Die Ethik
I was reading another blog that talked about training and what makes a person a "trainer" in relationship to horses and she pointed to another blog that posed an interesting and thought-provoking question: Is Natural Horsemanship Ethical?
Blogspot hates my phone and doesn't allow me to comment from it and while I had some thoughts I'm not quite determined enough to email the original poster so I'll ramble a bit here instead. If you read it, I fins her bear analogy both funny and poingant. This commentary from a horse owner who is trying to do the best by her horse on her way to some Endurance competition goals provided a very good read and was nicely thought-provoking. Even if one doesn't agree with something in its entirety, when it triggers more critical thinking it is a good thing in my book.
My first strong thought is that I think there is a confusion, or at least conflict, on the use of the roundpen and what should be accomplished therein.
The "Join-Up" crew, pioneered by Monty Roberts, can be overzealous in the driving of the horse. The method has never quite appealed to me (and the bear analogy here is pretty awesome). In its original form I don't see it as a bad concept: show the horse that comfort and release comes from paying attention to the human, but as we all know some people take part of a concept and run the completely wrong direction with it. This is where you get people who chase a horse around without any release or consideration that the horse might not want to run around due to pain, lack of understanding, or whatever else.
I can see encouraging a horse to move past a sticky spot, but I don't see the point in running it around and around and around waiting for it to finally stop on its own or just so happen to look at you instead of outside the roundpen.
The other school of thought in the roundpen that I have some issue with is the people who do not allow any walking in it. It's in the pen trot-canter-turn, repeat. Sunny, my in-law's slightly dim palomino Quarter Horse mare was trained this way and it had her brain fried in the roundpen for quite a while. Marty spent a long time getting Sunny to realize that it was okay to WALK in the roundpen. I know where the proponents are coming from: many people work their horses far too little so you get fat, sassy horses that can bully their owners into never asking anything that the horse might not "like" and with most horses being energy conservative exerting themselves can easily end up on the "do not like" list. That said one also needs to be cognizant of a horse's fitness level and possible physical limitations.
The roundpen can be a great tool for establishing the ABCs of the language we use with horses. For me that starts with focusing on the two things we control with horses: speed and direction. If the horse is ripping around like a maniac I control the direction, no need for further driving! In such a case I spend my time changing the horse's direction to get them to tone it down. As the horse turns their forward energy is translated into lateral energy and unless the horse re-energizes after completing the turn (and many of them do the first few turns) they do slow down. A more sluggish horse that is less impressed with my presence will get driven forward and asked to transition as well as turn until it becomes respectful of the aids, but running them around and around is pointless. Granted, anyone with a mule will tell you that lungeing only requires a few rotations to establish that the animal gets the concept! A mule won't stand to run around in endless circles and while a horse might, that doesn't mean we should.
I also think that roundpen work, like lungeing on the line, shouldn't last more than 30 minutes for the shake of the horse's legs. Sure it's a cool trick to have the horse go around and around until you tell it to do otherwise, but you can establish the horse's desire to hold until you ask otherwise with just a couple rotations, it doesn't have to be 20, or even five!
I also feel that there has to be two-way communication between horse and handler (rider, driver). Not should be has to be. Yes the horse should do what we ask, but we should also be aware of their limtations and listen to feedback (both positive and negative!). The horse is an honest creature and will tell us exactly what we need if we only take the time to listen and understand them. Good, classical Dressage understands this and so does any good training philosophy (I hate to say "method" as that suggests rigid process).
I had that discussion with my client who has the Arab gelding, Royal, who is Kash's cousin (on both sides). If you take your horse's problem areas and view them as the horse telling you that they need help in that area rather than the horse snubbing your or being difficult your perspective on it changes. Royal was a pain about having his ear touched, which told me he had some trouble there and needed help with it so we worked on it until he was able to overcome his troubles.
