Y
Yann
Guest
Such as? (Unless you're referring to the dreaded buck stop of course, which is more of a Monty Roberts thing anyway and just as controversial on the IHDG as it is here).
Such as? (Unless you're referring to the dreaded buck stop of course, which is more of a Monty Roberts thing anyway and just as controversial on the IHDG as it is here).
What, like ropes?
I don't think you could class ropes as mechanical devices as they don't have moveable parts.
Yann, I refer to pressure halters of any type and of course the buckstop device.
Y
Yann
Guest
As opposed to a thin non closing rope halter that also applies concentrated pressure presumably? I think that's splitting hairs from the horse's point of view personally, the training is in the release, not the particular device on the horse's head.
There's no need to get defensive Yann.
My original reply was to the thread header "What's the difference between NH and IH" and I gave my personal interpretation of the differences. I wasn't trying to imply any one method was kinder than the other.
I don't want to get into the politics on whether NH is any better than IH or visa versa because as far as I'm concerned there's good and bad in all methods of training.
Which principle applies equally well to ropes, of course.
I think the implication in the term "mechanical device" is the means whereby the magnitude of the force applied by the person is magnified when applied to the horse. The danger is that the person doesn't realize that the horse is feeling a stronger force than what the person feels - so it could be very uncomfortable or even painful for the horse without the person necessarily realizing it.
However, I think that argument potentially applies to the whole range of mechanical doodads, even ones without moving parts - like ropes. A horse's sensitivity makes that true.
So, rather than relying on what we feel at our end of the rope (or reins or whatever), we need to become attuned - one way or another - to what the horse is feeling at his end.
Once we learn to do that, we don't have to worry so much about which mechanical devices we use.
Y
Yann
Guest
K
Kate&TheHerd
Guest
Because I want to learn and understand the differences. Its not going to change what I do, I just like to learn!
N.H.and I.H
Hi Wonkewoody,Sure, I will try. - I believe that 'Natural Horsemanship' means using kinder methods with horses and a more natural way of feeding etc. And it is the art of understanding horses. Using common sence. Finding out and doing what is best for any particular horse. And learning to understand how and why the horse reacts as he does.
It is also very much about communication with the horse.
Horses communicate with each other each other extremely efficiently using their "body language". When we learn to communicate with them using their 'body language' then we too can enjoy a better understanding and therefore a better relationship with them.
'Intelligent Horsemanship' is an organization run by Kelly Marks in Witney Oxfordshire, she promotes Monty Roberts's natural approach with horses, and is an expert with problem horses, therefore she teaches 'Natural Horsemanship'- She is very kind and has a reputation as being the best female trainer in the world. She has Recommeded Associates all over the county to help people. (I was once a pupil, it was the best thing I ever did. - I live in Stalybridge) She goes all over the world helping Horses Societies in poor counrties. And she gives demonstrations all over the country. She has no equal in this field hence her horse is the best trained horse in the country. (please excuse me if I appear to be glib,- N.H.and I.H. is a big topic to describe in a few words)
Hi Wonkewoody,
Sure, I will try. - I believe that 'Natural Horsemanship' means using kinder methods with horses and a more natural way of feeding etc. And it is the art of understanding horses. Using common sence. Finding out and doing what is best for any particular horse. And learning to understand how and why the horse reacts as he does. It is also very much about communication with the horse.
Horses communicate with each other each other extremely efficiently using their "body language". When we learn to communicate with them using their 'body language' then we too can enjoy a better understanding and therefore a better relationship with them.
