now 5yr old pony who is fear aggressive & lacks normal herd behavior, after spending from 3mnths to 1 alone. The wounds, both healed & recent she had at 1 indicated she'd seen off at least a few dogs herself. Not major attacks, but that, her solitary life & idiot of a prior owner all explain her fight to the death attitude. Very little flight instinct, a few strides at most in order to turn for the attack for apparent danger. My mare adopted her, & she has normal behavior, however even in a herd she has little normal instinct with any others. She'll move for others above her, but will wait & watch for the opportunity to race back, bite or kick them then hide behind mine again. And while she has always played with another youngster, if another adult tells her off she'll bide her time till their defences are down to get her own back for having dominated her. And has done the same with several people too. So I find it hard to believe a join up type technique would do anything but harm & increase the fear aggression. 
  By comparison, taking it slow & teaching her its fun to be with us has had a great result. As long as daughter, myself or my mare are around, she feels no need to fight, she trusts us to do it for her. And at 5 is a brilliant pony for my 7yr old. Any half decent person can ask her for something & she'd try to please. But put her in a round pen with an adult & despite being 11.1 she'd try to kill you. And if floored & sat on she'd wait till you moved & try again. So whilst no doubt often good, this pony, to me, proves that its not always the solution.


----------



## talkinghorse (13 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			 Out of interest, why was a gum line used instead of attaching it to a bit? Would a bit have been as effective? 
		
Click to expand...

The gumline is an effective aversive stimulus: instantaneous with the serious attempt to buck; sufficient to abort the behaviour. A bit would be totally inappropriate. It is designed for an entirely different purpose and should be used for that. I can't imagine the damage that would occur to a horse's mouth if a horse bucked and the rider pulled on the reins.


----------



## talkinghorse (13 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			I would argue that once a horse has reached a stage where it has given up, ie gone down on the floor, this is a far higher level than flooding.
		
Click to expand...

It cannot be flooding as flooding requires that the stimulus is presently continuously until the behaviour stops. If you present a horse to starting stalls (stimulus) it drops to the floor (response) the stimulus is no longer present. 

Flooding requires that the stimulus is continued until the horse stops the unwanted behaviour. The two things (refusing to enter starting gate) and (willing to enter starting gate) are mutually exclusive  hence it is cannot be flooding


----------



## Tinypony (13 June 2012)

I've been sitting on my hands for the best part of 42 pages, but I have to ask...
Why argue over the strict definition of flooding?  The horse sat down and stayed there for some time or collapsed or however you want to phrase it.  How can that ever be right?  I mean blimey we all make mistakes, even great trainers make mistakes, but this obviously wasn't viewed as such.  I'd be devastated if I did that to a horse.  As Pale Rider says, that's breaking a horse surely?  
I suppose at the end of the day a racehorse is a commodity, and if he couldn't do his job he had no value, so whatever, he was going to go into that stall.  
Tess and I agree to disagree over a lot of things, but I think she's talking sense in this case.


----------



## fburton (13 June 2012)

Naturally said:



			If a highly averside stimulus (doesn't have to be a threat of death) is repeatedly applied and nothing the horse/dog/human/lab rat does makes it stop, and they give up trying, that IS learnt helplessness, and I agree it is what happens during "breaking a horse's spirit" and is very sad. It IS a form of training - you are training the horse to not respond to a highly aversive stimulus. 

Habituation is similar to flooding, but with the stimulus at a lower intensity.
		
Click to expand...

You're right, and I would add that what distinguishes flooding from habituation (or "desensitization" as it is sometimes called) is _whether or not the stimulus provokes a flight response_. In the case of flooding, the horse is prevented, one way or another, from fleeing or avoiding whatever it fears, and so is forced to endure until it stops reacting to the aversive stimulus.

With progressive desensitization, exposure to the stimulus is carefully controlled so that the horse _never becomes fearful enough to precipitate the flight reaction_. This gentler approach may take longer, but is much less likely to have unwanted side effects, for example on the horse's attitude to people.

You effectively said this in your later post. I just wanted to make explicit the point about there being a threshold level of aversive stimulus intensity.

Another difference is that desensitization requires the trainer to be attentive to the horse's reactions throughout the procedure, whereas with flooding the stimulus is applied and the horse left to deal (or not deal) with it. If the trainer is concentrating on anything, it is more likely to be to ensuring the horse remains confined/restrained and that it does not injure itself.

And as you also say in that post, a significant downside of flooding - quite apart from the fact that it is much more unpleasant and stressful for the horse - is the risk that the suppressed behaviour may re-emerge suddenly and unexpectedly at a later date. Just because the horse has stopped responding to an aversive stimulus, which is presented in a way that does not allow avoidance or escape, doesn't necessarily mean the horse is no longer fearful. All it may take is a slightly different situation for a full-blown fear response to reappear.


----------



## Tinypony (13 June 2012)

I have seen this in action.  A horse that was "desensitised" to pigs by a prominent trainer, by stalling it next to pigs, pronounced cured in a very public way.  The owner was turning to the person I worked for within a relatively short space of time because her horse was now reacting to pigs in a worse way than before, it then became so afraid it was dangerous at just the smell of pigs if it got downwind.  Flooded not desensitised.


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

The flooding technique has parallels with both common practice over here & ironically montys fathers methods. It's not unusual for feral/ unhandled ponies to be stabled for sometimes weeks in order to accept people. Same thing really, you remove the ability for flight & force acceptance of humans. And the practice of people like montys father, i.e. the breaking method is essentially the same, the ability for flight is removed & human acceptance is forced. 
  Habituation, or desensitization where the horse has the option of flight, but chooses not to is entirely different. And much the way I prefer to do things.


----------



## Tinypony (13 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			The flooding technique has parallels with both common practice over here & ironically montys fathers methods. It's not unusual for feral/ unhandled ponies to be stabled for sometimes weeks in order to accept people. Same thing really, you remove the ability for flight & force acceptance of humans. And the practice of people like montys father, i.e. the breaking method is essentially the same, the ability for flight is removed & human acceptance is forced. 
  Habituation, or desensitization where the horse has the option of flight, but chooses not to is entirely different. And much the way I prefer to do things.
		
Click to expand...

You know that much used photo of the horse laying on it's side with all it's legs tied up?  I have Monty's dad's book.  In it he carefully describes how to lay a horse down like that, and immobilise it for gelding or other medical procedures.  They didn't have the same access to vets and drugs that we have today, in those days these cowboys needed to know how to lay a horse down safely and keep it still.  In fact, if you look at websites for organisations that rescue horses from improbable situations - they immobilise the horses in very much the same way, using straps normally rather than ropes.  
Monty's dad did sometimes tie up a hind leg to work a horse, not something I'd support, to be fair.  
He also gives an interesting description of how to do Hook Up with a horse.


----------



## Morgan123 (13 June 2012)

Tinypony said:



			You know that much used photo of the horse laying on it's side with all it's legs tied up?  I have Monty's dad's book.  In it he carefully describes how to lay a horse down like that, and immobilise it for gelding or other medical procedures.  They didn't have the same access to vets and drugs that we have today, in those days these cowboys needed to know how to lay a horse down safely and keep it still.  In fact, if you look at websites for organisations that rescue horses from improbable situations - they immobilise the horses in very much the same way, using straps normally rather than ropes.  
Monty's dad did sometimes tie up a hind leg to work a horse, not something I'd support, to be fair.  
He also gives an interesting description of how to do Hook Up with a horse.
		
Click to expand...

Hi TinyPony, what's that book called? Didn't know it existed, would like to read it.


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

Tinypony, no arguments from me that at times it can be the only option in the examples you give. My point is more that 'flooding' is exactly the same principle that monty so objected to in his fathers methods. Rather ironic I feel.


----------



## Tinypony (13 June 2012)

I agree with you Littlelegs.  The book is Horse and Horseman training.  Strangely maybe, it is available via Monty's website, where it is described as "disturbing".  I don't find it that disturbing to be honest, it's definitely of it's time though. Some bits in there I found tough to read, but other bits quite interesting.   http://www.montyroberts.com/images/jui_photos/horse_horseman_training.pdf


----------



## talkinghorse (13 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			Hi TinyPony, what's that book called? Didn't know it existed, would like to read it.
		
