Talk:Natural horsemanship

There's a link among Natural horsemanship and other new ideas about horses welfare and horse "rights". As an example, take a look to Barefoot horses. A very good webside on these new ideas is http://www.barefoothorse.com

It's translated in many european languages too (including French, Italian, Spanish, and many other) and it has lots of very selected links inside.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.239.23 (talk • contribs)

Art of Natural Dressage

Just a few things.

1. It is not a method, just a community forum 2. Is it notable at all as such? 3. Is it relevant in this article? 4. Shall it be removed from the history and links section? 5. Shall other, more relevant Natural Horsemanship sites be added to the links? I'm wondering for example why there are no links to sites of people mentioned in the article, like Hempfling, Parelli, Roberts, Lyons, etc. --94.44.0.45 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why a POV tag?

What's the reason for the POV tag? Unless someone wants to address it here (as it promises), I'll delete it. The article seems rather balanced to me, with a balanced criticism section.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of fair & balanced, I'm going to add a 'criticisms' section to horse bits, per your example: "This article is not an advertisement for NH, it is a neutral encyclopedia article that explains both sides."(montanbw) AeronM (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I stuck it on there when someone (an anon IP) kept blanking the criticisms section. If that little spat has died down, then I have no objection to tossing the tag. Montanabw^(talk) 01:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got it on my watchlist now, so we'll only have to worry about the six-revert rule. --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tee hee, Curtis, you're so funny! AeronM (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that now, but you seemed to totally miss my joke to Montanabw on her(?) talk page by taking it as an attack on you. As much as I might appreciate the compliment, I have no evidence of either your sincerity or your perceptual ability.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Imagine my disappointment! AeronM (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove the POV tag NOW, there has been no further discussion on the need for it for 2 years RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there are legitimate criticisms of the natural horsemanship movement, and the overview of them were removed as a result of this and other discussions. They need to be restored with sourcing. As it sits, the article contains no critique of the legitimate concerns within the movement. In contrast, if you compare this article to Western pleasure, you will see that the WP article has both a neutral overview of the discipline but also a pretty thorough section that critiques the fads and abuses seen. This article isn't horribly unbalanced, as at least it avoids the "every other time in history almost everyone people abused horses until [fill in the blank of living person] came down from heaven with the True Gospel", but it is unbalanced. I can restore the criticisms section and see if that flies. Montanabw^(talk) 02:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Image caption

The caption for this image Image:Camargue naturally approached 1a.jpg is grammatically incorrect. I have corrected it. --AeronM (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs Added

I have added in-line text citations. Can page tag be removed? --AeronM (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Section Needed?

The section "Criticisms of the Movement" is still wholly unreferenced. I propose to remove under POV. I am unable to find similar examples on other horse pages. --AeronM (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a month with no refs added or compelling argument to warrant keeping this section, so I am removing it. If someone wants to reinstate it at a later date with proper referencing, that is fine. --AeronM (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because I have been dealing with your good friend on other articles for the past month and forgot about it. Will find some things. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okidoki, I am going to remove, for the time being, this section as it is still wholly un-referenced after two months. When and if refs are provided, it can be put back. Open to discussion, as always. --AeronM (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, OK, but I'll tag for neutrality until I can get around to it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Moates on The Myth Of Natural Horsemanship - one valid criticism of the term is that it's essentially meaningless marketing speak covering a multitude of potentially contradictory techniques from different trainers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.85.203 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to add it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Propose remove NPOV Criticism banner dated sept 2010

The template points to this page but not a particular thread. The section is now refd, as discussed above, yet the NPOV was placed there long after that:

Revision as of 16:54, 6 September 2010 User:Thumperward m (Added {{refimprove}} tag to article using Friendly)

The section strikes me as being balanced, and the banner unnecessary. I'll come by and remove it in a week or so if no-one comes by with a constructive reason to leave it, or does so first. Trev M  ~  22:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is poor quality overall, but I did the bold thing and tossed the template. We shall see if anyone kicks up a fuss and wants it back in. Montanabw^(talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived?

