Fall sale ads

I usually try to leave the Fugly blog alone (and have, for awhile now, to my credit), but I felt Cathy's latest was just over the top, especially posting the individual in question's phone number and information.

I don't understand who you think you are, Cathy, that you can criticize people for selling their horses because they lack the financial ability to care for said horses? What do you want??! They keep their horses and said horses starve due to lack of financial means, you cry foul. They sell their horses because they lack the financial means to care for them, prior to said horses receiving inadequate care as a result of lack of funds - you cry foul. Hell, you even post their numbers on your blog, in case the ad is removed from CL, so as to ensure your sheep have the right phone number to chew someone a new one.

The ad, from the Fugly blog:

“MUST SELL NO FOOD FOR THE WINTER!!! Quarter Horse Buckskin Mare. 6 yrs old, has been used as a trail horse. This mare has been ridden at the big Carolyn ride a few years ago. Was registered but I never got the papers She is truly worth taking a look at her! $100.00

Also, a 2 yr old Warm Blood. Not gelded. Has had a saddle as a yearling and we have lead children around on him. Asking $400.00 will consider all offers.

I am posting this for the neighbor next door so please refer to his phone # for any questions or make an appointment to come and see them. Emails will not be answered. Wausau Area. Phone Josh at ###-###-####″

She even has the audacity to post the following:

A rescuer friend of mine got a call yesterday from some folks who wanted her to take a mare off their hands because she was skinny because of the four month old foal at her side. And they couldn’t afford the vet because they had just taken in two other mares, one of them pregnant!

Yes, cuz heaven forbid someone take a skinny mare and foal to a rescue!! What's the history of said mare, did they rescue her originally? Did something change financially for the individuals so that they could no longer care for said mare? Are these types of situations not what rescues are for?? Now, I do not quite understand that last line - does Cathy mean the individuals could not afford the vet because they had just taken two other mares (one of them pregnant) into the vet for care or (more likely) because they had just taken in two other mares into their care, one of which being pregnant? So, did they take in or purchase these other mares (cheap) ie. rescue them, or did they buy them for some ridiculous price? Because if that (preceding reason) be the case, how could we blame someone for taking on three mares and sending one of them to a rescue because they could not afford vet care for three mares, one nursing and one pregnant? I mean, they could have turned all three mares into the rescue, yet are instead choosing to care for two of them out of their own pocket??!! Am I missing something?

I did look up hay in Wisconsin. Not sure yet why I don't live there, as hay is fairly cheap, lol. Some of the bales are $1.50 each first cut. Average price though is $2.50 (take note where I am hay is at minimum double that) it seems. I looked up small squares only because not everyone has the equipment necessary to feed round bales. So let's assume you have to start feeding now (Oct) through until the end of April. At minimum. That's 7 months of feed, which is 210 days of feeding. Minimum. Say you pay the average of $2.50 per bale and let's just say each bale weighs in at 50lbs. Horses should eat approx. 1-2 percent of their body weight which equates to roughly 10-20lbs per day per horse. So let's say one bale per day to feed both horses in the ad above (I always over-budget because chances are you will have to throw out hay, hay will be more expensive than you anticipate, horses will waste hay, etc). That means about $525 to purchase what is hopefully good horse hay (timothy or grass mix with alfalfa), assuming the bales are 50lbs apiece and assuming you only started feeding yesterday and will only feed until the end of next April. Though $525 is not much itself it still is a substantial amount to someone selling their horses for only $100 and $400. Then you are also looking at farrier ($25-$40 per trim per horse in my area), deworming ($15-$30 per horse at least twice between now and the start of spring), and any vet care between now and next spring (like gelding that colt, any injuries, etc). That is also assuming you are able to keep the horses on your property (ie. no board) and thus feed them every day too (ie. no labour costs), and that you are equipped for winter (ie. shelters and waters that do not freeze, or at least some way to get water to your horses).

That is a lot of assumptions.

Cathy assumes they cannot come up with $100 a month however that is assuming there are no other expenses on top of feeding (which simply is not true) and that is assuming also that they must only come up with $100 per month....and as anyone who has ever had to purchase hay knows, that is often not how it works - you often need to pay for the hay upfront. You often purchase all your winter hay at the commencement of fall, before all the hay is sold elsewhere. Unless it somehow works differently in Wisconsin?

Then Cathy questions why the man would even have horses in the first place, if he cannot afford $100/month to feed them. Well, news flash, that's why he is selling them! D'oh! His selling them now however has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he could afford them originally! Has it ever occurred to her that perhaps this man's situation has changed since he originally purchased these horses?

And maybe it cost less to geld a horse in Wisconsin, but out here it is $150 at my clinic if you do it during a specific week in March and in September, when the clinic fee is waived, if you bring your youngster in. Nevermind if you have to call the vet in to your farm, if there are any complications, or you do not take advantage of that one week in either spring or fall. Plus, to be honest, if I could no longer afford my horses, I certainly would not be gelding my colt - sorry, but the new owners can invest in that, since they are the ones keeping said horse long-term.