Click to expand...

You can download it from Monty's website, alongside a video of the procedure http://www.montyroberts.com/ab_about_monty/jui_about/


----------



## leogeorge (13 June 2012)

Francis......." habituation (or "desensitization" as it is sometimes called)"

Habituation and desensitization are two different things. A horse has to be "sensitized"  ( had a previous bad/fearful experience) to an object/place/etc in order to be DEsensitised. Habituation is the process of gradually "getting used to" a novel object/place/etc but has no previous association with the new thing.


----------



## Morgan123 (13 June 2012)

thanks for the link. Oh dear, little work for me for the rest of day then!!! Looking forward to reading this one.


----------



## Tinypony (13 June 2012)

The video shows a series of stills of Monty's dad, and video of other people "working" with horses.  Without knowing what preparation Monty's dad did with the horses he tied in various ways, or seeing how they reacted, it's a bit hard to judge.  I hasten to add that I don't like the look of what is happening in the stills, but adding video of someone else working a horse is a little bit... leading?  Misleading?  Emotive?  Just makes me a bit uncomfortable.
I'd be interested to know what people think about the description of hooking up.
Looking at Monty's dad's book, and the work with Blushing ET, am I the only one who thinks in terms of glasshouses and stones?
Shame really, as I have alway said, Monty did do some useful work in changing the perceptions of SOME people about how they worked with horses.


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

Agree entirely tiny pony. A tied up horse is a more emotive picture, but the same theory & result is behind it.


----------



## Fellewell (13 June 2012)

xxMozlarxx said:



			I'm not a 'practitioner' just someone who finds the dually a lifesaver for a big strong ID.
Good question, my view is that this happens when the dually isn't properly fitted, when it's snug but not tight I experience very little movement.  I wonder as well in what circumstances you have seen them used. I feel it very important to take time to train in a calm and non reactive situation, I lead in from the field and frequently practise halts and releases. 
Once the lead rope is loose there is no pull or pressure on the halter so whilst minor adjustments may be needed before the next manoeuvre the pressure has been released..well that's my experience. It is incidental to me that this is a Monty Roberts halter, I would have bought one whoever developed it. 

Click to expand...

Great news on your horse, he sounds very well-mannered.

They're blowing smoke up our rears with these gadgets. They're not nearly precise enough IMO.

FWIW after watching someone 'in the field' I was also lent an official training video.


----------



## Tinypony (13 June 2012)

I can't think of any situation where I'd tie a leg, unless I tied them all together because a horse was upside down in a ditch maybe!  But even doing that drastic thing, there would be more than one way to go about it ie gradually and with the horse learning to accept it (as they do for the farrier to hold their legs between his).  Or suddenly and forcefully as shown in that video.  And the "sacking out" if done resonably then it becomes "approach and retreat".  Just playing devil's advocate here.
I know that some here would find all of the above unacceptable and I'm fine with them having that opinion, just struggling to find some balance in what is being presented.


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

Fwiw I think a dually is a variation on a stallion chain in how it works. If someone like Mozlar makes an informed choice between that & a stallion chain, rope halter etc its all personal preference & a case of what gets the job done. What I do object to is that novices, whether intended by monty or not, often feel a dually is a kind & natural method of control & all similar ones are cruel & unnatural.


----------



## fburton (13 June 2012)

leogeorge said:



			Habituation and desensitization are two different things. A horse has to be "sensitized"  ( had a previous bad/fearful experience) to an object/place/etc in order to be DEsensitised. Habituation is the process of gradually "getting used to" a novel object/place/etc but has no previous association with the new thing.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the two terms have rather different meanings, but I considered that unimportant in the context of this discussion. For example, habituation is the general process by which an animal becomes used to any stimulus and it can happen at any time, while desensitization refers to the specific procedure as carried out systematically by a person with the aim of changing behaviour. Some people also make the distinction between threatening and non-threatening stimuli. However, both involve repeated exposure to the stimulus until the response wanes.

To be honest, this is the first time I have seen desensitization defined in precisely the way you say. Do you have a cite for that? Maybe this usage is more common in human psychology?

The requirement for previous sensitization is not one that all authors recognize. For instance, part of Dr Robert Miller's "imprint training" procedure (which I strongly dislike, btw) involves "desensitizing" (his word) the newborn foal to all manner of more or less invasive stimuli to which the foal would not have been exposed before, and hence not "sensitized". Arguably, habituation would be a more accurate way to describe this, but I give this as an example of common usage.


----------



## Morgan123 (13 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			What I do object to is that novices, whether intended by monty or not, often feel a dually is a kind & natural method of control & all similar ones are cruel & unnatural.
		
Click to expand...

agree - very good point, and one that MR&co make use of by saying it is kind - e.g. Monty's quote that the dually 'whispers corrections but shouts praise'.


----------



## neelie OAP (13 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			Fwiw I think a dually is a variation on a stallion chain in how it works. If someone like Mozlar makes an informed choice between that & a stallion chain, rope halter etc its all personal preference & a case of what gets the job done. What I do object to is that novices, whether intended by monty or not, often feel a dually is a kind & natural method of control & all similar ones are cruel & unnatural.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes I agree, but do you think its because they really have not quite understood how it actually works, and how it can really hurt the horse only having a very thin layer of skin covering the area where it actually becomes tight when yanked, even if it loosen off, it has still caused pain IMO !


----------



## Natch (13 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			The gumline is an effective aversive stimulus: instantaneous with the serious attempt to buck; sufficient to abort the behaviour. A bit would be totally inappropriate. It is designed for an entirely different purpose and should be used for that. I can't imagine the damage that would occur to a horse's mouth if a horse bucked and the rider pulled on the reins.
		
Click to expand...

Going to have to leave that debate here because I disagree with you on all of that apart from the first sentence. 



fburton said:



			I just wanted to make explicit the point about there being a threshold level of aversive stimulus intensity.
		
Click to expand...

Very happy for your contribution 



Tinypony said:



			... as I have alway said, Monty did do some useful work in changing the perceptions of SOME people about how they worked with horses.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Regardless of how I may evaluate his methods now, he is the first person who was responsible for making me think about whether I wanted to work with or against a horse, and whether I wanted a partnership or a boss/subordinate relationship, which I am very grateful to him for.


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

Neelie, yes, I think in the case of some novices its entirely down to a lack of understanding of how it works. In experienced hands, as a means to an ends I have no issues with one if required, I would assume its used with the same knowledge & reasoning that myself, or anyone else might use a stallion chain. But some as you say have no idea of what it actually does, quick scan of the dvd, no idea of correct leading in the first place & problems solved, with no idea how or why it has an effect, just a vague idea monty = kind & natural, & a false idea they are more caring than someone who uses something else. 
  I do sort of get the marketing, I think its kinder to use something for a short time than spend a lifetime fighting, or when its a safety issue. Just don't like the misconceptions some have.


----------



## amandap (13 June 2012)

'Newbies' are prey to everyone and especially their livery mates and YO's.
If everything was perfect in UK horsey land no one would go looking for other ways surely.


----------



## Morgan123 (13 June 2012)

amandap said:



			'Newbies' are prey to everyone and especially their livery mates and YO's.
If everything was perfect in UK horsey land no one would go looking for other ways surely.  

Click to expand...

True but it's not just newbies and total novices, they are marketed as kind to everyone!


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

Yes, true. But I know plenty of newbies who think chifneys, chains etc are cruel & mean & wouldn't dream of buying or using one who believe duallys are different due to the image of natural horsemanship.


----------



## amandap (13 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			Yes, true. But I know plenty of newbies who think chifneys, chains etc are cruel & mean & wouldn't dream of buying or using one who believe duallys are different due to the image of natural horsemanship.
		
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I forgot duallies are less kind and not less severe than chiffneys or yanking chains across the nose. Or even snaffles yanked.  
Keep doing what you're doing with your bits, chiffneys and chains you all know best.   I have to bow to your greater knowledge and experience but I still wont be following your advice/recommendations of stallion chains, chiffney and bits etc.


