Natural vs Normal Horsemanship
I would like to talk a little bit about my opinions regarding what we collectively term "natural" horsemanship, vs what we might for the sake of argument call "normal". First, I'll clarify what I mean with these terms.
Natural horsemanship, is a method of interacting with horses which places primary emphasis on understanding the nature and motivations of horses and developing training techniques around them. Normal horsemanship is an established method of interacting with horses by employing a wide array of tools and techniques to train horses around the motivations of people. Normal horsemanship has been established through long tradition, whereas Natural horsemanship is relatively new.
Additionally, there are misconceptions about both methods. Many normal horsemen feel that natural horsemen are too unscientific, have their heads in the clouds, and indulge in wishful thinking. They feel that most horses are not inclined to perform just because we ask them politely, and will walk all over us as we try to "whisper" to them. In many cases, they are exactly right as I'll explain later. Conversely, many natural horsemen feel that normal or "traditional" horsemanship is inhumane and employs only methods of fear and intimidation, all the way up to outright abuse. This is not necessarily true, though it sometimes is. Normal horsemanship is often perfectly humane, however it doesn't take the motivations of horses themselves as much into account. These two misconceptions often create a rift within the horse community, polarizing people and dividing them into two distinct schools of thought.
For the sake of simplicity, let's call Natural horsemanship "soft" style and Normal Horsemanship "hard" style. These two extremes will help to illustrate my point. As for myself, I spent the first several years of my equine career as a "hard" stylist, and nowadays am more on the "soft" side. Having experienced both worlds, I feel qualified to comment. I intend to make the argument that both styles have merit and are necessary to become a complete horseman.
Soft style means that you listen to your horse, hard style means that you tell him to do something.
Some people are too soft. They listen to their horse all day, and take his feelings into account. Sometimes they may TRY to tell him to do something, but they always feel guilty about it. They feel sorry for their horse, and just want their horse to like them. Because of this, the horse quickly figures out that this person has no will to lead him and therefore assumes that role himself. Horses have no use for such people, because a leader that can't be relied upon to lead can't be relied upon to help the horse survive in case of danger. Self-preservation demands that SOMEONE take charge, and if it's not the human then it has to be the horse. So the horse may do things like bite the human, crowd him, run him over, and play any number of little games that are designed to show the human that this horse doesn't think much of him.
Other people are too hard. They posses a strong will to dominate their horses, and tell their horses what to do. They think that anything the horse does wrong is "acting up", and they devise creative punishments to try and force compliance. If hard isn't hard enough, they go harder. Any number of progressively extreme bits, spurs, rope devices, and a hundred other tools and techniques you could name are evidence of this. When these don't work, a hard stylist may resort to drugs to get compliance. Anything ranging from over-the-counter products to vet-administered tranquilizers. Because of this, in the horse's world this person has crossed a line. They are no longer a leader, they are now a predator. Such horses are inclined to be nervous or jumpy, or they may become "dull" through being overstimulated for too long. Their only remaining means of escape becomes to tune the human out.
It's obvious that being too far to one extreme is a bad thing. However, as I said earlier I intend to argue that both are necessary. To make my point, we'll turn to horses themselves for the answer.
Consider a herd of horses. I'm not talking about a group that's thrown together in a turnout on Saturday after spending the whole week in a stall and then spend the whole day trying to figure out a pecking order. I'm talking about an established, well-adjusted herd that spends the majority of it's time as a single unit. To understand what it means to be a balanced, complete horseman, all you have to do is look at the interactions between dominant and subordinate members of the herd.
Take the example of two horses grazing together, maybe 10 feet apart. One is dominant, one is subordinate. At some point, for some reason that only horses know, the dominant horse takes a liking to the patch of grass that the subordinate horse is eating. He wants that grass. He has a clear, single-minded focus. He's a horse, so he's not thinking about what happened at work. He just wants the grass and he's going to be clear in his intentions. He may begin by looking in the direction of that subordinate horse. Maybe the sub-horse doesn't move off. So he turns his body toward the sub-horse. Still nothing. Finally, he moves toward his subordinate with his ears laid back and his teeth bared. The other horse moves off. As soon as he does, the ears of the dominant horse relax, the teeth go away, and peace reigns in the herd. All of this may have happened in the space of a few seconds.
My point is, the dominant horse didn't start off with baring his teeth. It may have looked like he did, but he didn't. He gave the subordinate horse a chance to move with the most subtle of cues, a look or a turn of the head. He was as soft as possible. When that didn't work, he quickly escalated to flat ears and bared teeth. He was as firm as necessary. When he got his way, he instantly became calm once more. He released the pressure.
That, my friends, is what natural horsemanship means to me. It means interacting with the horse in a way that's natural to him. I believe that a natural horseman strives to become that dominant horse, the one that will make you move if he has to but will give you a chance first. It's hard softness, or soft hardness. It's both, and it's having the flexibility, timing and feel to switch from one to the other and back again in an instant.
The longer I pursue this way of life, the more I realize that horses themselves are the greatest teachers of horsemanship. A true horseman strives to become half human, half horse. It's something that we can never truly achieve, but gives us enough to study for a lifetime. If I had to stress one thing above all others in this article, it would be to encourage the reader to go out and study a herd. Watch the interactions between herdmates, and really try to catch the subtleties between dominants and subordinates. There's a lot to learn. Then, next time you're with your horse, try to be that dominant one. The results you get might find you a little more kindly disposed toward Natural horsemanship.