As far as being unable to feed a horse over the winter, a) circumstances change and b) how long have these horses been up for sale prior? Who knows, maybe these horses have been for sale for the past several months yet have not sold, hence the price drop (etc)? Maybe it has something to do with the reason the neighbour is posting this ad as opposed to the actual owner? But just because he cannot afford these horses come fall is not sufficient reason, in my eyes, he should not have gotten them in the first place - as I said, we know nothing of this individual's situation. Heck, my situation has changed since spring and I now have 6 horses (which cost me an easy $950/month in board alone, and that is with one of them on lease, so no expenses for him) - 1 of which is for sale and the other (my dream horse) I am contemplating having to sell for financial reasons. It will be tight financially keeping them all winter however I do not regret any of the decisions I made at the time I purchased any of the last four horses (the first two are homebred 16 and 11 years ago); I made intelligent and sound decisions based on my situation at the time. I can swing it provided I sell the one come spring however I am just lucky my situation has not changed so much that I can no longer afford to keep any of them. Lucky. Lucky that I can hold onto my sale mare till spring when it is a better time to sell - both for me and for her. Others are not so much, especially given this economy. Besides, who is Cathy to judge whether this man can sell his mare and colt in the fall or not, as opposed to waiting until spring?

Should this man be leaving a 2yo colt with a 6yo open mare? Well, probably not. However I still fail to see the reason for such criticism, particularly given we have no idea of the owner's situation (or even the colt's - hello possible undescended testicle?).

Just saying. It's easy to judge from the comfort of our chairs, however how can we possibly accurately judge someone's personal situation - and should we, even? For all we know, this individual is doing the best possible in the situation given. Let's not sic our dogs on him.

I promise a more educational blog in your near future, as opposed to a vent ;)

Boundaries VERSUS punishment

I'm not sure why we chose to pick on this particular individual today...

I get that, all facts considered, the ad does sound suspicious. Why buy horses if you have to sell your herd of yaks for financial reasons, and why buy said horses in a different state??! However, since I am not standing in Jennifer's shoes, I do not really feel I am in a position to judge. Sure the ad might be a little odd, but really, is it worth publicly humiliating someone over?? Criticizing them, judging them, and sending your dogs after them??


And, surprise surprise, yes boundaries do actually exist in Natural Horsemanship. Just. As. Any. Method....it depends on the person.

"The horse simply doesn’t ever get a clear, concise signal that something he did was wrong."
Yea. I don't punish my horses when they 'do something wrong'. You know why? Because they are living, breathing beings who are simply responding to their situation and who are communicating the best way they know how. I do not subscribe to the belief that my horse should be punished anytime he steps a toe out of line, whenever he does something I deem 'misbehavior'. However punishment does not equate to boundaries...or lack thereof of either.

Had I punished our Paint when he kicked, because I pushed him past his limits, I would have only further proved his point - that humans are not to be trusted. In his case, he has an abusive past and does not trust people to pick up his hind feet. Pick up his hind feet and you have now effectively removed his means of flight - his first survival mechanism - should the need arise. So if he does not trust you, the last thing he is going to do is let you lift up his hinds. I certainly do not feel it appropriate to discipline a fearful horse for responding defensively. Instead, I work on his trust between him and I and he picks up his feet nicely for me. In the mean time, I am careful to read him so as not to push him too far for his current emotional state and level of trust or training.

Same follows for my Thoroughbred gelding, Link. He lashed out defensively on the ground at times as well as under-saddle. It was a fear-based reaction, a I'll-get-you-before-you-get-me reaction and punishing him to 'clearly and concisely let him know what he did was wrong' would have only further compounded his fear issues and lack of emotional collection. Instead, I did what no one yet had done with him - nothing. And soon he started to relax, realizing I was not going to hurt him, that he could trust me to be predictable and fair. Today, he never lashes out defensively. It just doesn't happen, because there is no need to.

One last example: punishing my warmblood gelding only elicited escalated behavior from him. Escalated behavior that was uncontrollable. Instead, establishing boundaries created control and eventually created a respectful horse.

The same has followed for any like horses I have ever worked with. Solving the root of the issue just works so much better - for both you and the horse, than responding to the symptom of the disease.

In short, you punish a disrespectful horse and it may work but it will ultimately create resentment and distrust; punishing the distrustful and fearful horse is only going to create a horse who is even more fearful and distrusting of you. It might not necessarily be all that noticeable, it might simply prevent the partnership between you and your horse from being all it can be. Boundaries, limitations, rules - all ways of earning respect, are vital. However respect cannot be forced and giving a 'clear and concise signal the horse did wrong' might not be the best answer.

"Therefore, being a horse, he starts to expand the range of his behavior. He says, hey, if I barged into him and that was okay, maybe I can smack him with my head the next time."
To get a little technical here, I really do not believe that horses smack your head on purpose. They just don't care or respect you enough to stay out of your space and thus not smack your head. The difference is huge. I don't tell my horses directly that 'smacking my head' (or any like rude behavior) is not ok, but my horses do not escalate their behavior, because they can't barge into my space in the first place. Boundaries. You don't have to smack a horse or otherwise punish it to prevent it from escalating rude behavior. Don't want him to bite or push past you? Keep him out of your space in the first place, unless invited (when he is polite). He can't push you or bite you if he is nowhere within your personal space. Don't want him to kick? Earn his respect. Have him move his feet more than yours and respect your space. Pretty simple.