----------



## Morgan123 (13 June 2012)

amandap said:



			Oh yes, I forgot duallies are less kind and not less severe than chiffneys or yanking chains across the nose. Or even snaffles yanked.  
Keep doing what you're doing with your bits, chiffneys and chains you all know best.   I have to bow to your greater knowledge and experience but I still wont be following your advice/recommendations of stallion chains, chiffney and bits etc. 

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone anywhere in this thread has recommended the use of a stallion chain, chiffney or bit instead of a dually? Please do correct me if I'm wrong. 

Rather, the argument here has been that the dually is kinder - when actually that is doubtful. Personally, I would never use any of these except in a massively dangerous circumstance - can't even imagine what, but if it was really the only option or something.


----------



## Fellewell (13 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			Fwiw I think a dually is a variation on a stallion chain in how it works. If someone like Mozlar makes an informed choice between that & a stallion chain, rope halter etc its all personal preference & a case of what gets the job done. What I do object to is that novices, whether intended by monty or not, often feel a dually is a kind & natural method of control & all similar ones are cruel & unnatural.
		
Click to expand...



I'll get shot down but I would argue that a properly weighted stallion chain on a well fitting leather headcollar is actually kinder than a Dually and the message is clearer. 9 out of 10 times the confidence issue is with the handler, not the horse. He doesn't 'learn' to behave his handler just gets used to him


----------



## Littlelegs (13 June 2012)

No ones recommending people should use them instead of duallys? My point isn't that one isn't kinder or more natural than the other just because its made by monty Roberts. If you, or anyone else chooses to use a dually correctly, as I've already said its exactly the same principle as me using a stallion chain correctly. Which doesn't involve yanking it across the nose any more than a dually does. There is no moral high ground to be gained from using one over the other imo. But the fact remains that nobody markets chains or chifneys as a kind & natural approach in the way duallys, intentionally or not are.


----------



## amandap (13 June 2012)

Morgan123 said:



			Rather, the argument here has been that the dually is kinder - when actually that is doubtful.
		
Click to expand...

As I stated, I will have to bow to your greater knowledge and experience.


----------



## Fellewell (13 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			Monty is returning to UK shortly to make a joint presentation on June 24th, with HM to those leading lights who have used his work to help end violence in their own countries: Adolfo Cambiaso (Argentina), Carlos Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Memo Gracida (Mexico and Argentina), Carlos Leite (Brazil), Catherine Cunningham (Guatemala), Eduardo Moreira (Brazil), Joel Baker (USA), Mateus Ribeiro (Brazil), and Satish Seemar (Dubai).

He has made big advances from his first visit to Argentina, when, after his first and only demonstration, he had to be hastily removed from the country to save his life.
		
Click to expand...

That's Huggly Horsemanship territory isn't it?

Getting swung round by the gauchos may be the least of his worries


----------



## leogeorge (13 June 2012)

Hi Francis,

My explaination of the difference between DS and habituation, was not a "precise definition" directly quoted from anywhere, but my own words.

I would say though that just because most horse trainers describe habituation as DS, doesn't make them correct though does it? Horses habituate to things naturally all the time. They can also be sensitised and therefore need a programme of DS, so I don't see why there shouldn't be clarification where non human animals are concerned? Or have I misunderstood your point? 

You raise an interesting point though. I think the way a lot of trainers go about what should be a gradual habituation scenario, go so blumming quickly that they do actually sensitize and the process does then become one of DS. Monty Roberts does this a LOT. I have seen imprinting go this way too.


----------



## fburton (14 June 2012)

leogeorge said:



			I would say though that just because most horse trainers describe habituation as DS, doesn't make them correct though does it? Horses habituate to things naturally all the time. They can also be sensitised and therefore need a programme of DS, so I don't see why there shouldn't be clarification where non human animals are concerned? Or have I misunderstood your point?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure.  For what was being discussed, either habituation or desensitization could be used without creating confusion. I preferred the term desensitization (a particular kind of habituation). No biggie. 




			You raise an interesting point though. I think the way a lot of trainers go about what should be a gradual habituation scenario, go so blumming quickly that they do actually sensitize and the process does then become one of DS. Monty Roberts does this a LOT. I have seen imprinting go this way too.
		
Click to expand...

Here I am sure we are on exactly the same wavelength. The risk of inadvertently _sensitizing_ the foal is one of the reasons I dislike "imprinting".


----------



## Carloss (14 June 2012)

Four months ago, my new horse, a 15hh, 9 year old gelding, was delivered.  His previous owners, who bred him, were completely honest about issues he had about boxing. He had previously been on loan, with a view to selling him, and had a very bad experience in the trailer. On his return, they had help with his loading problem, and explained that he would load, but it had to be approached in a specific way. When he arrived in a dually halter, I knew what techniques were required.

Although I have had no actual experience with the dually halter, or the techniques used in Intelligent Horsemanship, I have watched programmes on Horse & Country TV, particularly about loading problems.

After a couple of months, my young instructor & I decided Jackson and I were ready to go to our first unaffiliated dressage competition at a local School of Equitation. So, time to see how the new boy loaded into my converted Ford Transit lorry. After three practice sessions, he was practically running up the ramp! He also learnt to turn in the box, and wait at the top of the ramp until I gave the signal for us to proceed calmly down.

Of course, on the morning of the competition, it did not go quite so well. However, my friend, who was accompanying me as it was a new horse, and I had allowed plenty of time in anticipation of this scenario. We were very calm and patient and he loaded in less than five minutes. After the competition, as he was rooted to the spot at the bottom of the ramp, I did wonder if I would be hacking home. However, after approximately half an hour, he relented and walked up the ramp. As it was our first outing, I was absolutely delighted.

On reflection, when I analysed the success of the day, I decided that there was a good deal of beginners luck involved. Also, I needed to be able to deal with everything on my own. My older horse, who is semi-retired now, and I frequently went to events on our own, or met friends at the venue.  Maybe it would be better to contact Intelligent Horsemanship to improve my understanding and make sure that I did not inadvertently make the problem worse.

 It turned out that the representative I contacted had worked with Jackson when he was with his previous owner. I thought that this continuity would be an advantage .

The representative wanted the horsebox taken down to my ménage. Although I would never load from there, I reluctantly agreed to back the lorry into the gateway. We have a history of vehicles getting stuck in there!  There is also a slight downward slope to it, which actually made the ramp slightly steeper. 

I have always loaded my other horse into the lorry in the driveway. It is safe, secure, and the layout from the stable yard helps funnel the horse into the box. We are very rural, but we back onto a very busy woodyard that has huge lorries going past the ménage to make deliveries.

However, I dont ask an expert to help and then argue with them. She said that Jackson had reared and thrown himself around previously, and the ménage would be safer. He did rear once at the show, but never during my practice sessions.

When we commenced the loading in the ménage, he did rear several times. There was a lot of pulling him this way and that way, and he did go into the lorry twice. On the second occasion he had a bit of a panic attack and the lorry started rocking. This had happened in one of my sessions, but I managed to calm him down, and we proceeded without it becoming an issue. The expert calmed him down, but he was not going to go back in the lorry again. After another hour of pulling him this way and that, she conceded that she had probably made the situation worse, and we agreed to end the session. With my tongue firmly clenched in my teeth, I gave her a cup of coffee and her fee and travel expenses, and fervently regretted the whole morning.

I am purposely not naming the individual. I am not pointing the finger or making any recriminations; I just want to try and undo the damage she has done and move on. 

This incident happened over three weeks ago. I have the lorry parked next to the house, and when I hack out I put the ramp down. He is still very nervous and shies away from it as we pass!

Please can you advise me what you consider my next course of action should be.

To answer my own question, I contacted Michael Peace. He came and very quietly put my horse and I back on track. My horse didn't rear or throw himself around at any time


----------



## talkinghorse (15 June 2012)

Carloss said:



			&#8230; This incident happened over three weeks ago. I have the lorry parked next to the house, and when I hack out I put the ramp down. He is still very nervous and shies away from it as we pass!

