The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

What 'natural horsemanship' means to me

4K views 36 replies 24 participants last post by  Horsesdontlie 
#1 ·
Let me tell you what 'natural horsemanship' means to me. I just really think of it as common sense horsemanship teaching horses the way they are meant to learn. We can condition them to a lot of things, but the more closely we stay with what is 'natural' to them, I think the less resistance and less confusion we have to work past. I think everything we do that is NOT a natural way for them to learn just makes it more difficult to get to a happy, willing outcome. I think when a horse does something wrong or really 'bad' by out standards, a person has does something wrong first, often-times with good intentions.

I grew up spending every minute I had working with any horse I could get near and watching anyone that had well trained horses. This was in the late 1950s. I watched a dressage and jumping trainer from Germany (came over after 1936 Olympics) that was very harsh. I watched, and years later worked little with, a Polish dressage trainer that also fled Hitler. He was much kinder and got a lot more done in my opinion and he had a LOT happier horses. I watched cowboys that 'broke' horses like it was all a big rodeo. Definitely not what I wanted nor did I ever find it necessary or advantageous.

I was convinced that you could 'teach' a horse to do anything he was capable of doing. So I watched and worked and handled and rode any horse that anyone would let me handle or ride. I soon found out I had a 'knack' to get more done than all of the professionals around where I lived. By 13, people were paying me to ride their horses.

I watched herd behavior and saw how horses responded to each other. They validated everything I had figured out.

When clinicians started doing the kinds of things I had done for a long time, I thought - "Gee. Why do they think they invented this. This is how horses have always learned if someone just tried to teach them."

I also figured out that I needed to train two totally different ways. One way for horses that were not spoiled and a completely different way to stop bad behavior and 'retrain' spoiled horses. I found out that you needed to not only 'interrupt' what you did not want but you had to find a more definitive and effective punishment for behaviors that a horse did not want to give up.

I figured out that a horse craves constant and predictable responses. A horse likes 'sameness'. When I read that a horse is bored, I know that either the rider is bored or is irritating the horse. This is also why a spoiled horse will often times fight tooth and nail to continue the same wrong behavior.

I also figured out that horses really do not naturally like 'contact' -- even with other horses unless they are mutually grooming each other. They can be taught to accept and eventually like people contact, but when they have not been handled a lot, the thing they like best is to not touch them.

I am convinced that many species are smarter. I have trained cows (some to ride) and I think they are smarter. I have raised bison (have 2 now) and they are a lot smarter. Pigs are the smartest of any animal I have been around (also proven by scientific testing).

I think horses are the most useful and 'trainable' of all these animals because they are easily intimidated and naturally do not like to be touched. I think that is why a touch or 'pressure' can easily cause an action or movement and the withdrawing of the pressure or touch 'release' or 'relief' is the only reward a horse needs.

As a prey animal, pressure is always a threat and the withdrawing or release of that pressure is the relief. Food is never a reward. Yes, it can be conditioned into any animal including a prey animal like a horse, but it is not 'natural'. It is a taught response. So, to me, it is not nearly as natural and not nearly as effective as the release of pressure.

I have also found out that when you replace the pressure with a 'non-pressure' stimulus like a smooch or body language (like horses do to each other) instead of a touch (kick, whip, spur or???) you have a happier horse. Horses to not start wringing their tails from a smooch or from using body language like they do from too much contact with whip, heel or spur.

I think most people 'over-think' training and over-think a horses reasoning ability. Horses respond in a very basic and rudimentary way when you understand how they teach each other how to be an accepted herd member. Their thinking, to me, if very simple and basic and VERY predictable.

If we stay light with our stimulus, a light touch of only an ounce or two is all it takes to teach a horse to move away from that pressure. We are dealing with a very thin skinned animal with so many nerve endings in their skin and the ability to move and flinch their skin, that a fly elicits a response from most horses. Why would a person have to use more pressure than that? I think horses are many times more sensitive to pressure than any other animal I have worked with and much more sensitive than people. They just naturally do not like touch. I am convinced they have to be taught to tolerate it. I am convinced that all of the petting and feeding treats and praise are less effective than releasing pressure. I am convinced that all of this is for people and not a benefit for horses although they can be conditioned to it.

So, Now, all of the people who are convinced otherwise can respond.
 