"And there was that day when I was fidgety and she didn’t ride me because Pat says it’s ok not to ride on a day when they don’t feel like being ridden, so maybe this time I will strike at her in the cross-ties."
Let's get real. A horse is not going to strike at you one day because you didn't ride it when you felt it best not to ride last time. There is never any harm in dismounting. Let me repeat that: there is never any harm in dismounting. You might dismount because either your horse is too dangerous or posing a threat to your safety - in which case it is SAFETY FIRST or because you just do not posses the knowledge to handle the current situation. Continuing when you do not have the appropriate knowledge and skillset is a disaster in the making: you are either going to frustrate you and/or your horse (frustration in the rider leads to aggression versus assertiveness and frustration in your horse does not create an optimal learning environment), create mistrust in your horse (particularly if you are frustrated and thus your responses are aggressive) and/or create a situation where your horse does not learn and maybe even create damage you will later have to undo. If you are unconfident on your horse and feel the need to dismount, it usually is best, regardless of what the horse is or is not doing. By staying in the saddle and projecting your lack of confidence, you likely are not going to offer the type of leadership your horse requires and thus handle the matter in an effective matter where the horse is asked to respond respectfully or where the horse can trust your leadership and do as you request confidently.

To be honest, I have gotten off of horses many a time and it never ever set us back. Not even one step. Should the horse be disrespectful and misbehaving under-saddle (and you cannot handle it effectively), you simply walk away and approach it another day. On another day you might be in a better frame of mind, have researched the issue and be able to approach it from another (hopefully successful) angle with new ideas, or you might bring a professional along to help you. In this way, you have a relatively fresh start - as opposed to having continued on your horse last session when you really should not have, and having failed (ie. horse learns it can walk all over you or mistrusts you - digging yourself a deeper hole that endangers your partnership with your horse). If the horse is just not in the right frame of mind and is jittery, staying on may only compound that (if you do not handle it correctly), whereas dismounting represents not potentially pushing the horse excessively past its comfort level. Doing so allows the individual to backtrack and establish more foundation, build the horse up to the point where that comfort level may later be pushed safely or that comfort level is raised in the first place. Continuing when you should not have may only escalate a situation and create excessive and unproductive emotional distress, resistance, and tension in the horse (as opposed to relaxation) when there was another way.

Dismounting does not necessarily mean having to work the horse on the ground or remount after groundwork. Of course that would be optimal however if your horse is acting up and you are just not in a position to deal with it, there is no harm in dismounting, untacking your horse, and throwing it out to pasture for another day. Doing so will actually progress your training with the horse in question by allowing yourself a fresh start with said horse the next session and no work to undo. That said, if you have to do this say more than 3 times it is definitely time to find a trainer to help you because you are now establishing a pattern of behaviour the horse will attempt to continue.

Striking, for the record, is often an act of disrespect. What can you do about it? Keep the horse out of your space and stay away from his front end until you have sufficiently earned said horse's respect. My warmblood gelding learned to strike as a youngster however though I never directly addressed the issue, I addressed the root - disrespect. By earning his respect, he naturally had no reason to strike anymore.

Personally, I would much rather an individual constantly be putting away a horse they can't handle (and never going anywhere with said horse) than continuing on session after session, frustrated and lacking the appropriate knowledge and skillset (and frame of mind) to actually teach the horse anything correctly. The latter is going to create a frustrated horse who is an emotional wreck, whereas the former only creates, at worst (ie. the horse being turned out repeatedly and never being taught anything but that misbehavior results in no work), a horse who simply walks all over a person - which is so much easier to undo and less harmful to the horse. Dismounting excessively is not going to create damage that is impossible to undo, whereas failing to dismount when one should could create a wreck of a horse that could take years to undo (if ever possible).

"For example, if a horse is trying to barge along, I don’t just run alongside like a kite on a string. I take the time to stop, growl, back the horse up a few steps and then ask him to proceed at the speed I was wanting to walk."
Because growling really does the trick. Actually seriously, there are a number of ways to deal with this. My own rule with horses is that they can do 'anything' they want while being led, provided they remain out of my space and keep up. When I allow them to do a little of what they want, they usually opt to do a little of what I want ;) 99 percent of the the time leading my horses as such automatically results in them leading quietly behind me and to the side (for the record, if they jump at something, no, they do not jump on top of me - say hello to respect - ask me how I know). 1 percent of the time they might choose to grab a couple mouthfuls of grass (without stopping or holding me up) or might be initially (prior to sufficient emotional collection) too hyped up or disrespectful to walk quietly. Personally I find there is little to be gained by forcing a horse to walk quietly at my side. Instead, I set up a situation where they can make the choice to walk quietly with me. Forcing a horse to physically 'collect' when they are not 'emotionally collected' creates a horse who is stifling their emotions and who could possibly blow. In contrast, when they are permitted the choice to move their feet, more often than not they choose not to, simply because they know they can, should they absolutely have to.