Please can you advise me what you consider my next course of action should be.

To answer my own question, I contacted Michael Peace. He came and very quietly put my horse and I back on track. My horse didn't rear or throw himself around at any time
		
Click to expand...

Got  a little bit confused in reading here. You had an incident three weeks ago and ask what you should do now. Then you suddenly remember, that Michael Peace has been round and sorted your problem! 

His wasn't a memorable visit then! However, it does bring me to a question. 

I saw Michael Peace quite a few years back. I went with my local IHRA, who recommended the demo and I must say I was very impressed &#8212; even if he came across as nervous and paranoiac with the audience &#8212; he was very good with the horses. It was from him I suppose that I first observed, _keep your horse moving all the time_, like the person mentioned above did with your horse, as this was the difficult loader. 

In the intervening years, I have heard very mixed reports, about the way he works with horses. A friend had him come to help her eventer. She hoped he would tell her what to do, but he seemed to spend all day _doing_ things, but not giving _her_ sufficient expertise to make progress. Anyone else any experience of using him?


----------



## Baileybones (15 June 2012)

I can honestly say that my mare would not be with me now if I had not made the call to Michael Peace. My only regret is that I treated him as a last resort and as such we both endured months more grief than we would have done had I called him out earlier. 

I was having real trouble with my Ex racer and things have reached a head. She'd been checked over at great expense and pain had been ruled out but my YO was on the verge of asking us to leave as my girl was getting dangerous to be around and how could I in all conscience move her to another yard knowing how she could be. I was honestly on the verge of having her PTS and had even had that conversation with my vet. 

Michael came out within days of my call and there were no gadgets / pressure halters etc. 
He worked quietly with my mare and within about an hour or so had her working nicely with him. The issue he worked on was that she would not be tacked up without exploding. 
Once she was happy with him doing this I was invited to work with her. It was horrible as her owner to see her react so badly when I apporiached her with the bridle when she's been fine with Michael but of course I had to realise (and did) that I have becone part of the process and part of the problem. 
Michael helped me by explaining what I was doing wrong and how to correct things. He didn't leave me until he was happy that she and I were ok together and then he gave me very clear instructions on how often I had to repeat this and what to do if / when we had a set back. 

These "tools" mean that I have been able to deal with other issues that have occurred over the last year or so as we've got to know each other but importantly I now know how to sort things before they even get so bad. 

I now have a relationship with my mare based on respect and trust. We both owe Michael Peace for that. 

I can appreciate though that it is very hard to admit that you need help and I have personally met people who would rather label a horse as dangerous than see someone else "fix" it. Also if you're not prepared to take on board the advice and keep up the work then things will regress I'm sure.


----------



## Baileybones (15 June 2012)

Sorry - also in order to put the above post in context I left racing to work for an "Expert" who advertises himself as using the Monty Roberts technique. 
I can honestly say I have never seen more "over horsed" owners fed a sales patter involving them parting with vast amounts of cash but worse never seen such abuse of some horses. 
The pressure halters which are so widely used and easy to acquire are lethal in the wrong hands and I would die before I let someone put one on my horses. 
The final straw for me was when I saw a horse tied to a large telegraph pole in the middle of a field in summer with no shelter or water for several hours. It was "punishment" for a the horse who refused to "Join up" with said expert. 
I argued this was barbaric to the point I was told to shut up or leave. I left. 

I did my research thoroughly and called Michael Peace for the very fact that there is no gimic / no gadgets just absolute common sense thought out from the horses point of view. I can not speak highly enough of him and have put several people in touch with him who have all been equally impressed.


----------



## talkinghorse (15 June 2012)

Baileybones said:



			 an "Expert" who advertises himself as using the Monty Roberts technique.  
The final straw for me was when I saw a horse tied to a large telegraph pole in the middle of a field in summer with no shelter or water for several hours. It was "punishment" for a the horse who refused to "Join up" with said expert. 
I argued this was barbaric to the point I was told to shut up or leave. I left. 
		
Click to expand...

Might I ask what steps you took to report the animal cruelty and to inform the Monty Roberts organisation that this sort of abuse was happening in its name.

So far, this seems like anonymous accusations, with no evidence to back them up. Anyone can say that they use anyone else's methods, but those who are _entitled _to do so, are listed on the Intelligent Horsemanship and Monty Roberts websites. No approved trainer, nor even a good student of either would use these methods. Both have mechanisms for monitoring and feedback to ensure that this type of abuse does not happen. 

You say that this was the final straw, which implies that you tolerated other forms of abuse. If you subsequently failed to take action to report the abusive trainer, then you are as guilty of the cruelty as he was.


----------



## Baileybones (15 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			Might I ask what steps you took to report the animal cruelty and to inform the Monty Roberts organisation that this sort of abuse was happening in its name.

So far, this seems like anonymous accusations, with no evidence to back them up. Anyone can say that they use anyone else's methods, but those who are _entitled _to do so, are listed on the Intelligent Horsemanship and Monty Roberts websites. No approved trainer, nor even a good student of either would use these methods. Both have mechanisms for monitoring and feedback to ensure that this type of abuse does not happen. 

You say that this was the final straw, which implies that you tolerated other forms of abuse. If you subsequently failed to take action to report the abusive trainer, then you are as guilty of the cruelty as he was.
		
Click to expand...

The "Un named" trainer "claims to have spent years working with Monty Roberts and advertises himself as using the Join Up method. My "Toleration" of abuse as you so eloquently put it was seeing owners at their wits end being sold weeks and weeks worth of "training" when the honest answer was that they were over horses and in danger. I saw 2yr olds coming through on such a tight schedule as they had to be started and ready to work within 2 weeks regardless of their mental / physical ability to cope with what was happening. 
Who wants to witness someone who can "back" a horse in 30 minutes only to be told that actually said horse really needs weeks worth of long reining / handling to be ready for said rider? 
For what it is worth I did report said trainer and was told that it would be looked into. Without an owner stepping forward though I was just a disgruntled Ex employee. The owner of the horse tied to the pole told me that whilst it was upsetting to watch it was probably for the greater good. Even at the start of my career with horses I realised that this was brain washing at it's best / worst. 

As I said before if you want to be told that you are doing nothing wrong and have your own behaviour validated then please continue with your Join up and Pressure halters. 
Alternatively if you actually want a relationship with your horse based on trust and respect then you'd be better off contacting MP. 
A horse who learns to respnd to the pressure halter is still responding to force - just a more PC version of it.


----------



## talkinghorse (15 June 2012)

Baileybones said:



			 For what it is worth I did report said trainer and was told that it would be looked into. Without an owner stepping forward though I was just a disgruntled Ex employee. 
		
Click to expand...

I cannot seriously believe that it mattered to the Monty Roberts' organisation that you were an ex-employee. They would have investigated and stripped the trainer of his status. Is the trainer still listed on the Monty Roberts or Intelligent Horsemanship website? If so, you should complain again and make sure they investigate; surely you owe it to the horses.




			As I said before if you want to be told that you are doing nothing wrong and have your own behaviour validated then please continue with your Join up and Pressure halters. 
		
Click to expand...

I don't seek to have my own behaviour validated. I have never used JoinUp or a pressure halter to rehabilitate our ex-racer, but my husband rides western and uses a Dually to ride in, as the horse's racing career taught him to dislike bits. With clicker training, he quickly accepted an english bit, though Monty's shaping approach would have worked just as well. However, my husband doesn't own/need a western bit, so he rides his horse in the Dually: handy if he needs to lead him on a ride.

My horses do what I want, because they have choices and decide that they want to do what I ask; no force or punishment involved  ever.


----------



## irishcob (15 June 2012)

Baileybones said:



			The final straw for me was when I saw a horse tied to a large telegraph pole in the middle of a field in summer with no shelter or water for several hours. It was "punishment" for a the horse who refused to "Join up" with said expert. 
I argued this was barbaric to the point I was told to shut up or leave. I left. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Baileybones - I am absolutely horrified to read of this treatment, by a so called expert.  These types of abusive behaviour are *exactly* the sort of barbaric methods that Monty has committed his life to stamping out.  The fact that the 'expert' is trading on Monty Roberts' name and claiming to use his Join Up techniques makes it all the more unpalatable.  