See less See more
#5 ·
I think that observation about horses not liking being touched is very interesting. That's the firsdt time I've heard anyone say that. . that by their very nature, they dont' like contact of any kind , except mutual grooming of an itchy place.
I wont' disagree with that. I think that it's probably true. I wish it weren't so, because I always want to pet and "hold" Zulu's face, but he doesn't like it. It's like seeing a really adorable baby or kitten , and not being allowed to touch it.

I agree with the idea of horses liking sameness. This is also hard for humans to understnad, becuase we want to "demonstrate" our affection or other emotion, and we think we need to "do" something, all the time, especially to reward the horse and let them know we love them. So, we end up intruding on the thing they love most; being left in peace.

I will say that there is one thing that I think horses DO like and it's something we can use to help us satisfy our need to demonstrate our love for them. That is , horse like to BE with others. Just BE with them. So, just BEing next to the horse, in a state of calmness and peace, brings security to the hrose, and that's about the most desireable trait in a companion, in the eyes of a horse.
 
#10 ·
I think that observation about horses not liking being touched is very interesting. That's the firsdt time I've heard anyone say that. . that by their very nature, they dont' like contact of any kind , except mutual grooming of an itchy place.
I wont' disagree with that. I think that it's probably true. I wish it weren't so, because I always want to pet and "hold" Zulu's face, but he doesn't like it. It's like seeing a really adorable baby or kitten , and not being allowed to touch it.
Have to say, you SO nailed the problem I have with my mare! I like being with horses, just grooming or being close etc., not necessarily holding or touching them per se. My mare DOES NOT like it. So much so that it's hard to get her looking straight, never mind inside, when lunging her. Petting is totally out there. It's okay to go and say hi, but then she rather I went. And she's just so lovely, argh! :cry:
But then again, I'm not a hugger either even if some people are. That's just how things are.

However if you just watch horses, they usually don't touch unless they need to communicate or have a scratch. They graze side by side, not cheek to cheek.

Good post from the OP, I still have to read it properly though.
 
#6 ·
Although you look a lot younger than I do, we are of similar age (5 pts.). I, also, have been using NH for over 50 years - long before it was called NH. You are correct - it is mostly common sense and studying and learning the nature of horses - how they communicate, respond, and react. In my opinion, commercial trainers have used and abused the term NH to describe their method of shortcut training that does no more than attack symptoms without addressing the underlying causes, thus is only temporary rather than permanent training. True NH does not invoke short cuts - it is a step by step process with progress dictated by the horse, and its results are both effective and permanent. Just my opinion, of course...
 
#8 ·
Tiny --
I think that observation about horses not liking being touched is very interesting. That's the firsdt time I've heard anyone say that. . That by their very nature, they dont' like contact of any kind , except mutual grooming of an itchy place.
I wont' disagree with that. I think that it's probably true. I wish it weren't so, because I always want to pet and "hold" Zulu's face, but he doesn't like it. It's like seeing a really adorable baby or kitten , and not being allowed to touch it.
While you would rather have an 'affectionate' horse, the fact that your horse doen not like physical contact is WHY it is trainable. Would you rather have him move away from pressure like a cow does? Have you ever taught a cow to move over? It takes more than a once of pressure.

I will say that there is one thing that I think horses DO like and it's something we can use to help us satisfy our need to demonstrate our love for them. That is , horse like to BE with others. Just BE with them. So, just BEing next to the horse, in a state of calmness and peace, brings security to the hrose, and that's about the most desireable trait in a companion, in the eyes of a horse.
This is exactly what you DON'T want to give him. This is exactly why I do not use a second horse to get a horse over fears or crossing water or anything else. I want to be his friend and I so do not want to act as an intrusion or a bother to him. I want his trust and I want to be his lead horse or the 'herd leader'. To do this effectively, I want him to think he has to do everything I want him to do and he will be accepted into MY herd of two -- him and me. I do not want him to have another horse because, of course, he would choose to like that horse better than me and to trust his instincts better than me. This is why a get a fretful horse into the roughest terrain I can becaue he has to trust my judgement.

I truly believe this is completely WHY I can get so much out a horse so quickly without a fight or even an argument. I am the 'herd of two leader' and I want his trust and I have figured out how to get it.

Do you see the difference?
 