'Intelligent Horsemanship' is an organization run by Kelly Marks in Witney Oxfordshire, she promotes Monty Roberts's natural approach with horses, and is an expert with problem horses, therefore she teaches 'Natural Horsemanship'- She is very kind and has a reputation as being the best female trainer in the world. She has Recommeded Associates all over the county to help people. (I was once a pupil, it was the best thing I ever did. - I live in Stalybridge) She goes all over the world helping Horses Societies in poor counrties. And she gives demonstrations all over the country. She has no equal in this field hence her horse is the best trained horse in the country. (please excuse me if I appear to be glib,- N.H.and I.H. is a big topic to describe in a few words)
As I see it, nh is a general approach incorporating the following:
* Viewing horses as horses rather than viewing them through a distorting anthropomorphic lens. (eg a horse who is freaked by a jump is allowed to look at it, nose it, desensitise to it, rather than being viewed as 'trying it on' and being bullied/coerced into jumping it regardless of its fears)
* Understanding how they behave, perceive, think, feel and communicate naturally and using these insights to aid handling and training. (eg: understanding the WHY of horse behaviour such as napping, refusing to load, evasion, not being caught and then using this understanding to set things up so you solve the issue from the horse's pouint of view. Or using alpha behaviours or passive leadership behaviours, or placing pressure on the horse with stance and body language.
* Seeking to address causes of problems or unwanted behaviours rather than just dealing with the symptoms. (eg viewing so-called stable vices as ritualised forms of natural behaviours which horse is not able to express eg foraging, mutual grooming, wandering for cribsucking, flank biting and box walking, and addressing it by turning them out not by putting up bars etc, or teaching a horse with poor brakes to respond to soft cues, rather than putting in a severe bit).
Others might add more things about nh, but that's how I see it - ie it is a lens throughb which you view horses, not a set of techniques. IH is one approach that achieves the above, as do many others. So ih is a subtype within nh. I think.
* Viewing horses as horses rather than viewing them through a distorting anthropomorphic lens. (eg a horse who is freaked by a jump is allowed to look at it, nose it, desensitise to it, rather than being viewed as 'trying it on' and being bullied/coerced into jumping it regardless of its fears)
* Understanding how they behave, perceive, think, feel and communicate naturally and using these insights to aid handling and training. (eg: understanding the WHY of horse behaviour such as napping, refusing to load, evasion, not being caught and then using this understanding to set things up so you solve the issue from the horse's pouint of view. Or using alpha behaviours or passive leadership behaviours, or placing pressure on the horse with stance and body language.
* Seeking to address causes of problems or unwanted behaviours rather than just dealing with the symptoms. (eg viewing so-called stable vices as ritualised forms of natural behaviours which horse is not able to express eg foraging, mutual grooming, wandering for cribsucking, flank biting and box walking, and addressing it by turning them out not by putting up bars etc, or teaching a horse with poor brakes to respond to soft cues, rather than putting in a severe bit).
Others might add more things about nh, but that's how I see it - ie it is a lens throughb which you view horses, not a set of techniques. IH is one approach that achieves the above, as do many others. So ih is a subtype within nh. I think.
How would an IH associate teach a horse to pick up it’s feet?
What tools would they use?
How would an NH do the same? (generic NH, not Parelli necessarily)
What tools?
----------------
How would an IH associate catch a unhandled colt?
What tools would they use?
An NH horseman with an unhandled colt?
What tools?
-----------------
How would an IH associate introduce a rider to a horse? What tools would they use?
NH method?
----------------
How would an IH associate desensitize a scared race horse to the starting gate? What tools would they use?
NH method?
----------------
So how do you tell the difference between an IH associate and a natural horseman?
Are their different answers to these questions when comparing?
Keep on, keeping on
Jack
What tools would they use?
How would an NH do the same? (generic NH, not Parelli necessarily)
What tools?
----------------
How would an IH associate catch a unhandled colt?
What tools would they use?
An NH horseman with an unhandled colt?
What tools?
-----------------
How would an IH associate introduce a rider to a horse? What tools would they use?
NH method?
----------------
How would an IH associate desensitize a scared race horse to the starting gate? What tools would they use?
NH method?
----------------
So how do you tell the difference between an IH associate and a natural horseman?
Are their different answers to these questions when comparing? Keep on, keeping on
Jack
Woah there French!! Best trained horse in the country??!!