So far as flooding goes I don't think it has any place in horse training. I do think there is a difference between the textbook definition of flooding (the continual stimulus until the subject shuts down/stops responding) and what the writer of the post lumped in as being flooding. Some of what she was referring to would probably be considered habituating. Flooding insinuates that the maximum stimulus is introduced from the start with no release until the subject shuts down to it. Habituation starts with low, non-threatening stimulus that comes and goes to build acceptance. The keys being that the stimuls starts low and the pressure comes and goes so there are breaks and release from the pressure. Habituation is something that is a great tool in training and is much less stressful than flooding. Just because the horse stops reacting doesn't mean that he has shut down due to being scared out of his mind and the feeling I got from reading the post was that the writer was lumping habituation and flooding into the same pool, but they are very different in their results. The flooded horse still has its fear. The habitated horse learns that there is nothing to fear. It has also been scientifically proven that habituation is much less stressful (I just don't have the time to run around and find the articles to cite).
She also wrote about the Wild Horse, Wild Ride movie and went on at length about the issues with the Mustang Makeover program. I do say that 100 days is much better than the 30 day miracles many trainers are expected to do starting a "normal" horse or the three day colt starting contests. I do think that some of the trainers in the program push too hard too fast. I heard of one guy who worked his horse to death even. The trainer referenced in the movie who got on her horse the first day I have met several times and she actually is the one who put the rides on Toby when Dave and Marty had him restarted. She is a special type of crazy, but is also very good. I wouldn't send just any horse to her because I know she (and her sisters and mother) push very hard and very fast, which some horses need, but many don't. Toby needed it. I would never have sent Panda to them, though.
Back on track, while the Mustang Makeover/Challenge program has its issus, I do think that it is, overall, a good program. 100 days is a decent amount of time to get a horse well-started under saddle. How wisely the trainers choose to use that time and what they focus on (solid foundation or blingy show-stoppers) is up to them and partially up to the judges. As with any contest with a prize the participants tend to do what gets rewarded by the judge.
In short: there is no easy one size fits all solution to training horses and anyone who says there is hasn't worked with enough of them or is fooling themselves. I also think that any training philosophy can be taken the wrong way and warped, just as any competition or discipline has its problems (even endurance has had trouble with unscrupulous characters sacrificing the horse's well-being for the win).
Blogspot hates my phone and doesn't allow me to comment from it and while I had some thoughts I'm not quite determined enough to email the original poster so I'll ramble a bit here instead. If you read it, I fins her bear analogy both funny and poingant. This commentary from a horse owner who is trying to do the best by her horse on her way to some Endurance competition goals provided a very good read and was nicely thought-provoking. Even if one doesn't agree with something in its entirety, when it triggers more critical thinking it is a good thing in my book.
My first strong thought is that I think there is a confusion, or at least conflict, on the use of the roundpen and what should be accomplished therein.
The "Join-Up" crew, pioneered by Monty Roberts, can be overzealous in the driving of the horse. The method has never quite appealed to me (and the bear analogy here is pretty awesome). In its original form I don't see it as a bad concept: show the horse that comfort and release comes from paying attention to the human, but as we all know some people take part of a concept and run the completely wrong direction with it. This is where you get people who chase a horse around without any release or consideration that the horse might not want to run around due to pain, lack of understanding, or whatever else.
I can see encouraging a horse to move past a sticky spot, but I don't see the point in running it around and around and around waiting for it to finally stop on its own or just so happen to look at you instead of outside the roundpen.
The other school of thought in the roundpen that I have some issue with is the people who do not allow any walking in it. It's in the pen trot-canter-turn, repeat. Sunny, my in-law's slightly dim palomino Quarter Horse mare was trained this way and it had her brain fried in the roundpen for quite a while. Marty spent a long time getting Sunny to realize that it was okay to WALK in the roundpen. I know where the proponents are coming from: many people work their horses far too little so you get fat, sassy horses that can bully their owners into never asking anything that the horse might not "like" and with most horses being energy conservative exerting themselves can easily end up on the "do not like" list. That said one also needs to be cognizant of a horse's fitness level and possible physical limitations.