#9 ·
Cherie,

You misunderstood me. I meant that for the HUMAN, the rider or handler, to just BE with the horse, without touching, cuddling or in any way interrupting the unchangingness, was what a horse likes. Not bringing any emotion except calmness , security and self confidence.

I did not mean to have another horse nearby.

I was envisioning how yesterday, when I went to check on the horses, Zulu walked all the way up to the water tank right beside me. whenever I reached out to touch him, I could sense that I had interrupted the "steadiness" and "sameness" of the slow, rythmic walk we had been doing, together. So, that was not a comfort to zulu.

at the water tank, they drank and I sat by the tank, afterwhich they stood around me and nuzzled me a bit (for treats) and then just stood nearby with cocked legs and I just sat , with cocked legs, and it felt like the horses were in the place they are happiest, which made me happy. the happiness of NOTHING.
 
#13 · (Edited)
I have often gone into the pasture and just stood beside the horse facing the same direction as he. I will stand by his shoulder which now places him in the leadership role. He will remain like that for a couple of minutes then will back up and make me the dominant one.He is consistent with this role. He doesn't want to dominate.
 
#14 ·
But, if you actually stood touching your horse, it would either lay its ears back or shake it head to 'push' you away (dominant horse) or it wold step away from your touch. Most of them will not just stand there even if they are touched by another horse. It was these quiet observations that shaped most of my opinions.

I don't think most horses want to dominate either. I think most of them are a lot happier with a strong herd leader I think what most horses want is the security of a strong capable leader and to know they will have the 'sameness' they crave.

I also think that trainability has little to do with intelligence. I think it has much more to do with how easily a horse is intimidated and how much they are sensitive to and do not like 'touch'.

I think these things are what make horses sensitive to training techniques. In reality, 'rough' trainers and 'light' trainers are doing the same thing and utilizing the same equine qualities. The light trainer is just a lot better at it by realizing that only a very light touch is needed. So the light trainer has a lot more sensitive horse that requires much less pressure. The better a person is at this, the lighter and the happier their horses are and the better they are at training in my book.

The person that is inconsistent really confuses a horse. The horse thinks that they have figured out how to get relief or release of pressure and and the person confuses them by doing something different at different times. The trainers or owners that have very obedient and very consistent horses have them that way because THEY are consistent and the horse can expect release of pressure when it does the right thing. This is one of the reasons I KNOW that people that think an obedient horse is a mindless bullied zombie are far from good handlers and know little about horse's natural way of thinking. THEY are the ones that do not understand what 'natural horsemanship' actually is.

I can tell how good a trainer is by how much resistance their horses have (how obedient they are) and how happy their horses are. Their horses tell me much more than they do.

When people time after time after time have trouble with their horses, I know that the horse has a 'people problem' and person does not really have a 'horse problem'.

The occasional naturally dominant horse that is not intimidated by a person can be a really tough nut to crack early on as spoiled horses can also be. The quicker you establish respect and your proper place in their 'pecking order', the quicker they look to you for release of pressure and the less pressure it takes.
 
#17 ·
While I agree with most of what has been posted, I think the matter of a horse enjoying or not enjoying touch is personal preference on the horse's behalf. I have met horses that totally shun human contact and others that seem to crave it, right now I own two that seem to be extreme cases of both ends of the spectrum, and I do think it effects the training methods that are suited for each horse.

My Fargo loves to rest his head in my hands and let me stroke his cheeks or forehead. He will stand with his head in my arms for as long as I want to keep up the contact. He presents areas of his body he wants rubbed and "asks" for scratching at times. He also enjoys just hanging out without touching, and on rare occasions will refuse my affections, but for the most part he seeks contact with me. He also really likes to have contact with the reins and behaves almost insecurely when I ride bridleless. He loves rubbing and petting as a reward.

Whereas Indiana, my retired pony never wants to be touched, he tolerates grooming and only seems to enjoy contact when he needs something scratched while bug season is at it's worst. With him I respect his desire to be left alone, even though for years I wished he would let me display my affections:?. In his case he HATES bit contact(he was given to me because he had developed the habit of bucking whenever a rider touched a rein.) The biggest turning point in being able to ride him safely was when the bridle came off, he responded far better to body cue and taps from a stick than to the reins. I was able to reintroduce the reins to him after we established body cues well enough that the reins were rarely needed in communication. I learned to leave Indi alone as a reward for him.