Has a section of this page been archived? If so, is there a link to the page? --AeronM (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how one would archive without it appearing in the page history. The article was created on 2005-09-03 and the first entry on this page was 2005-11-03, so there's no discrepancy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers

I don't think there is an archive, you can check the history if you want. It should indicate every edit ever made to the page. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, no you can't yet remove something that you tagged along with your 200-zillion other fact tags you have put all over, it could take WEEKS to source everything you want to have sourced, my god, just keeping the hackamore article intact is taking up way too much of my time. My god, you don't think anyone criticizes the NH movement for basically just taking stuff that has been around for centuries, giving it a new name and calling it a new technique? By the definition of "NH" every good horseman in history has been a NH practitioner, not just five cowboys from the Pacific Northwest (two of whom I have met before they were big names), a retired bronc rider, and an old movie stuntman. I happen to be unable to spend 12 hours a day on wikipedia, Some things will be gotten to in their own time. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Natural horsemanship is not new. You will discover this as you round up some refs. Meanwhile, I would echo Una's request that you source your material, then add, not the other way around. I will leave the "Criticisms" section up for now, but not indefinitley without adequate refs.--AeronM (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what the criticism section says: "...simply applying humane methods of classical horsemanship that have been practiced for centuries to western riding and labeling them new." I must be misunderstanding your point.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, The criticism section says a lot of things.... I guess with the sentence you quote I have two small issues: 1) it implies western riding, prior to applying humane methods of late, was inhumane, and 2) that the whole "movement," purported by the article to be "hype," is new. It isn't. I"m happy to concede with sufficient refs. --AeronM (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I read it as saying that many techniques claimed to be new are not, but I agree that it's not clear.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that Natural Horsemanship per se is not new, you are the first NH-oriented editor to admit that! THAT has always been my point -- the MOVEMENT is new, and some stuff (now removed) that claims that all other previous methods of horse training (um, like dressage) were mean and cruel is what gave rise to the criticisms section. I've seen the "mean and cruel" methods at work (remember, I once had to board at a rodeo barn, god almighty, have YOU seen a horse's face bloodied by a hackamore? I have! You remember stuff like that!), the movement is at least calming down some of the cowboys out here who were once a lot more brutal than they are now. But my point is that the methodology is NOT new, it is centuries old, and that people have been getting ripped off by certain flim-flam artists who claim to have invented the whole philosophy themselves). I have respect for the Dorrance brothers, Ray Hunt, and their direct descendants. I don't always fully agree with them, but they had/have legitimate methodology. Independent of their teaching, I also like the works of Mark Rashid and Cherry Hill. John Lyons is heading in the right direction, especially in his more recent works. (He now "gets it" that the bit has a place) I've actually ridden horses that were trained by Brannaman and Curt Pate back before "The Horse Whisperer" made them megastar sorts, they are from around here, they did a fine job with a horse, though what happens once the horse goes back to their owners is not predictable. I'm leaving some people off this list because I feel rather differently about them -- One guru uses methods that screw up horses so bad that they now tell people not to sell a horse trained in that method to anyone other than fellow members of the cult, er, program. Another has been exposed in a public expose as a near-complete fraud. This article is better than it was six months ago, but it has to be understood that the movement has several branches, not all of them sweetness and light. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Commercial website

I have reinstated the Monty Roberts website as we have included several other 'official websites' of other trainers and need to be consistent. Or, we could exclude all official websites, but I think it is beneficial to include them. Open to discussion as always. --AeronM (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, pitch them all. Wikipedia isn't a place for personal advertising. It's one thing to include links to internal pages in web sites that happen to have good data in addition to being commercial (I think several of the articles on barefoot trimming would fall into that category, as do several of the sources in articles like Icelandic horse, where truly third-party sources are few and far between), particularly in footnotes. It's another thing to have huge lists of external links. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

This material below is from the old horse breaking article, which was mostly an NH article, but it has since been redirected to the main horse training article. The content is posted here in case anyone wants to add it to this article, where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere. Note: NOT MY CONTENT. Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Horse breaking, sometimes called starting or gentling, refers to the process used by humans to get horses to let themselves be ridden or harnessed. Before such a learning process is accomplished, a horse will normally reject attempts to ride it. Once a horse has accepted basic handling by humans, additional forms of horse training can be used to teach the horse any number of specialized skills.