I don't think so hon. Maybe the best you have seen, but i know of at least two trainers who are much more effective than Kelly IMO, it's just that their names are not as internationally recognised as hers as they have not ridden on the famous coat tails of someone else!! They are making a name for themselves in their own right. And as for no equal in her field, one of the two trainers I mentioned is a female, quite a young one at that and I would pit her against Kelly's skills any day. In fact, she is a member on this website, but I would not put her name forward at this time for fear of her not appreciating me blowing her trumpet quite so loudly. She is quite an understated 'I don't yet realise how good I am' kinda gal. Mind you, maybe she does know how good she is, she just isn't that far up her own ass to say it.
How would an IH associate teach a horse to pick up it’s feet?
What tools would they use?
How would an NH do the same? (generic NH, not Parelli necessarily)
What tools?
----------------
How would an IH associate catch a unhandled colt?
What tools would they use?
An NH horseman with an unhandled colt?
What tools?
-----------------
How would an IH associate introduce a rider to a horse? What tools would they use?
NH method?
----------------
How would an IH associate desensitize a scared race horse to the starting gate? What tools would they use?
NH method?
----------------
So how do you tell the difference between an IH associate and a natural horseman?
Keep on, keeping on
Jack
I don't think there is the 'correct' nh way to answer these questions...There may be many ways to achieve the above depending on the horse/circumstances/preferrd approached. Eg picking up feet: I have handled the feet of my foal since the day I got him so he learns not to fear this. He has no issues with this at all. The NH reasoning behind random foot handling is the awareness that being on 3 legs is a big deal for a prey animal and pre-empting future issues with it. With older horses who already have a problem with feet, clicker training, or systematic desensitisation or coming at in indirectly via trust/relationship building are all legitimate. NH reasoning is again awareness that horses feel uneasy being rendered immobile. What is NOT nh is yelling 'pack it in' and smacking it on the legs!
Hi Krissie,
you ok hon?
I reckon you may be right. I think Levi asked those questions to get a thinking repsonse rather than a definitive answer. Don't think there is a definitive answer. Each answer is open to interpretation depending upon your own practicing method of each technique surely?
No, I think Levi has a good point here.
If we are concluding that there are many ways of getting the same job done, without force or pain, then should we just call these people trainers, not NH, IH etc.
Is it time to drop these labels? Is it time we encompassed all types of trainer rather than ones who have 'labels'?
Can we assume that horse training has turned a corner in terms of thinking it through rather than forcing it with a gadget?
If we are concluding that there are many ways of getting the same job done, without force or pain, then should we just call these people trainers, not NH, IH etc.
Is it time to drop these labels? Is it time we encompassed all types of trainer rather than ones who have 'labels'?
Can we assume that horse training has turned a corner in terms of thinking it through rather than forcing it with a gadget?
I agree Giveitago.
I have said before in other threads that NH is becoming a bit of a by word for just one type of horsemanship. No matter whether you follow traditional methods or not, as long as you train with the horses mental and spiritual wellbeing in mind and make sure you are not using avoidance techniques, and using mechanical equipment such as martingales and flashes and pesoas(dunno how to spell it!) to disguise or force a change, then who the heck cares what label it comes under!
Good horsemanship comes in many shapes and forms and putting a label on it just trivialises what is important at the base of it all....The horse....So here's to good horsemanship, whatever form you may follow.
There is good and not so good in all methods, depending upon many differing factors, like how you translate the method in the first place and how your personality reacts to one concept versus another.
For instance, some people like the techniques of Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling, but as already stated by more than a few people, he can sometimes seem a little off the wall and away with the fairies, but that may suit some personalities better than a more direct, sometimes seemingly more hard line approach such as PNH.
A friend of mine thinks that what I do with horses is amazing and whilst she can see that the techniques I use obviously work for the horse, she just doesn't have it in her to be quite so unemotional and hard line,(personally, I think her inability to be unemotional will cause her problems no matter what type of horsemanship she eventually decides to settle on) but then she hasn't had to deal with the type of the horses I have come across. But she loves KFH as his approach suits her more sensitive, genteel side. That is not to say I can't be sensitive or genteel (well, I will be honest, i am not genteel!!
) but you get my drift hopefully.(maybe you don't?!
)
I thougt IH was a brand of NH, and NH was a generic term for several mathods including those of monty roberts, richard maxwell, parelli, IH, etc etc
newrider.com