To me natural horsemanship also has to do with identifying the natural tendencies of each individual horse, as well as understanding them as a species.
 
#18 ·
Hi There Cherie.


I don't do much posting on this forum, and I am pretty new anyway, but I have a question.

I would like to comment on one of your points. You said your horses don't like contact and so you don't do much petting or whatever. (Atleast that was the impression I got. It could be wrong)

So in that case am I right to infer that you refrain from touching your horse as little as possible, making contact only when you need to, say to give an aid, put on a saddle or adjust a halter?

In that case, could it be possible that the reason your horses dislike touch is because the only touch they get they associate with work, or pressure, and a horse that is touched regualarly in a positive sort of way may not be so tensed againest it, and even come to enjoy petting or scrating?

I don't want to offend you in anyway, I am new (only a few months) experience to the world of NH and my question is being asked in the politest way possible.
 
#20 ·
You're not offending me in any way. It is a reasonable question. Let me explain it further.

Horses do not NATURALLY like to be touched. A touch from another horse makes most of them move. In observing herd behavior, I see about all of them move away accept when they decide to engage in mutual grooming. Initially, a touch from a person makes them move if you can even touch them at all even if you are the one that feeds them.

Horses must be CONDITIONED to accept touch. Obviously, a part of training is to TEACH or CONDITION horses to accept touch or we would be unable to put on a halter or groom them or do much of anything with them. Each person has to decide how much of this CONDITIONING they want a horse to accept. Obviously, no conditioning results in a wild, scared, untouchable horse that is really difficult to get to do anything you want or need. But, this SHOULD be a conscious decision. The less you CONDITION them to this, the more NATURAL they stay and your program can stay.

Now comes the hard part: How much TOUCH or CONTACT do you want a horse to be CONDITIONED to? For me, this is a very conscious decision. I decide early on how SENSITIVE I want a horse to be. When I was training reining, reined cowhorse and cutting horses, I got them gentle and easy to handle, CONDITIONED them to accept everything they NEEDED to accept, but did little scratching and petting. The more SENSITIVE they were, the less pressure was needed to be applied to get them to move away from it. So, it was a lot easier and more pleasant for both horse and rider if they were not 'leaning into petting' and were left more NATURAL and more SENSITIVE TO TOUCH. There is a fine balance between having a horse that has learned to love being petted on and a horse that is very light and responsive, listens and has good manners. If this was not so, we would not see all of the posts on tis forum asking about horses that knock people down, rub on people, step on feet and refuse to move over or back up when asked. These are NOT pleasant horses to train and seldom become top show horses or really impressive cowhorses or reiners.

Is this making any sense. How many of you have heard experienced horsemen and trainers say "I would rather train an untouched horse than a 'pocket pony' or pet?" This is because a PET has been so conditioned to be petted (made worse by hand feeding and letting them rub on you) that you or a trainer have to apply SO MUCH pressure to make them move that you frequently have to be very rough with them or they just stay DULL and INSENSITIVE. A good trainer can be much kinder and NATURALLY LIGHTER with an untouched horse than a PET. A happy medium for me is a horse that accepts touch but has not been conditioned to like it so much that they have become insensitive.

When I am halter breaking a baby, I scratch it on its 'itchy spot'. This is the spot that runs from its shoulder to its withers. This is the 'mutual grooming' spot that horses love. So, while making the foal have good manners, I can get them to accept touch (and me as a 'herd member') and turn that into accepting me putting on a halter and being touched and rubbed. I can soon walk up to them. Once I can do that, I handle them very little until they go into training. I want them sensitive to touch and pressure. I just want them GENTLE enough to handle.

[This is why you never see me answering a post about "What can I do with my yearling?" My answer would be to just leave them alone and let them grow up. Put them in the biggest pasture you can with the roughest, most varied terrain to help them develop good feet and legs and strong muscles and leave them the heck alone. Not a very popular answer, I'm afraid, so I just stay away from such threads.]