Some people believe that in order for a horse to submit to the will of human beings, violence must be used to break the will of the horse. Others, such as Xenophon, John Solomon Rarey, and other "humane" horse trainers, argue that there is no point in engaging in "rough breaking" or "bronc riding" if the cooperation of the horse can be secured by kindness.

Horse trainers as early as the Greek equestrian Xenophon have questioned the method of using force to “break” a horse. While some trainers believe that force is an appropriate and necessary means of securing a horse’s submission to humans, others believe that the trust and cooperation of the horse should be gained through gentler means.

Horses are large and extremely powerful animals. They owe no automatic deference to human beings, and before some ground rules have been established a colt may nip a human to test his dominance in the same manner as will nip a pasture-mate. A horse may also contend with a human for dominance in the pasture, and in so doing may charge at any humans entering the pasture in order to force the human to submit to the horse. Horses work out their own dominance order among themselves, and they must learn to be civil both among themselves and with human beings. It is easier for humans to deal with a young horse that has been civilized by older horses (who will retaliate in kind if the youngster bites or kicks), but in any case the horse must learn that the cost of an attempted bite or kick at a human is prompt and measured retaliation. That generally means a cuff on the muzzle for an attempted bite, and a swat with a switch of some kind for an attempted kick.

This is more of a natural horsemanship style of training. Breaking a horse is an older term which came from breaking a horse's spirit and tearing it down by fear, pain and intimidation. Newer knowledge has proven that fear-based methods do not create a trusting relationship between horse and rider/trainer. By understanding the horse, understanding herd behavior and being able to think like a horse, you use the same principles that other horses talk and train other horses in their herd. In the horse world, in every herd, a horse is either higher or lower than another horse. You can always determine the higher horse by putting food down before two horses: the one that eats is higher, the one that waits is lower. This "pecking order" exists in every herd. Nature tells horses to always test their leader to ensure that only the smartest and strongest is in charge. There are also benefits to being higher: eating and drinking first, getting the best food, moving where the horse wants while lower horses move out of the way and listen. This concept keeps the herd safe and always ensures the strongest and smartest are in charge and higher. By using this concept to train horses, you show the horse that you understand them, you talk to them in a language that they already know and understand and you don't have to use force, fear and intimidation to train or communicate with the horse.

Xenophon argues that it is better for the average citizen or military man to take his young horse to a professional trainer to start the horse's career as a mount for human beings. "It seems far better for a young man to give heed to his own health of body and to horsemanship,or, if he already knows how to ride with skill, to practising manouvres, than that he should set up as a trainer of horses." (For this quotation and further details, see the entire Project Gutenberg text of "On Horsemanship" by Xenophon at this site). His arguments indicate that he feels the basis for a successful relationship between human and horse to be other than for a wild animal, frantic with fear of the unknown, to be taken into confinement and bullied until it no longer resists. Instead, he clearly directs that the owner of the young horse shall have established a loving relationship with the horse before it ever sees a trainer. He advises the owner to establish a clear understanding with the trainer on what the horse is to be taught, and then continues:

At the same time, pains should be taken on the owner's part to see that the colt is gentle, tractable, and affectionate when delivered to the professional trainer. That is a condition of things that for the most part may be brought about at home and by the groom, if he knows how to let the animal connect hunger and thirst and the annoyance of flies with solitude, while associating food and drink and escape from sources of irritation with the presence of man. As the result of this treatment, necessarily the young horse will acquire -- not fondness merely, but an absolute craving for human beings. A good deal can be done by touching, stroking, and patting those parts of the body that the creature likes to have so handled. These are the hairiest parts, or where, if there is anything annoying him, the horse can least of all apply relief himself.

The groom should have standing orders to take his charge through crowds, and to make him familiar with all sorts of sights and noises; and if the colt shows sign of apprehension at them, he must teach him -- not by cruel, but by gentle handling -- that they are not really formidable.