When the fearful or reactive horse dances around, I simply continue walking along my original line and ask them to disengage their hind. Besides the obvious - halting forward movement, doing so causes them to cross their hind legs, which encourages thinking over reacting, and allows them pause to re-think and relax. When the disrespectful horse dances around in an attempt to have me move my feet, I continue on my original path and ask them to disengage, move their feet, move out of my space, etc - ask them to do more work than they would have had to do had they simply walked politely at my side. This puts me in the dominant position and thus in control. I have created boundaries (stay out of my space), limitations (no holding me up), and rules but allowed them the choice (you can move here and here, but not so much here). Allowing them the choice, they figure out pretty quickly that it's just less effort to walk quietly as opposed to dance around - they choose the right answer (particularly if they were dancing around disrespectfully). Furthermore, as you develop a balanced partnership with and further develop your horse, they choose the right answer more often than not anyways because they can (because they are sufficiently emotionally collected and respectful) and because they want to.

Juuuust sayin'.

In short, punishment just does not equate to discipline, which encompasses rules, limitations, and boundaries and just because a method (ie. NH, clicker training, etc) does not include punishment, does not mean it also does not include boundaries. When the ultimate result is a respectful, willing, and happy horse who is beginner-safe and/or well-rounded and well developed, boundaries obviously were involved.

BC Thoroughbreds

Cathy!

Thoroughbreds in BC must go by Sunday

"Now, I know that some of you would like to give this person a piece of your mind, and I almost didn’t cross post this because I know some of you probably will, no matter what I say. All I can say is, let’s use a little common sense. If you tell him off, he is going to say eff you guys and sell them for meat. I do not believe he is going to get $500 a piece for meat, so I would certainly encourage anyone interested to make a more reasonable offer. You know, bite your tongue and go in there and be polite no matter how you feel – do you want the horse safe or not? I have smiled and been nice walking into horrible humane case situations, and you can, too."

You should not be advising people not to call to harass this man simply because you think it could possibly jeopardize the horses' situation, but because hey, surprise surprise, we actually do not know anything of this man's situation!! Who are we to stand by and judge?? Maybe he was not legally entitled to sell these horses during the forclosure procedings, perhaps it happened quicker than we thought (loan revoked, taxes, etc etc), maybe he has been trying to sell these horses for awhile yet (the market in BC is terrible), or maybe, just maybe, there is another side to this story completely. Give the man credit for turning out horses who are fat and happy and broodmares who have not (from all appearances) been bred since 2007, not to mention the fact that he did his best to ensure those horses went to good homes. If he really is the decent guy he seems to be, the decent guy you have to give him credit for at least possibly being, perhaps his 'these-horses-need-to-be-gone-by-Sunday-else-they-are-at-auction-Monday' is not extortion, is not a threat, but rather is his reality and his only option (ie. his property is being possessed by Monday and thus he will have no place on which to keep the horses)!! Geez, give the guy a break. Whether it is right or not for him to charge $500 per horse (whether he actually did or not is another matter however) - those horses are well-bred and seem much more valuable than the price he is asking and I am sure 30 x $500/horse could go a long ways towards helping him out in his current situation, if even only a little.

A few of the horses are visible here. And, despite Cathy's high-and-mighty attitude about it all in both her original post and her comments (despite her admonishing her sheep to not harass the guy, she was still passing judgement and criticism his way), all the horses were successfully removed!

Phew. Got that out of my system ;) It has been awhile since any Fugly rants, so I figured I was about due.

Roundpens & Trainer's Competitions

Alright, bear with me as I get into the rhythm of things and get into a proper posting schedule! I had a number of blogs I would like to do over the following weeks, including some that relate to some of Cathy Atkinson's blogs.

The following is a response to Even the Lord Did Not Try to do it in 3 Hours! It is actually a very good topic and one I can definitely speak on, having done a Trainer's Challenge myself (whereby I had 4 hours to train a colt) and being a horse trainer myself as well. Below is the video Cathy specifically comments on:



Some highlights of the video, so we are all on the same page:

0:00 we can see the trainer push the horse to seek comfort in him (the trainer), by pushing the horse away whenever it goes to leave, and by removing pressure when the horse shows signs of wanting to come in and 'join up' with the trainer
0:20 the trainer teaches the horse to follow the feel of the rope and to give to pressure
1:10 general desensitization
1:21 the horse is following the trainer of its own accord, at liberty (no rope)
-> more desensitization, particularly to the rope around the pastern
1:56 the horse's leg is caught in a rope so that the ground person maintains control

"God wants us to scare the living shit out of unhandled horses and exhaust them into submission!" - Cathy Atkinson

I don't know what video Cathy is watching, but in the one I saw, the one above, the one Cathy is supposedly commenting on, I don't see any horses 'scared to shit' or exhausted into submission! I fail to see the sweat streaks, severely lowered head, stumbling steps, etc of an exhausted horse, and while the horse reacts occasionally (as to be expected), the horse calms quickly as well and is never scared to an extreme. The Arabian mare I am currently working with shows more fear than those horses, and that is if her shadow moves or her tail blows (in the wind) unexpectedly! Oh, the horror! It is not rocket science and it does not take an animal behaviorist to see that these horses are not excessively stressed. Is it the way I train at home? No. Does that in itself make it horrid? No. I honestly think that how the horses were worked with in this video (at least what was shown) was not outside the horses' best interests. The result was a calm, relaxed horse who was willingly following people on the ground and who was quietly moving out under-saddle. Due to the prior and proper preparation (given the time constraints), the horse is not even excessively worried and relaxes considerably and visibly throughout the session and particularly after a few moments under-saddle. This is not how a person would work with a horse at home, but in this case working with a horse in such a short time frame where auditors can see and better understand the overall process of starting a horse under-saddle (albeit condensed), can be beneficial.