When I train horses to be trail horses and general saddle horses, I want them to be gentle enough to touch, but do not want them to be pets. I will go through all of their schooling while they are very sensitive. Some horses are pretty 'aloof' and are always very sensitive and really never learn to like to be touched. That does not bother me at all. I like them and respect their very nature. BUT, in selling trail horses and saddle horses I have found that most recreational riders want a 'pocket pony'. So, I CONDITION these horses AFTER THEY ARE PRETTY WELL TRAINED (and my trail horses I use myself) to not only ACCEPT but to LIKE contact. I can simply do this by scratching their 'itchy spot' when they come up to me IN THE PASTURE and the more wary ones will get a cattle cube right after I put their halter on. I work on training first just because it is easier (and I can stay much lighter) if they learn to move from pressure when they are more 'wary' or even a little 'goosy'. I can always teach them to "like' contact.

People often confuse a horse being a PET with a 'BOND'. I consider a BOND to be when a horse is really TUNED IN to what I am thinking and want and they do it before I even ask. They trust my judgement even when I ask them to do something they would not naturally do. They go where I want them to go even though they really do not want to go there. They ACCEPT what I want without pushing back or having to be convinced. I can use 'LIGHT' imperceptible 'aids'. They TRUST me totally and are happy about it -- ears up and working, alert but not fearful, tail relaxed and 'quiet', not nervous or tense. And when I ask for something, an ear briefly points back toward me and the response is instant without any resistance or tensing up and absolutely no fear. This is definitely not a 'mindless zombie', is it?

But, behind it all, a horse NATURALLY does not want to be touched. So the more you respect that NATURAL quality of a horse and learn to work WITH it, the more NATURAL you can keep your training techniques and the less pressure you have to apply to get the desired response.
 
#25 ·
Now comes the hard part: How much TOUCH or CONTACT do you want a horse to be CONDITIONED to? For me, this is a very conscious decision. I decide early on how SENSITIVE I want a horse to be. When I was training reining, reined cowhorse and cutting horses, I got them gentle and easy to handle, CONDITIONED them to accept everything they NEEDED to accept, but did little scratching and petting. The more SENSITIVE they were, the less pressure was needed to be applied to get them to move away from it. So, it was a lot easier and more pleasant for both horse and rider if they were not 'leaning into petting' and were left more NATURAL and more SENSITIVE TO TOUCH. There is a fine balance between having a horse that has learned to love being petted on and a horse that is very light and responsive, listens and has good manners. If this was not so, we would not see all of the posts on tis forum asking about horses that knock people down, rub on people, step on feet and refuse to move over or back up when asked. These are NOT pleasant horses to train and seldom become top show horses or really impressive cowhorses or reiners.

Is this making any sense. How many of you have heard experienced horsemen and trainers say "I would rather train an untouched horse than a 'pocket pony' or pet?" This is because a PET has been so conditioned to be petted (made worse by hand feeding and letting them rub on you) that you or a trainer have to apply SO MUCH pressure to make them move that you frequently have to be very rough with them or they just stay DULL and INSENSITIVE. A good trainer can be much kinder and NATURALLY LIGHTER with an untouched horse than a PET. A happy medium for me is a horse that accepts touch but has not been conditioned to like it so much that they have become insensitive.

Interesting perspective, I do think I understand where you are coming from. In my own herd though things are just the opposite.

My retired pony came from a very abusive past, he is not a pet, he hates touching of any kind. He has learned that human interaction is usually negative and shuns petting, but at the same time the purposeless rough handling made him extremely insensitive to cues.

Whereas Fargo, I have conditioned to be a pet, he was mostly wild when I adopted him. I took the time to teach him to love contact, and yet he is a million times more sensitive than my old pony ever was. Partly, Fargo is innately a very sensitive horse, but he also hasn't had the sensitivity knocked out of him. I understand your formula of training first, and I would say that is somewhat how I treat my horses; obedience and safety ALWAYS supersedes affection.

I worked for a trainer, who would not allow her students to pet or scratch their own horses, except as a reward during lessons. While those horses performed wonderfully in shows, they did not like people at all, and had what I consider, bad ground manners. The key really is balance, between affection and discipline.

Horses are masters of sensing energy. Would you agree that a horse can determine the intention of your touch?

I find my horses have no trouble differentiating between friendly rubs, and a cue asking for action. I think of it like when I was a kid, my mom would often rest her hand on my shoulder or hold my hand when we were in public, if I said or did anything out of line that friendly approving touch would change instantly. The touch wouldn't be harsher, or have more pressure, but somehow it was cold and stiff, only the energy changed, and I knew I was in trouble.