Once this basic trust is established, it requires only tact and patience to let the horse understand, by gradually accustoming it to bearing greater and greater portions of the weight of its human friend, that no harm will come to it through letting itself be ridden. The horse needs to learn that the presence of a human rider is not the same as the springing of a lion or tiger onto its back. John Solomon Rarey, in his book The Complete Horse Tamer, quotes from an earlier writer in a section called "Powell's Management of Wild Horses," and gives extremely detailed and considerate instructions on how to secure the willing agreement of a horse.

Other techniques have been used since Xenophon's time. Frederico Grisone, writing in 1569, detailed many techniques for using force to subdue horses, including "pushing the horse's head under water and nearly drowning him if he shows fear of crossing streams, to say nothing of the various [harsh bits that] he designed." (Margaret Cabell Self, Horsemastership, p. 5) La Broue wrote a book on horse breaking in 1612. "One learns from his text that his horses were constantly becoming lame, or so vicious that they could not be handled." (Op. cit.)

There are several techniques that diverge from the Xenophon tradition, and which have continued to be used down to the present, the most well known being simply to throw a saddle on an unwilling horse and then to contest with it until its will to resist is finally broken. In addition, some people follow the practice of tying a frightened animal to a barn or tree until its struggles cease. A less costly way of "rough breaking," from the standpoint of time and injuries, is to mount the horse in water sufficiently deep to impede its struggles.

The practice of "sacking out" is fairly widely used, and, in the practice of some trainers, differs only in details from the way that Xenophon advises grooms to lead their horses through many potentially frightening but actually innocent situations. Other trainers advocate more vigorous use of this technique.

The Rarey technique is designed to be used in extreme circumstances in order to restore trust with a traumatized horse, and was dramatized in the novel and the motion picture The Horse Whisperer (Nicholas Evans, Delacorte Press, 1995). In his book, Rarey quotes the work of an earlier author, identified there only as “Powell”. (Read here.) Willis J. Powell’s instructions for handling the task of establishing a positive relationship between horse and human, and Rarey’s own observations and special training methods, have summarized the elaborations of Xenophon’s basic instructions made so many centuries earlier.

The argument over whether horses are creatures whose will needs to be broken to suit them to the wills of human beings, or whether they are creatures with whom it is possible to form cooperative, even symbiotic, relationships still persists into the present. There are present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force, but these individuals generally rely on skills handed down via oral tradition from older sources and seldom put their techniques down in writing, sometimes because they are aware that such views are often considered socially unacceptable, but other times because they may consider their methods humane but a "trade secret."

However, browsing through any tack store or catalogue of horse equipment reveals certain types of equipment that could be considered inhumane, such as thin wire or sharp-edged bits, sharpened spurs, elaborate restraint systems and other tools are still being manufactured and sold. On the other hand, some equipment, such as a spade bit, may appear harsh and can be cruel in the hands of an inept handler or on a green horse, but is a sophisticated tool of subtle communication when used by a skilled trainer on a polished horse.

In general, most methods of possible inhumane use are substitutes for taking the time to properly train a horse, using force to get fast results. Some inhumane techniques are also dictated by competition fads or trends, an urge to win at all costs, and education of both judges and exhibitors is usually required to discourage such tactics.

There are several present-day proponents of establishing cooperative relationships between humans and horses (see dressage and Horse whisperer). The psychological studies of Ivan Pavlov and Burrhus Frederic Skinner have been applied to horse training through the use of techniques such as clicker training. But, for the most part, there is not much fundamental knowledge today that was not already present in Xenophon’s essay on the subject. There is a great deal more elaboration present in currently published books, but after over 3000 years of observation by interested and intelligent people, there has not been much more for humans to learn.

---

The effect of breeding practices Horses that are selected for tractable and trainable dispositions are especially rewarding for the horse trainer to work with. Today, many breeders select for intelligence and trainability along with correct conformation and beauty.

A horse that is naturally friendly, companionable, teachable and willing is sometimes referred to as "born broke" because the horse learns so easily and accepts new things so phlegmatically.