When Cathy mentioned the horse's back leg was pulled up, I admit I was worried. I imagined the horse's front or hind leg tied up so that it was immobile. Common practise in some circles and obviously not my (training) cup of tea. That definitely can be traumatizing to a horse. That was not the case here, however. The horse was desensitized to ropes from the start and in particular was desensitized to ropes around the pastern, beforehand. The horse was also taught to release to pressure. Then, as part of due process, the trainer mounted the horse. The horse's leg was not pulled up at all. The rope around the pastern was simply used as control by the ground person - to ensure the horse did not buck (which could potentially encourage a habit of such a response). Viewers can see the horse consider bucking, then realise it has a hind leg trapped - and re-consider. No fight, no drama, no traumatizing of the horse. The horse knew to release to the pressure due to prior and proper preparation, was comfortable with the rope in general, and it realised it did not have the power to buck with one leg snared. No issue.

As far as Cathy's apparent dislike of roundpenning, she can be right on certain accounts. When an individual either longes or roundpens a horse 'to death' and then gets on, with the sole purpose of wearing the horse out so that they can work with it - no, you're not accomplishing much. Can Grandma still ride said exhausted horse though? No. Because even a tired horse can still blow (uh, trust me!). While you might not be accomplishing much, you are nonetheless creating a horse tired enough to perhaps re-think bucking or such other reactive activity, and to think things through and work with you instead. However, ultimately, it is a band-aid solution if done in such a way. Real roundpenning (and correct longeing), as shown in this video (or at least as apparent in the clip provided), works the horse's mind. It's what trainers such as John Lyons do - it's what I was taught and it is what I use when need be. You're moving the horse out and making 'out there' uncomfortable by increasing the pressure whenever the horse is away from you. The minute they start showing signs of submission and focus on you (lowered head, licking lips, eyes/ears focused on you), you are releasing the pressure and seeing if they come in. If they come in, they are rewarded with rest - you are making the right answer (working in partnership with you, 'join-up') easy (rest and pets) and the wrong answer (working independently) hard (running). If they choose to leave or to keep running, you push them forward. Changes in direction encourage submission (by asking the horse to move his feet more than yours and by your directing his movement) as well and cause the horse to have to think, rather than run blindly forwards. Roundpenning done in such a fashion can actually be a very useful tool because it works the horse's mind moreso than the body. A horse might still become sweated up, but they are rarely truly tired by the finish of a session. Honestly though, I have worked the odd horse pretty hard in the roundpen and have never come back to an injured or sore horse the next day, as Cathy claims will happen. That is not to say it can't happen, just that horses are not as fragile as Cathy seems to think. Granted, one must always be careful with any activity that is repetitious, such as longeing or roundpenning. Over time, excessive use of such activities could promote unsoundness. This does not occur with a sound horse over even a few sessions however, and not when the activity is done judiciously.

"As the old saying goes, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Training takes time and patience. Anybody trying to sell you on a shortcut is selling you snake oil – EVERY time. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. You will never develop a solid, enjoyable, rideable horse with shortcuts and they have a nasty way of backfiring. A horse who isn’t trained in a slow, patient manner is like a piece of swiss cheese — he’s full of holes, and you’re going to fall through one when you least expect it." - Atkinson

Cathy is correct here. Good training takes time. On the other hand, clinics/competitions in which the trainer only has say 4 hours to train a young unhandled colt to accept working under-saddle, I do not feel are particularly detrimental to anyone. No trainer - or none that I have met, who has competed in such challenges or put on such demo's actually trains client horses in '4 hours' (as done in the trainer's challenge/clinic). They recommend 30-90 days minimum. Including myself. Why are they done over such a short time span then? Convenience to the public. I think such short clinics and challenges can be beneficial to the public because it does showcase how training can be accomplished, albeit in a condensed manner. Real training is done in a very similar manner, simply with more emphasis and time spent on each step. Spectators get a quick synopsis of how to train a colt and may even pick up a few tips and trainers usually even mention throughout their demo/competition the extras they would throw in given time (I know I do and have heard others do the same). Trainers get the chance to show the public how it can be done - the poor trainers, under such time constraints and with the challenge increased due to such a short time-span allowed, will really demonstrate a terrible job on their horses, and the solid trainers' impeccable techniques will hold still under the increased challenge. On the other hand, the reason I am not particularly fond of such competitions/demo's is that Cathy is right - you're creating a horse akin to a brick of swiss cheese. You leave a ton of holes in the horse's training in your quest to 'get by', and you end up rushing the horse. Some auditors (the ones missing the point) might be misled into thinking this is how a person can train their horse at home. Yet on the other hand, it presents more of a challenge to the trainer - to accomplish what would normally take weeks, in a few hours, and see how much of it they can get done, with a quiet and relaxed horse at the end. Judges do not reward uptight, exhausted, and scared horses in the finals at trainer competitions and will in fact reward a trainer for not pushing the horse and failing to accomplish certain 'tasks' in the best interests of the horse. Furthermore, most individuals watching do understand though that the horse is yet essentially green and will require loads more training for the average individual to work with it. On that note, if the horse is uptight and unsafe due to poor training over such a short time span, most individuals would have the presence of mind to recognise the poor training as well and not follow it! In conclusion, while there are certainly some 'cons' to such trainer's challenges, I feel there are many more 'pros'.