I respect your right to not name and shame him in public, but I urge you to report this abuse directly to Intelligent Horsemanship (www.intelligenthorsemanship.co.uk) to alert them to his practices.

IH Recommended Associates and certified Monty Roberts Instructors are the ONLY practitioners that are recommended by Monty Roberts or Kelly Marks in the UK.


----------



## Baileybones (15 June 2012)

Ok not sure I really want to get into an argument of the pro's or cons of these training methods as ultimately it will come down to personal opinion anyway. 

Please believe me when I say I made a hell of a noise about the trainer who's methods I did not agree with. The main point I was trying to make however was that the people who were using him and his methods thought this was ok. The backing horses in such a short space of time, the using of pressure halters and forcing them backwards and then releasing the pressure as a reward for the "right" behaviour. Even the extreme case of the telegraph pole - it was right outside of the main office with a rope hanging from the top and hoof marks and poo around it so quite obvious that horses were being tied to it even if you didn't know the duration of time for. These are all things that I don't agree with but he was being paid very well for.

My opinion and it is just that, is that sometimes people want the showmanship that comes from a lot of these "Horse Whisperers". And as was my experience many of these people almost wanted to be told that their horse was a "Bad un" rather than accept that they were a part of the problem and seek genuine help. If you have Ex racers you also know just how many "bad" horses there are that are just in the wrong hands / situation. 

To answer your original question Yes I have used Michael Peace, Yes it worked for me and my mare and we owe him a debt we can't repay and yes I would recommend him to anyone.


----------



## Baileybones (15 June 2012)

irishcob said:



			Baileybones - I am absolutely horrified to read of this treatment, by a so called expert.  These types of abusive behaviour are *exactly* the sort of barbaric methods that Monty has committed his life to stamping out.  The fact that the 'expert' is trading on Monty Roberts' name and claiming to use his Join Up techniques makes it all the more unpalatable.  

I respect your right to not name and shame him in public, but I urge you to report this abuse directly to Intelligent Horsemanship (www.intelligenthorsemanship.co.uk) to alert them to his practices.

IH Recommended Associates and certified Monty Roberts Instructors are the ONLY practitioners that are recommended by Monty Roberts or Kelly Marks in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Hi IrishCob

I did report him to Intelligent Horsemanship and to the best of my knowledge he's is getting by on a couple of loopholes. They explained it to me that as he is not claiming to be indorsed by MR but instead is claiming to use his methods - the round pen / the halters etc there is little they can do. 

Sadly as we all no doubt know there are many people who call themselves experts who we would not leave our beloved horses in the care of. 
It is also only fair that I point out that this was 12 years ago and whilst the person in question has continued to do well for themselves I personally doubt that much has changed with regards their approach but I could of course be wrong. 

The main reason I brought this up was just to explain that I didn't take the decision to call in an expert lightly as I'd had personal bad experiences but that MP has completely restored my faith using an honest and logical approach. I'm not saying that there aren't some brilliant trainers out there in their own right but I feel that MR name gets bandied around alot by people with little or no experience.


----------



## Littlelegs (15 June 2012)

In fairness though, surely when you get a lot of trainers teaching a certain method, you'll always get a few bad apples. I'm not a follower myself but logic says monty Roberts can't be held personally held at fault for every idiot that claims to use his methods.


----------



## Baileybones (15 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			In fairness though, surely when you get a lot of trainers teaching a certain method, you'll always get a few bad apples. I'm not a follower myself but logic says monty Roberts can't be held personally held at fault for every idiot that claims to use his methods.
		
Click to expand...

Oh god not at all. 
I loved the principle of MR when he first appeared on the scene and the fact that for the first time people were being shown a "fairer" way to back and start horses. 
I have since seen MR himself at a demo and have to say that I was personally disappointed that on that day with that horse some methods that I found questionable were involved. 
But perhaps that was a one off?

I suppose all I was trying to say (probably quite badly) was that I think sometimes people are being drawn to those who make a lot of noise and lay on impressive crowd pleasing demo's but who aren't perhaps the greatest of horsemen. 

Michael Peace has in fact been criticised on here for not being great with people and not being full of charm or waffle. 

To me though this was fine. I was looking for the best person possible to work with my mare and he was that person. The fact that he didn't spend his time trying to make me feel warm and fluffy was not an issue.


----------



## Littlelegs (15 June 2012)

I see what you mean. Whilst I'm familiar with the methods & logic behind them, I haven't had personal experience with the trainers, so can't comment on them. Do have experience with a few weird followers though. Know a very ignorant owner who has started following Kelly marks though, and for every stupid thing she does relates it back to Kelly marks. Eg Kelly marks says it is ok for her horse to barge out of the gate & charge back to the yard at canter. And when I objected was informed Kelly marks said my opinion doesn't count because I haven't done join up. Now I know, apart from the fact the woman has never even spoke to her, Kelly marks isn't likely to say anything of the sort. But I think she's probably a pretty good example of the type of owner you mean. But 20 years ago it wouldn't have been Kelly marks she used as an excuse for her own bizarre ideas, it would have been the bhs or 30 years ago Barbara woodhouse. So I don't think stupid owners are being encouraged by it. More that the idiots have discovered monty Roberts & are shouting the loudest about it. Which is a shame as it can give things an undeserved reputation.


----------



## fburton (15 June 2012)

Just came across a discussion relevant to this thread with a variety of interesting views:

http://www.newrider.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231956


----------



## Littlelegs (15 June 2012)

Thanks for posting that, interesting reading. My own thoughts on the dominance theory all come from observing mine & other horses turned out in groups. And my oldie is very much an alpha, lead mare in every group she's been in, so fair to say I have always really just based my ideas on her behavior as much as possible if that makes sense.


----------



## talkinghorse (15 June 2012)

fburton said:



			Just came across a discussion relevant to this thread with a variety of interesting views:

http://www.newrider.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231956

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that very interesting thread. I shall probably get the book and it has also reminded me to re-read Marthe Kiley-Worthington.

I don't see dominance and alpha as clear cut when you look at horses' interaction. In any onetoone relationship, one horse may dominate and the other submit, then there are those who challenge the relationship daily, like the welsh pony  until they are around 35 it seems.

I prefer to see the interaction that we emulate, in one of Monty's less quoted terms, the "contract". Anna Twinney, who ran Monty's training for many years expresses it better. She talks quite clearly about establishing the contract with a horse on new acquaintance and adding that, once you have signed the contract, you do not start every encounter by going over the full agreement over and over. Once the horse has shown he has learned the ground rules, you know you can dispense with checking the contract and move on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBEdiCZNbQ8

I have frequently seen bands of domestic horses, where the apparently dominant horse is the bully and a different horse is the leader: no-one chooses to follow a bully and good leaders know when 'dominance' is necessary and when it can be dispensed with.


----------



## neelie OAP (16 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			I see what you mean. Whilst I'm familiar with the methods & logic behind them, I haven't had personal experience with the trainers, so can't comment on them. Do have experience with a few weird followers though. Know a very ignorant owner who has started following Kelly marks though, and for every stupid thing she does relates it back to Kelly marks. Eg Kelly marks says it is ok for her horse to barge out of the gate & charge back to the yard at canter. And when I objected was informed Kelly marks said my opinion doesn't count because I haven't done join up. Now I know, apart from the fact the woman has never even spoke to her, Kelly marks isn't likely to say anything of the sort. But I think she's probably a pretty good example of the type of owner you mean. But 20 years ago it wouldn't have been Kelly marks she used as an excuse for her own bizarre ideas, it would have been the bhs or 30 years ago Barbara woodhouse. So I don't think stupid owners are being encouraged by it. More that the idiots have discovered monty Roberts & are shouting the loudest about it. Which is a shame as it can give things an undeserved reputation.
		