Chuck McDonald
groundmannersguy.com
Natural horsemanship, is a method of interacting with horses which places primary emphasis on understanding the nature and motivations of horses and developing training techniques around them. Normal horsemanship is an established method of interacting with horses by employing a wide array of tools and techniques to train horses around the motivations of people. Normal horsemanship has been established through long tradition, whereas Natural horsemanship is relatively new.
Additionally, there are misconceptions about both methods. Many normal horsemen feel that natural horsemen are too unscientific, have their heads in the clouds, and indulge in wishful thinking. They feel that most horses are not inclined to perform just because we ask them politely, and will walk all over us as we try to "whisper" to them. In many cases, they are exactly right as I'll explain later. Conversely, many natural horsemen feel that normal or "traditional" horsemanship is inhumane and employs only methods of fear and intimidation, all the way up to outright abuse. This is not necessarily true, though it sometimes is. Normal horsemanship is often perfectly humane, however it doesn't take the motivations of horses themselves as much into account. These two misconceptions often create a rift within the horse community, polarizing people and dividing them into two distinct schools of thought.
For the sake of simplicity, let's call Natural horsemanship "soft" style and Normal Horsemanship "hard" style. These two extremes will help to illustrate my point. As for myself, I spent the first several years of my equine career as a "hard" stylist, and nowadays am more on the "soft" side. Having experienced both worlds, I feel qualified to comment. I intend to make the argument that both styles have merit and are necessary to become a complete horseman.
Soft style means that you listen to your horse, hard style means that you tell him to do something.
Some people are too soft. They listen to their horse all day, and take his feelings into account. Sometimes they may TRY to tell him to do something, but they always feel guilty about it. They feel sorry for their horse, and just want their horse to like them. Because of this, the horse quickly figures out that this person has no will to lead him and therefore assumes that role himself. Horses have no use for such people, because a leader that can't be relied upon to lead can't be relied upon to help the horse survive in case of danger. Self-preservation demands that SOMEONE take charge, and if it's not the human then it has to be the horse. So the horse may do things like bite the human, crowd him, run him over, and play any number of little games that are designed to show the human that this horse doesn't think much of him.
Other people are too hard. They posses a strong will to dominate their horses, and tell their horses what to do. They think that anything the horse does wrong is "acting up", and they devise creative punishments to try and force compliance. If hard isn't hard enough, they go harder. Any number of progressively extreme bits, spurs, rope devices, and a hundred other tools and techniques you could name are evidence of this. When these don't work, a hard stylist may resort to drugs to get compliance. Anything ranging from over-the-counter products to vet-administered tranquilizers. Because of this, in the horse's world this person has crossed a line. They are no longer a leader, they are now a predator. Such horses are inclined to be nervous or jumpy, or they may become "dull" through being overstimulated for too long. Their only remaining means of escape becomes to tune the human out.
It's obvious that being too far to one extreme is a bad thing. However, as I said earlier I intend to argue that both are necessary. To make my point, we'll turn to horses themselves for the answer.
Consider a herd of horses. I'm not talking about a group that's thrown together in a turnout on Saturday after spending the whole week in a stall and then spend the whole day trying to figure out a pecking order. I'm talking about an established, well-adjusted herd that spends the majority of it's time as a single unit. To understand what it means to be a balanced, complete horseman, all you have to do is look at the interactions between dominant and subordinate members of the herd.
Take the example of two horses grazing together, maybe 10 feet apart. One is dominant, one is subordinate. At some point, for some reason that only horses know, the dominant horse takes a liking to the patch of grass that the subordinate horse is eating. He wants that grass. He has a clear, single-minded focus. He's a horse, so he's not thinking about what happened at work. He just wants the grass and he's going to be clear in his intentions. He may begin by looking in the direction of that subordinate horse. Maybe the sub-horse doesn't move off. So he turns his body toward the sub-horse. Still nothing. Finally, he moves toward his subordinate with his ears laid back and his teeth bared. The other horse moves off. As soon as he does, the ears of the dominant horse relax, the teeth go away, and peace reigns in the herd. All of this may have happened in the space of a few seconds.
My point is, the dominant horse didn't start off with baring his teeth. It may have looked like he did, but he didn't. He gave the subordinate horse a chance to move with the most subtle of cues, a look or a turn of the head. He was as soft as possible. When that didn't work, he quickly escalated to flat ears and bared teeth. He was as firm as necessary. When he got his way, he instantly became calm once more. He released the pressure.
That, my friends, is what natural horsemanship means to me. It means interacting with the horse in a way that's natural to him. I believe that a natural horseman strives to become that dominant horse, the one that will make you move if he has to but will give you a chance first. It's hard softness, or soft hardness. It's both, and it's having the flexibility, timing and feel to switch from one to the other and back again in an instant.
The longer I pursue this way of life, the more I realize that horses themselves are the greatest teachers of horsemanship. A true horseman strives to become half human, half horse. It's something that we can never truly achieve, but gives us enough to study for a lifetime. If I had to stress one thing above all others in this article, it would be to encourage the reader to go out and study a herd. Watch the interactions between herdmates, and really try to catch the subtleties between dominants and subordinates. There's a lot to learn. Then, next time you're with your horse, try to be that dominant one. The results you get might find you a little more kindly disposed toward Natural horsemanship.
Chuck McDonald
groundmannersguy.com