Hopefully that explains my thoughts on the matter...for additional information concerning roundpenning, definitely check out John Lyons or even Pat Parelli or Jonathan Field (liberty work, for the latter two). All three trainers have great ideas and tips in regards to working with horses at liberty and all three, to my knowledge, have also worked with horses under very short time constraints, to demonstrate what is possible and why their techniques work.

Bridleless riding

Here, Cathy's post: Broke horses

I hate the word 'broke'. Your job shouldn't be to 'break' a horse or even to 'train' a horse. This isn't a dog or a monkey that you 'train' to do tricks - if you are riding a horse, your goal should be to develop said horse into a balanced individual (who is calmer/braver/smarter) and to establish a working partnership with them. One in which they have a say as well*, not where they are simply trained to execute certain maneuvers or respond to specific cues 'because you said so'. No one should ever be 'breaking' a horse - the horse should do what you ask of them because they want to, not because you 'broke' them down into doing so.

So when someone says that the roping horse in question, featured on Cathy's blog, is 'broke', I squirm a little. I hope not! I hope the horse is simply so in tune with the rider and that they have such a solid partnership, that they can work bridleless, but not because the horse is trained to robotically do as its rider asks. It is the difference between seeing a 'push-button' horse being piloted around a course by its rider who is simply 'pushing buttons', and a horse who is responding as it should - according to its rider.

I will start off by saying that I am neither a 'snaffle only' person. However I do not believe in using bits for control. Let me extend upon what Cathy said in her blog and ask you if you can take everything off your horse. OTTB or not (btw, they are not as 'psychotic' as people portray them!). If you took everything off your horse's face, what would he or she do?

I am even going to be as bold as to say that if you can't ride your horse bridleless, that you can strive for better - good, better, best, never let it rest. The rider should be continuously striving for better.

Bridleless riding is not some sort of trick, nor is it the result of 'breaking' a horse. It is the result of a strong partnership and intimate communication between horse and rider. Horse and rider are in tune with one another. Or rather, this is what it should be! When it is just a 'trick', the result of a push-button horse, it can easily fall apart, yet when it is the result of a partnership, you can take and apply that partnership to all aspects of your riding, of your work with that horse! Your trail horse is not spooky and your show jumper is not refusing jumps. Your horse is following your leadership. Your dressage horse is relaxed and has that swinging back...it all falls together as a result of that partnership. There is a balance of trust and respect, and both horse and rider move together as one. How many upper level show jumpers do you see struggling to get their horses under control before the next jump or combination? How many times do you see these horses take down a rail as a result of this tumultuous relationship between horse and rider? Would it not be so much better if the rider developed the horse in such a way where their partnership were harmonious? Where horse and rider worked together with the horse respecting and trusting the rider's leadership in full?

So don't just downgrade bits, get down to the simplest bit or hackamore (ie, a flexible rope hackamore or bitless bridle, not a mechanical hackamore or a bosal) you possibly can control your horse in. Rather than focusing on specialization - jumping, dressage, reining, cutting... focus on the foundation. Foundation before specialization. Get control without having to use a bit (use the bit or hackamore as a safety net only), then work your way up through the bits for refinement!** You should be able to halt or slow your horse, or move it up into a higher gait, using only your seat. You should be able to have your horse change direction simply by using your legs and seat and torso. You should have full control without relying on your equipment. Only then should you be using a snaffle for bending and lateral work, and a curb/leverage bit for subtler communication and straightness. The result will be a more relaxed horse you are not fighting for control over, with whom your work is harmonious and enjoyable. The ultimate test will be when you can ride your horse at complete liberty. The ultimate result will be greater success in your discipline because your horse is fully working WITH you.


*You'd be amazed at what can happen when you actually allow a horse a say in what you do, rather than fighting them to do what you want them to do. When you allow them a say, they start to want to do what you ask, what you want, and they start offering up suggestions and questions. Horses can certainly enjoy being ridden - using themselves athletically, partaking in particular activities (jumping, dressage, cutting, reining), and working in partnership with their rider. The proof? Well, if you take everything off that horse's head and he still sticks with you and does what you ask, willingly and happily no matter what you ask, isn't that proof right there?