Click to expand...

 don't you think that some of these people claiming to be trainers of these various methods, IF they were any good,they would have made it on their own, without having to hide behind people like MR, KM etc, after all its the results of their work being far the best recomendation, ok they can talk the talk most of them but can they walk the walk I wonder !


----------



## Littlelegs (16 June 2012)

I imagine they have done it for the same reasons lots of people are affiliated to the bhs. Lots of bhs instructors don't follow the bhs teachings, but its an easier way to get a larger market (& cheaper insurance etc) than personal reputation. So from an economic pov I can see why they'd do it.


----------



## Amaranta (16 June 2012)

talkinghorse said:



			I have frequently seen bands of domestic horses, where the apparently dominant horse is the bully and a different horse is the leader: no-one chooses to follow a bully and good leaders know when 'dominance' is necessary and when it can be dispensed with.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, watching my own herd of mares, the real leader is an older mare who only ever has to flick an ear, there is what I call a Second Lieutenant who is much more active, displaying strong and yes bullying behaviour, however, this 'bully' will always give way to the older mare, what is interesting is that there is a young filly in my herd who is def the bottom of the order, however, she has figured out that if she stays close to the older mare, the 'bully' leaves her alone, you can virtually see her poking her tongue out to the other mares, however, without the older mare close, she reverts back to a submissive bottom feeder.  The older mare is not related to her at all, but her mother IS part of the herd (albeit second from the bottom).  I find it all fascinating


----------



## Littlelegs (16 June 2012)

Interesting amaranta, very much like my mare. I have watched her stop the second lieutenant from a good distance, purely by standing square on & staring, with no obvious sign of aggression whatsoever. And in various herds she has had that same role most of her life. What I did find fascinating was when a previous second lieutenant wore a muzzle 24/7, how quickly he lost his position. And yet my mare, at 14.2 has been out with lots of bigger, stronger, quicker dominant horses & has never had to do much to retain her position, despite the fact in a fight she would come off worse. And seen similar with other ponies in that role too with groups of hunters. 
  I am familiar with the body language involved, but I would love to know why some like mine can meet a new horse/herd & be accepted as leader without aggression pretty quickly, whilst others are challenged often? Not in a basic herd hierarchies way, but is there something about my mare (& similar ones) that quickly conveys to others she is the best equipped to lead? 
  Only explanation I can think of is that there is a limited no of true leaders & in lots of cases the relatively small herds we keep them in dictate the most dominant ends up in charge, rather than the best leader? But still, would like to know how other horses instinctively recognize a true leader without major confrontations.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 June 2012)

Leads, dominants and passives.

Interesting to see them interact and interchange.


----------



## Littlelegs (16 June 2012)

What's great is that the more you watch & learn, more questions are raised without ever feeling you know enough.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 June 2012)

What interests me is the level of pressure a lead will use as opposed to a dominant, yet still remain a lead even when giving way to a dominant.


----------



## fburton (16 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			What interests me is the level of pressure a lead will use as opposed to a dominant, yet still remain a lead even when giving way to a dominant.
		
Click to expand...

Me too, Pale Rider!


----------



## xxMozlarxx (17 June 2012)

Fellewell said:



			Great news on your horse, he sounds very well-mannered.

They're blowing smoke up our rears with these gadgets. They're not nearly precise enough IMO.

FWIW after watching someone 'in the field' I was also lent an official training video.
		
Click to expand...

He's largely well mannered now due to the dually, previously he would drag me all over, its taken time.


----------



## Ladyinred (17 June 2012)

xxMozlarxx said:



			He's largely well mannered now due to the dually, previously he would drag me all over, its taken time.
		
Click to expand...

You see this sums it up for me. Absolutely no offence intended here btw.. but.. I would far rather have my horse well mannered because he/she wants to be rather than because they respect/fear the outcome of a piece of gadgetry. Three out of our five will walk in from the field without a headcollar and match our pace because that is what they want to do. Of the other two, the first we made mistakes with and the other came from a home that was fairly violent to her although there are more and more days when she will walk with us.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 June 2012)

That's the interesting thing about this forum, finding out how different people deal with different types of horses and the challenges they present. How some are quick to use, what I think, is an inappropriate peice of tack, before attempting to solve the clues the horse gives.

Others seem to find the right track, very quickly, instinctively almost.


----------



## Littlelegs (17 June 2012)

I think part of it though does depend on situation though. Eg 6yr old 17h wb, highly strung & spent last 2yrs dominating nervous owner, so much so turning out involves opening gate & allowing horse to fly out of stable to field & vice versa. Sells to me as cheap project complete with other issues. Turnout involves walking a few 100m down a lane. Using a stallion chain (correctly) for a few days is the safest & only workable solution. In an ideal world there are other ways, but my set up didn't allow that. Within a week horse walking on a loose rope shoulder to shoulder, being cruel to be kind really. 
  Other situations I have done things without resorting to using harsh equipment, & agree they are often too quickly resorted to.


----------



## Ladyinred (17 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			I think part of it though does depend on situation though. Eg 6yr old 17h wb, highly strung & spent last 2yrs dominating nervous owner, so much so turning out involves opening gate & allowing horse to fly out of stable to field & vice versa. Sells to me as cheap project complete with other issues. Turnout involves walking a few 100m down a lane. Using a stallion chain (correctly) for a few days is the safest & only workable solution. In an ideal world there are other ways, but my set up didn't allow that. Within a week horse walking on a loose rope shoulder to shoulder, being cruel to be kind really. 
  Other situations I have done things without resorting to using harsh equipment, & agree they are often too quickly resorted to.
		
Click to expand...

Given your reasons of having to walk down the lane (eeeek!) and the fact that his behaviour had, in his mind, been endorsed and approved by previous owner then your options were limited. Also of course, it seems that you are rather more experienced and knowledgeable than some of the people seen to be using duallys because they know no other way to sort out minor problems and have been led to believe that using a dually will make the horse their 'friend'

I have long held the view that many of todays problem horses are created because of fearful owners who really don't have a clue. They have certainly created their own niche market for expensive gadgets and quick fixes.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 June 2012)

Tending to agree with Ladyinred here.


----------



## EMC (17 June 2012)

Almost as interesting as wathing herd dynamics is watching the goings on with the human liveries in my yard! The 'dominant mare' calls the shots, everyone else obeys but one or two play both sides of the field and cause chaos with chinese whispers and backstabbing. Oh to be a horse.


----------



## Littlelegs (17 June 2012)

I agree too, so called problem horses aren't born that way. Only ones that aren't caused by people are the rare cases of undetectable physical issues, eg brain tumours. And even in the case outlined above, in an ideal world I could have left him out 24/7 & handled him in the field for however long it took to gain respect in a nicer way & break the habit. Should always be a last resort imo.


----------



## Izzwizz (17 June 2012)

EMC said:



			Almost as interesting as wathing herd dynamics is watching the goings on with the human liveries in my yard! The 'dominant mare' calls the shots, everyone else obeys but one or two play both sides of the field and cause chaos with chinese whispers and backstabbing. Oh to be a horse.
		
Click to expand...

So true!


----------



## neelie OAP (18 June 2012)

In my opinion to many horses are not being started right in the first place, its all to easy to blame he horse, but in fact its the humans that are the problem in most cases, I know MR tells us what the horses is thinking, BUT is this correct, that we will never know and it can never be proved, because we cannot talk horse only try to listen to them, maybe he is correct, but maybe not, in a herd horses get sent out if they do wrong, but they are sent out in the round pen, what have they done wrong, dose the licking & chewing etc really mean what MR tells us, IMO maybe he's right but maybe he is wrong, again it can never be proved, i.e a dog can run up to you wagging its tail and still bite you !


----------



## Bluenoon (18 June 2012)

I have read through a lot of this thread and there are so many interesting comments on here. Have to admit that by page 28 I thought I had best actually do some work instead, but felt the need to give my input, so apologies if I am not totally up on what's been said. I have worked with a lot of NH trainers over the years and they have taught me so much. I am not on here to sl*g anyone off, so instead I just want to tell you about the one person who I totally believe in, admire greatly and hope I can help others in the meantime. And that's Michael Peace. Oh and I am not advertising, by the way, simply talking from experience.