Within the species, there is a wide range of temperament types from nervous and excitable to calm and placid. Individuals vary also in their intelligence and ability to learn.

An individual horse's physiology has much to do with his trainability as well. An intelligent horse that has a "big motor" may need more exercise and relaxation exercises before he will perform at his best. A quiet, calm horse may need only enough work to maintain fitness in order to be ready for optimum performance.

Weather also affects a horse's temperament. Chilly, windy weather or changing weather is often observed in conjunction with increased playfulness or nervousness of horses.

---

Links

• The Complete Horse Tamer (online)

• Miller, Robert, Rick Lamb, Hugh Downs Revolution in Horsemanship, The Lyons Press, 2005 ISBN 1-59228-387-X. Gives a concise summary of the many variations and practitioners of modern "natural horsemanship."
• For exact details on the Powell method and the John Rarey method, (click here).
• A list of classical and recent writers on the subject of horse training and equitation is available at This site
• Kinsey, J. M. and Denison, Jennifer. Backcountry Basics Colorado Springs, CO: Western Horseman Publishing, 2008. ISBN 978-0-911647-84-6

References needed on "The Horse Whisperer"

The Horse Whisperer has a section on controversies which is almost completely unsourced. I have tagged this and will remove unsourced content from this section in another two weeks (a month after adding the tag as recommended on the template doc pages.) I have had less time than I hoped to look for any sources myself, but I also point out in the talk page that I may not be able to reliably evaluate any references I find anyway. Can any watchers of this article help by improving the controversies section of The Horse Whisperer over the next fortnight? Even when removed, the material can be restored later if references are found, but by their very nature, descriptions of "controversies" must be carefully sourced. Mirokado (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the same bunch watching all of these. I sourced the Lyons quote. I sincerely recommend that instead of removing material, how about helping to source the rest of it? The criticisms are legit, the only need is to find refs. Montanabw^(talk) 03:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference sources

Popping the old "further reading" section here for anyone who needs the material for cut and paste refs or whatever. Just for future use, no implied endorsement nor guarantees of results. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Frank Bell. Seven Steps to a Safer Horse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.181.225 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Buck Brannaman. Believe: A Horseman's Journey
• Bevilacqua, Michael. "Beyond the Dream Horse" CreateSpace Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1453725269
• Bill Dorrance and Leslie Desmond. True Horsemanship Through Feel
• Tom Dorrance. True Unity
• Hempfling, Klaus Ferdinand. Dancing With Horses
• John Lyons with Sinclair Browning. Lyons On Horses
• Robert M. Miller and Rick Lamb. Revolution in Horsemanship Lyons Press, 2005. ISBN 1-59228-387-X
• Robert M. Miller Natural Horsemanship Explained Lyons Press, 2007. ISBN 1-59921-234-0
• Mark Rashid. Considering The Horse
• Monty Roberts. The Man Who Listens To Horses

For clarity with any users unsure, i took these out of the article, as the list was inherently POV, with no proof that it linked to the article. If any information in these books is relevant, it should be inserted as an inline citation. Thanks! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Whole article is a disaster, but some of the above books will be legit sources if anyone ever gets serious about upgrading it Montanabw^(talk) 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Another Reference

William J.Long uses the word whisper when describing a man and a horse in his 1919 book _How Animals Talk_. In Chapter VI he writes "It was as if one were whispering a secret and the other [the horse] listening." I suggest this book be referenced in an appropriate place. The book is still in print (2015), with the best edition IMHO being the 2005 from Bear & Co., Rochester Vermont. Am offering this FWIW. Those with a stonger interest in this page, please take what action you think appropriate. 50.136.206.38 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can provide a link via Google books or Hathi trust, that would be great. We need page numbers and such for a proper cite. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Natural horsemanship. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.animalsandsociety.net/assets/library/734_s1.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://horsesforlife.com/content/view/1687/1433/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural horsemanship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150703160819/http://www.markrashid.com/blog_archive.php to http://www.markrashid.com/blog_archive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)