**By refinement, I mean subtler aids and more intimate communication between you and your horse. That means that while perhaps in a snaffle you had to open or close your hand, in a curb you might only have to wiggle a finger. Or that in a spade bit, you only have to 'breathe' over the rein. If you use your bits in such a way, you understand what I mean. You put that curb bit in for the first time and wow, you can communicate so much, detail-wise, to your horse! It's so subtle and so refined. So much potential accompanies this subtle communication.

Poor Training

This is the last in the series influenced by Cathy's FHOTD, but I thought I'd highlight on a couple things she said; actually not to personally 'attack' or even 'out' Cathy herself, but just to highlight piss-poor training practices that I see quite often, Cathy and her blog aside.

Fugly says: February 22, 2010 at 10:46 am
"I’m also not opposed to tying around in moderation. 15, 20 minutes, fine. Not hours and certainly not days. Then you stop teaching anything and just create soreness and anger."

Her reason, as quoted and explained to a poster who commented on the statement above:

"It teaches them to give to either side without a fight and makes it easier to do the same thing from the saddle. They learn to simply give their nose to relieve the pressure and then do so willingly for the rider. I don’t see anything wrong with it. My trainer does it with halter, not even a bit."

I am strongly opposed to tying around, for two primary reasons:

It is not just one little training technique either, but rather is the result of a mindset, the same mindset who will also be forcing the horse overall and where the horse's dignity and respect for the horse in the overall method is not taken into consideration (usually). As I have said before: why should the horse do what we want? He doesn't know we pay his bills. This is a partnership that involves give and take and honestly, I feel the best way to work with a horse is to have them want to work for you. In such a way they will try their heart out for you and their best interests are served. Since it is a part-ner-ship, the horse has a say as well. Horses can enjoy our company and they can certainly enjoy riding - yes they can even enjoy working in the arena and using themselves athletically. At the very least, if we can pay the horse some respect, they will start to choose to do as we ask and what we wish, even if it is not something they are overly excited about, because they respect us and appreciate our company and working with us.

Tying around is about force, and can be a quite dangerous technique, even for 15-20 minutes (plus, 15-20 minutes is a long time to have your neck held in one place for an extensive period of time!! Try holding your own neck in one extreme position for just one minute and you will find it quite difficult). First off, you've got the horses who have never been taught to think through a situation carefully and/or who do not do so naturally on their own. Push them into such a situation and they will fight, because you are effectively taking away their mode of escape and thus causing claustrophobia in the horse. Imagine someone restricting you from running away should the need arise, and furthermore, restricting your view of your surroundings. You are a prey animal and, from your perspective, could be preyed upon at any moment - so you fight. Of course many horses will quit after a moment or two of struggle, particularly 'quieter' breeds such as Quarter Horses. However you take the risk of a horse not calming down and flipping itself. If the horse struggles to an extreme and gets up (ie. into a half-rear or such), it cannot free its head to re-balance and thus will flip over completely. Secondly, you also have the horses who have previous 'emotional baggage' and where tying their heads around would just be too much pressure - and you might not know until you have already tied their head.

To negate the above associated physical risks to the horse (nevermind the mental and emotional force one is inflicting upon the horse, who is supposed to be your partner) is...well, not all that honest. I have seen the mental and emotional damage such training methods incurred on horses, ruining otherwise good horses. Last year I was prepared to purchase an Argentine Warmblood mare who, unbeknownst to me at the time, had had her head tied around when she was first started. Naturally being a bit resistant anyway, this mare did fight - and flipped over backwards. Onto a panel of the roundpen she was in. She now has permanent scar tissue over her spine and cannot use her back nearly as effectively as a horse without the same injury. Not to mention that she is extremely sour and difficult to work with. Such a gorgeous mare, with a ton of potential (her brother is an Olympic prospect and she had what we thought to be similar jumping caliber) and excellent bloodlines...effectively ruined. I can honestly say with absolute certainty that a few of my own horses and horses I have trained in the past would have reacted the same way with potentially similar consequences had their heads been tied around. It is just too risky and not worth it to your horse, particularly when their are other methods of teaching the horse to give to pressure:
A) Teach your horse to give to pressure in general. Move his hindquarters and front end around, teach him to sidepass off of pressure on the ground, to lower and raise his head, to lift his feet to pressure, to back to pressure, whatever you can think of. Get your horse light and responsive so that his first response to a feather light touch in the right area (in combination with intent in your body language, you should be able to otherwise simply touch your horse wherever without it moving off) is to relax and move away from the pressure, rather than to fight it.
B) Teach your horse to give to pressure on his halter/bridle on the ground first. You can simply stand at his shoulder and ask for little bits of give, asking increasingly more of him until he is (eventually) flexing his nose to his girth area without a fuss, relaxedly, and to a light touch. By standing at his shoulder, you can easily follow his movements. If he moves too quick, back up and ask a little less of him to make sure he understands the basic concept of giving to the pressure. In addition, you can also always carefully loop the leadrope over the horn (half a loop or one loop only so that it comes loose) and carefully ask the horse to give to the pressure, from a few steps back/away from the horse. Without actually tying the horse's head though, there is room for error and you can always release your hold (hold, never pull, that way the horse can be the one to relieve the pressure). Later in the saddle, do the same thing. Personally I do do a bit of this on the ground, however I just find it easier to do most in the saddle as part of one of the very first things I teach the horse. I teach them the Porcupine game on the ground but usually ask them to flex their head in the saddle - I teach this prior to even teaching them to move out, that way I have an emergency stop should I ever need it.