Case study one: My horse wouldn't load and broke someone's leg in the process after several weeks of trying to load her. It took Michael about four minutes and no force/gadgets/shouting/abuse went on, she just realised that Michael had a gift with horses and went quietly on the lorry. Within seven minutes, she was loading herself and has continued to be a delight to load ever since.

Case study two: I had a nappy horse. I couldn't even get her to the school. With Michael Peace present, he watched as I got pinned against the fence and the mare wouldn't budge an inch. Yet again, no force or uncomfortable training, and in minutes, Michael had her walking, trotting and cantering around the school and even hacking out.

He is truly inspiring and I feel lucky to have met him. I wish everyone the best with their horses and I hope you all find a method that works for you.


----------



## SheadonSaffron (20 June 2012)

I think it's really great to have threads like this, where people are able to voice their many different opinions.  I have to say that I start to flick over the posts where one person repeats the same point of view over and over again, just as I do if I'm in a live discussion with people - I guess I'm just not that good socially but I feel that everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and to the opportunity to influence others to agree with or learn from that opinion, but also that everyone else has the option of disagreeing with some or all of that opinion without it being repeated ad infinitum!

What fascinates me most about this thread is how many people on here talk about the amount of time they spend watching and learning from horses - I work with horses full time (as an Intelligent Horsemanship Recommended Associate, BHSAI, Chartered Veterinary Physiotherapist and Equinology Equine Body Worker), and have just given up 3hrs of time when I should be doing admin (i.e. getting back to client's emails) to read this thread - when do these people find time to spend all this time with horses?!  Not a criticism, but a genuine question - I'd love to see more of my mare, or read around the subject more, or get more involved in the scientific studies that I am so fascinated by!  But I find that all the time I spend with horses means that I don't get to spend much time on the computer, or doing anything else for that matter!

Michael Peace, of course, trained with Monty Roberts (as have so many others) and so will have learned much from him (I'm sure he would agree with this).

There are so many points throughout the thread that I'd love to respond to, but the right time has long passed.  Probably the only comment I'd like to make is that some people (not all) seem to believe there is a gulf between IH 'methods' and BHS / other training methods.  As has been pointed out previously, the top people (current and past) in the BHS are supporters of Intelligent Horsemanship, and I know that most of the Intelligent Horsemanship Recommended Associates have some level of BHS exams (I can't speak for the others to say precisely how many, but as I said, I'm a BHSAI - I chose not to take the exams any further because there were other routes I wanted to study - I can only afford to do a limited number of courses in a lifetime).  For example Carrie Adams (www.centrelines.co.uk) is an RA who is also British Dressage Group 2 rider and trainer as well as a BHSII.  

Brought up in a scientific world (I qualified at Kings College London as a physiotherapist, which is very much an evidence based profession, and have two BSc degrees and an MSc), I am very keen to link the practical work that I do to an evidence base.  However, having studied in depth, and carried out dissertations myself (including presenting my MSc study at the 6th Symposium of the International Association of Veterinary Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy), I also recognise that there is much that is effective in practice that we do not have evidence for - that could be because there is no funding to search for the evidence or lack of (how many of the contributors here would be interested in financially contributing how much to a study to answer some of the questions asked, and how valid do you think that study might be as a one off?), or because we do not have objective outcome measures available (as far as I know, there is no science as yet to tell us whether a horse is suffering 'back pain' for example - I wanted to look into that for my MSc study but was told that it was simply too difficult), or because we can't find enough horses in the same situation with the same condition / behaviour, etc.  It is my personal belief that if I only did what there is scientific evidence for, then I wouldn't be doing very much, and I certainly wouldn't be an effective practitioner!  Did you know, for example, that much of the evidence for stretching (in the human field) demonstrates that stretching is detrimental to your performance?  And yet I bet anyone who is a runner or goes to the gym still uses stretching (and I would suggest that you continue to do so, before you ask!).  We're not just talking about the equine field here.

Oh, and one more - the original question was 'what's people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then?'.  The simple fact that so much of this thread seems to have become 'what's people's thoughts of join up then?', or 'what's people's thoughts of the Dually halter then?', shows me how much more Monty has to do in spreading his concepts throughout the UK, if not the world.  If 'Monty's method's' equalled 'join-up' or 'use the Dually halter', I can't imagine that this thread would exist because he wouldn't have achieved the outstanding success and recognition that he has with horses of all shapes and sizes and in all disciplines.  Personally I have immense respect for both Monty and Kelly in the work that they do to promote good horsemanship, whatever that might mean for the individual and their horse.


----------



## Littlelegs (20 June 2012)

Don't know about anyone else but I always spent ages watching horses turned out together as a child, teen & even now as an adult, & everyday situations rather than doing book & web research & drew my own conclusions. I do find it interesting to research but practical experience is just as vital. Once you've figured out why pony a moves from pony b at haying time its only natural you'd carry on having questions. A lot of body language comes into play just catching a nervous pony as a child, or a biting shetland. Always seemed logical to me that if horse a dominates everything but horse b then copying horse b is the best way to go. I'm not sure funding research is necessary, most horses with problems are caused through lack of basic horsemanship, which we already know about but it doesn't prevent these problems occurring.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (20 June 2012)

Ladyinred said:



			You see this sums it up for me. Absolutely no offence intended here btw.. but.. I would far rather have my horse well mannered because he/she wants to be rather than because they respect/fear the outcome of a piece of gadgetry. Three out of our five will walk in from the field without a headcollar and match our pace because that is what they want to do. Of the other two, the first we made mistakes with and the other came from a home that was fairly violent to her although there are more and more days when she will walk with us.
		
Click to expand...

..oh dear...I have no problem with my horse respecting (and he certainly doesnt fear it) a piece of equipment I use. He is large and quite dense, by contrast I have a much finer and more sensitive WBx who is a completely different kettle of fish and who I would never need to use a dually or similar on, he responds to the finest cues. This horse simply isn't like that and until you have experienced him I don't feel you are qualified to judge. Getting to where we are now has been a long road.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 June 2012)

All horses and their handler/rider should have a period of undemanding time together every day. A period when you're not asking for anything, just being there. Suprising what you learn during these times.


----------



## Bluenoon (20 June 2012)

Michael Peace, of course, trained with Monty Roberts (as have so many others) and so will have learned much from him (I'm sure he would agree with this).

What an interesting thread and so nice to see people discussing things without being nasty to each other. That's what makes great horse trainers/riders in my opinion. I do, however, wish to put Sue Palmer's comment above straight. Michael did not train with Monty. He simply rode on his demos for less than two years before embarking on his own career, when he realised that join up and pressure halters weren't the way forward. I am not condemning the use of these methods myself, simply saying that Michael doesn't believe in these methods or use them, so if he was Monty trained then surely he would? 

Monty recognised that Michael is a very talented rider and asked him to be a rider for him until Michael then discovered his own methods through inspiration from Ray Hunt and felt he had found a way which worked more to how he believed horses should be trained. In my experience with Michael (he's helped me with a lot of my horses), he isn't in the business to sl*g other trainers off, in the same way that Carl Hester wouldn't slate Laura Bechtolsheimer or Richard Davison. Michael simply wants what is best for the horse and that's all. 

If you go onto Michael's website and click on his CV you will see what he has achieved and his methods are unique. Frankie Dettori the jockey once described Michael as 'the curer' and I can totally see why.

I will leave you with a little tale. I have a really sharp mare who I am a little nervous of. I got Michael out to ride her and he simply told me that 'she's not being naughty, she's just scared, so reassure her, be confident and work with her and she will want to work with you. Horses don't go out looking for trouble'. On doing so, I now ask her nicely to do something, give her all the space she needs, so she doesn't feel trapped and praise her when she tries. Do you know what? That little mare tries very hard every day now and it's all thanks to Michael because before that I thought she was being naughty and would have reverted to pressure. 

Thanks for listening and I wish everyone the best with their horses. I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't love horses and want the best for them. For me, this isn't about marketing, it's about making horses happy and Michael can do that with any horse. He is truly amazing.