Obviously there is more to the subject of touch than just contact.
 
#29 ·
I figured this out pretty quickly. I was still in my teens when I started breaking a lot of horses for other people. It did not take very long to find out that untouched or barely handled horses trained a lot more quickly and with a lot less pressure. I found out that pets and spoiled horses took a LOT longer and a lot more pressure to train.

This fact was confirmed by other horsemen I visited with. They all said it was no accident that I observed that pets and very gentle horses took a lot longer to train and that it was a lot more difficult to get them really sharp and light.

This observation is what set me on my quest to figure out horse behavior and the whys and hows of the way they think and learn. A few years later I had the chance to observe large herds, with and without stallions. That was more enlightening. But, I always had an ability to think like a horse and get done what I wanted to with them. By the time I was 16 or 17 years old I was loading people's horses in little 2 horse trailers that they had tried for hours or longer to load.

I also began to observe how some horses were more trainable from the very beginning and how inheritable this quality was. I could see entire families and groups of related horses that trained much differently than other related groups.
 
#24 ·
What does "natural horsemanship" mean to me? Well nothing really....because there is nothing natural about what we do with horses. The term "natural" is only used to make us feel better about what we ask our horses to do.





I disagree with that. If horse were wild animals and people were capturing them and riding them, assuming humans are not natural and part of the environment anyway, then this may be the case. It would be akin to getting giraffe and strapping a saddle to its back, or perhaps a zebra. What people do with horse is entirely natural as humans and horses, just like humans and dogs, have evolved for thousands of years together. Horses are not some bunch of animals that have developed in their own little world in the wilderness; they have thousands of years of domestication that has made humans a natural part of their world. In this day and age we don’t see it so much because most of us don’t rely on our animals for survival, or the animals on us for survival. I have however been lucky enough to live with people who do depend on their animals for survival and vice a versa. Where I lived, you go into the desert without your camels (and more often than not horses and goats), or they go out without you, the possibility of death awaits. When you see that kind of symbiosis all this “nothing we do with horses is natural” stuff is exposed as the urban bourgeois misunderstanding of humans and animals that it is.
 
#26 ·
Great discussion. I see what Cherie and Fargo is saying in the last couple of posts. I personally believe that some sensitivity is natural- some horses are naturally more sensitive than others but a good majority is conditioned.

If anyone has handled a portion of untouched horses you can "feel" the ones that are naturally sensitive right from the beginning without even touching them. Because they have never been touched by human hands you get a true sense of how they are.
I found this theory to really ring true with ranch horses that are untouched and rarely seen a human until they are brought in as 3yr olds(and older) to be halter broke and started. Right from the get go you see the horse and not a conditioned response from previous contact.
Those horses do not enjoy affection. They were not conditioned to it. They are all about getting the job done and getting turned and left alone. We own two horses like that. They do not seek attention or interaction wheareas the other two we own had a different "up-bringing" before we bought them. They can very much in the middle of what your doing and the first ones to the gate if I walk in with a halter. One of them would live in the house if it was allowed..LOL. But they were raised with kids almost in a backyard setting and can really see the difference.
But having an un-affectionate or an aloof horse should not being mistaken for unbroke, wild or abused. Almost of those horses that didn't like to be touched made great horses that were plenty well broke and could hop out of a trailer to get something caught with just a halter on their head if need be, or given 5 months off for the winter, caught in the spring and hop on just like you left them in the fall.
 
#28 ·
Thank You Cherie, your explanation makes alot of sense and I do agree with much of what you have said.

However I think I personly prefer a pet horse to a working horse (Having no huge ambitions in the sport equestrian world) so shall continue with my practise of icthing scrating and loving on my horse evey chance I get. xD.
 
#30 ·
Well---here is a new definition-at least to me. I agree very much with Cherie-but, yesterday, since I was sick, was laying around, and had RFD TV on. Craig Cameron came on, and said that HIS definition on "Natural Horsemanship" was to take his horse out of the round pen, arena, etc, and out on the trails, woods and do groundwork out there. Have to say-this is the first time I have heard that the SURROUNDINGS had to be natural! :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top