The roundpen can be a great tool for establishing the ABCs of the language we use with horses. For me that starts with focusing on the two things we control with horses: speed and direction. If the horse is ripping around like a maniac I control the direction, no need for further driving! In such a case I spend my time changing the horse's direction to get them to tone it down. As the horse turns their forward energy is translated into lateral energy and unless the horse re-energizes after completing the turn (and many of them do the first few turns) they do slow down. A more sluggish horse that is less impressed with my presence will get driven forward and asked to transition as well as turn until it becomes respectful of the aids, but running them around and around is pointless. Granted, anyone with a mule will tell you that lungeing only requires a few rotations to establish that the animal gets the concept! A mule won't stand to run around in endless circles and while a horse might, that doesn't mean we should.
I also think that roundpen work, like lungeing on the line, shouldn't last more than 30 minutes for the shake of the horse's legs. Sure it's a cool trick to have the horse go around and around until you tell it to do otherwise, but you can establish the horse's desire to hold until you ask otherwise with just a couple rotations, it doesn't have to be 20, or even five!
I also feel that there has to be two-way communication between horse and handler (rider, driver). Not should be has to be. Yes the horse should do what we ask, but we should also be aware of their limtations and listen to feedback (both positive and negative!). The horse is an honest creature and will tell us exactly what we need if we only take the time to listen and understand them. Good, classical Dressage understands this and so does any good training philosophy (I hate to say "method" as that suggests rigid process).
I had that discussion with my client who has the Arab gelding, Royal, who is Kash's cousin (on both sides). If you take your horse's problem areas and view them as the horse telling you that they need help in that area rather than the horse snubbing your or being difficult your perspective on it changes. Royal was a pain about having his ear touched, which told me he had some trouble there and needed help with it so we worked on it until he was able to overcome his troubles.
So far as flooding goes I don't think it has any place in horse training. I do think there is a difference between the textbook definition of flooding (the continual stimulus until the subject shuts down/stops responding) and what the writer of the post lumped in as being flooding. Some of what she was referring to would probably be considered habituating. Flooding insinuates that the maximum stimulus is introduced from the start with no release until the subject shuts down to it. Habituation starts with low, non-threatening stimulus that comes and goes to build acceptance. The keys being that the stimuls starts low and the pressure comes and goes so there are breaks and release from the pressure. Habituation is something that is a great tool in training and is much less stressful than flooding. Just because the horse stops reacting doesn't mean that he has shut down due to being scared out of his mind and the feeling I got from reading the post was that the writer was lumping habituation and flooding into the same pool, but they are very different in their results. The flooded horse still has its fear. The habitated horse learns that there is nothing to fear. It has also been scientifically proven that habituation is much less stressful (I just don't have the time to run around and find the articles to cite).
She also wrote about the Wild Horse, Wild Ride movie and went on at length about the issues with the Mustang Makeover program. I do say that 100 days is much better than the 30 day miracles many trainers are expected to do starting a "normal" horse or the three day colt starting contests. I do think that some of the trainers in the program push too hard too fast. I heard of one guy who worked his horse to death even. The trainer referenced in the movie who got on her horse the first day I have met several times and she actually is the one who put the rides on Toby when Dave and Marty had him restarted. She is a special type of crazy, but is also very good. I wouldn't send just any horse to her because I know she (and her sisters and mother) push very hard and very fast, which some horses need, but many don't. Toby needed it. I would never have sent Panda to them, though.
Back on track, while the Mustang Makeover/Challenge program has its issus, I do think that it is, overall, a good program. 100 days is a decent amount of time to get a horse well-started under saddle. How wisely the trainers choose to use that time and what they focus on (solid foundation or blingy show-stoppers) is up to them and partially up to the judges. As with any contest with a prize the participants tend to do what gets rewarded by the judge.
In short: there is no easy one size fits all solution to training horses and anyone who says there is hasn't worked with enough of them or is fooling themselves. I also think that any training philosophy can be taken the wrong way and warped, just as any competition or discipline has its problems (even endurance has had trouble with unscrupulous characters sacrificing the horse's well-being for the win).