----------



## fburton (20 June 2012)

littlelegs said:



			Always seemed logical to me that if horse a dominates everything but horse b then copying horse b is the best way to go.
		
Click to expand...

What qualities does horse b have that would be worth copying? (I'm hoping you won't say dominance!)


----------



## Littlelegs (20 June 2012)

Fburton- if I had figured out exactly what horse b did I would be a world reknown trainer by now. I did mean it more at a very basic body language way rather than I have discovered something new myself, so stuff like not edging tentatively away from a horse that threatens to kick, marching confidently closer & getting it to back off instead. But if I could figure out why some horses are just accepted to be high up without much more than a few subtle threats it would be fascinating. Think it would solve plenty of issues too if we could replicate the squeal, or its purpose, used by an angry mare to discipline a misbehaving horse too. My mare gives off an air of self confidence, even beginners have commented she gives the impression most people & horses are not worthy of her attention & beneath her, and been called snobby & arrogant too. Human qualities but I have wondered if that is something other horses pick up on hence the reason she isn't ever fully challenged, even in a new herd.


----------



## Littlelegs (20 June 2012)

Meant to add too I think for a person to copy, even self confidence in people still gets challenged initially.


----------



## caramel (20 June 2012)

I've just bought my horse a dually halter, and am going to be doing some monty roberts schooling exercises with him. I could've chosen parelli, like a lot of others on my yard, but I felt that his methods work best for me and my boy, as opposed to parelli (which after the whole catwalk fiasco put me right off!). 
It'll be interesting to see how we get on, and hopefully my horse barging and pulling when led will be a thing of the past!


----------



## Derfette (20 June 2012)

brucea said:



			Hate the Dualy as a device, mine went in the bin because I wouldn't give it away to anyone else to abuse their horse with. Work on your hands - get them better - you don't need such a gadget.
		
Click to expand...

I think like alot of other "gadgets", the dually doesn't suit everyone. I've had nothing but good experiences with it (I have a horse that has been / can be a difficult loader) and wouldn't throw mine away! As long as you do alot of ground work with them first, before using one for whatever problem you've got, I believe they are well worth having in your tack room. I think Monty Roberts is well worth going to see too!


----------



## tess1 (20 June 2012)

I'm always a bit skeptical when someone logs on just to sing the praises of a certain trainer - especially *this* certain trainer.  Whilst I enjoyed watching a demo by Michael Peace, liked his philosophy and what he said he did - so much so that I sent two of my horses to him, the reality was sadly different.  One horse came away with little change to his behaviour, whilst the other horse's behaviour deteriorated considerably.  I felt that Michael's teaching and communication skills were somewhat lacking.  I also saw him do things that made me very uncomfortable - but fool that I was then I did not speak up or challenge him on it.  I am pleased that other people have had more positive results, we must all speak as we find - there is always more than one side to every story.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (21 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			All horses and their handler/rider should have a period of undemanding time together every day. A period when you're not asking for anything, just being there. Suprising what you learn during these times.
		
Click to expand...

Yep agree, do this all the time with all my horses, and always have, in stable, field or before, during or  after work sometimes all 3.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (21 June 2012)

Bluenoon said:



			I will leave you with a little tale. I have a really sharp mare who I am a little nervous of. I got Michael out to ride her and he simply told me that 'she's not being naughty, she's just scared, so reassure her, be confident and work with her and she will want to work with you. Horses don't go out looking for trouble'. On doing so, I now ask her nicely to do something, give her all the space she needs, so she doesn't feel trapped and praise her when she tries. Do you know what? That little mare tries very hard every day now and it's all thanks to Michael because before that I thought she was being naughty and would have reverted to pressure. 
He is truly amazing.
		
Click to expand...

No disrespect but what you're describing above is very very basic stuff that any decent horse person would/could recognise and do. I'm sure Michael is very good but your quote above is not a good example of anything extraordinary


----------



## fburton (21 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			All horses and their handler/rider should have a period of undemanding time together every day. A period when you're not asking for anything, just being there. Suprising what you learn during these times.
		
Click to expand...

This is very good advice! Commonsense? Not so sure...


----------



## fburton (21 June 2012)

tess1 said:



			I'm always a bit skeptical when someone logs on just to sing the praises of a certain trainer - especially *this* certain trainer.
		
Click to expand...

It has happened more than once here, hasn't it? The suspicious side of me find it... well... suspicious.


----------



## shaskeen (21 June 2012)

Went to see a Monty demo about 16 years ago - where he was to "START" untouched 3 year olds - not a flinch out of them when the roller shutters doors went up to bring them in to the round pen these untouched horses had beautifully pulled manes and tails all feathers and feet trimmed, a shine to their coats that a hoys finalist would be proud of - so how were they untouched - a load of B******S - I would have preferred to have seen a few totally wild Welsh Mountain ponies covered in mud and burrs and see how he got on from there

Thats my point and what I saw


----------



## talkinghorse (21 June 2012)

shaskeen said:



			Went to see a Monty demo about 16 years ago - where he was to "START" untouched 3 year olds 
		
Click to expand...

The requirement for a starter: 
The starter should be a normal horse that has not had saddle, bridle or rider before. This horse should be sound and healthy. It can be filly, colt or gelding. The type of horse should be the most typical for the audience we have. 

How are these "untouched"? 

I have seen "untouched" horses at a demo, these are never starters and unloaded loose from a trailer, backed into the round pen. They have a first headcollar and are touched all over and have their feet picked up. That's the end of their demo.


----------



## Bluenoon (22 June 2012)

fburton said:



			It has happened more than once here, hasn't it? The suspicious side of me find it... well... suspicious.
		
Click to expand...

Such a shame that I can't speak highly of a trainer because he's done wonders for my horse. I also speak highly of Carl Hester and Andrew Day, but I guess I won't be slated for that. I simply wanted to share my views, but am losing confidence posting on here if that's the reception I'm going to get. It's such a shame.


----------



## Bluenoon (22 June 2012)

xxMozlarxx said:



			No disrespect but what you're describing above is very very basic stuff that any decent horse person would/could recognise and do. I'm sure Michael is very good but your quote above is not a good example of anything extraordinary
		
Click to expand...

This was a huge breakthrough for me, so I feel sad that you think that. It stopped me giving up on a horse that I loved dearly and wanted to gain confidence with. Up until Michael came out, she was terrifying me to death because I wasn't giving her enough space to go forward, so she was panicking.


----------



## xxMozlarxx (22 June 2012)

Bluenoon said:



			This was a huge breakthrough for me, so I feel sad that you think that. It stopped me giving up on a horse that I loved dearly and wanted to gain confidence with. Up until Michael came out, she was terrifying me to death because I wasn't giving her enough space to go forward, so she was panicking.
		
Click to expand...

No need to feel sad, I've watched Michael on You tube and I really like what he does, all I'm saying is I don't feel what you are describing is exceptional, thats not to say it wasnt a lighbulb moment for you, sometimes it is the simple things that we overlook with our own horses.


----------



## Bluenoon (22 June 2012)

xxMozlarxx said:



			No need to feel sad, I've watched Michael on You tube and I really like what he does, all I'm saying is I don't feel what you are describing is exceptional, thats not to say it wasnt a lighbulb moment for you, sometimes it is the simple things that we overlook with our own horses. 

Click to expand...

Thanks. I have had Michael out a few times and could go on to describe all the other things that I found exceptional about him, but I won't. Glad you like what he does, too. After all, we all want what's best for our horses, surely? You would be amazed by how many trainers would have told me to use pressure and flooding methods to allow this horse to become rideable. Michael simply told me to give her space and now she is on side. Just had a great ride on her tonight.


----------



## neelie OAP (23 June 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			All horses and their handler/rider should have a period of undemanding time together every day. A period when you're not asking for anything, just being there. Suprising what you learn during these times.
		
Click to expand...

 This is a good point, but how many people do do this, they are all so busy these days and would think it a waste of time, but as we both know that is just not the case, and yes there is alot we can learn from it


----------