So in short, there are better ways that do not involve forcing your horse.


Onto the next topic, I felt this poster said it best in response to something Cathy said:
February 22, 2010 at 2:02 pm
"First, a comment about the blog. It is NOT OK to “crank them in a circle and boot them after they’ve tried to buck you off”! Horses do what they do for a reason, they react to things. Find out the reason: pain from saddle fit, the bit, feet hurt on landing, body sore or just badly ridden causing fear or pain. Or the anticipation of pain from all the above, especially TB’s. Or any number of reasons, but to say “they tried to buck you off” is taking it personal as if the horse is doing it TO you, like a blame the horse thing when the horse is bucking in response to pain or other stressor. However in the few instances where the horse is really trying to unload you. I’d be looking for reasons for that too, like the horse is truly not broke and in that case shouldn’t be in a show ring anyway. It’s too easy to blame the horse.
In response to your question, I would submit a written letter..."

I really liked the response because I had not considered before (for whatever reason!) that when we punish a horse for bucking, we are taking it personally (imo). The horse is not doing it 'to' us but is rather simply responding. I just thought it was a brilliant way of putting it. Like I always say, a horse who is exhibiting a vice (such as bucking, rearing, biting, kicking, whatever it may be), is simply communicating in the only way it knows how. They cannot articulate their feelings in english so are left to body language. When their 'whispering' does not work, they are forced to increase the 'volume' of their 'speak' until we listen, which can include 'shouting' (ie. bucking, rearing, etc). It is not something to take personally - just listen up and respond!

fhotd says: February 22, 2010 at 2:08 pm
"If you read this blog, you know perfectly well that I always tell people to look for a pain source FIRST. However, some horses DO buck TO BE NAUGHTY. This is a fact. You will never convince me otherwise. In those cases, it is appropriate to make them chase their tail and give them a good you-were-naughty-and-you-know-it boot in the ribs. This is not a punishment that should break the skin or traumatize the animal in any way, shape or form. You do it briefly, immediately and then you move on."

Horses do not just buck to be naughty, plain and simple. They might buck because they do not want you up there or because they are not comfortable with humans in general being up there, but a) they would have provided other signals first and b) they are not doing it 'just because'. There is always a reason, though it may not always be physical pain. They could most certainly be doing it because they are retaliating and are feeling 'rebellious', however it's not a simple 'he's naughty' move: if he's feeling that way towards you or your riding, figure out why and fix it (which often means 'fixing' yourself as the rider, or your approach)*. This is why I say you can work out every issue, including bucking, on the ground first (provided it is not a pain issue, of course). It is not okay to simply boot the horse around in response to a buck. If the horse bucks, it is doing so for a reason - figure out the reason, correct it, and problem solved. Sometimes it means earning the horse's respect, earning their trust, or working more in partnership with them, but booting your partner on a small circle is just plain disrespectful to him.
* I realise I made it seem like the horse is making a personal response toward you, however the fact of the matter is the horse is not doing it on a personal level, though they could be responding to what you are doing, personally. When we take it personally it leads to an aggressive response in lieu of an assertive one, which is detrimental to our response to, and relationship with, that horse.

My Thoroughbred Link was a classic case of what other horsepeople would have considered 'naughty behaviour', which included bucking. On the track, he kicked out at other riders (the people in the saddle specifically, not the horses!) while galloping, and often kicked at people on the ground while walking down the shedrow and on the hotwalker. I do not think it was because he absolutely hated people or anything (though it is true he didn't trust them) - no one actually abused him or beat him by any stretch of the imagination, but he was frustrated and was venting at what he saw as the source of his problems: the people who held him back on the track, the people who made him wear a lip chain (I could always see him visibly relax when it was removed, and I'd always get a relieved or 'happier' 'feel' from him when the lip chain was removed), the people who kept placing him in his stall for 23/7, and the people who punished him (as per 'normal' horsemanship) when he was acting up out of frustration, fear, or excitement. People were a constant factor, to him, whenever he experienced things that made him unhappy. When I first started riding him at home, he did buck - often. He buck, he spun, he leapt, he reared, he did it all. Never once did I boot him or punish him in any other way, shape, or form. Actually, I even stopped riding him altogether for a period (oh, the horror, haha), primarily because I felt he was too dangerous - it was not worth the risk to me. We worked everything out on the ground. There, I found he had a severe distrust of humans (again, not because he was beat or anything, just because he was handled similarly to how Cathy advocates and it, combined with the general track life, clashed with his type of temperament). One night I was doing a figure-8 pattern with him on-line on the ground, and as he passed me, he nailed me good in the leg. He had given me all the signs that he was nervous having to go between me and the barrel in that direction, but I had thought it was ok and pushed him. So, on one of the turns he finally kicked me (quite hard!) - he was acting offensively defensive ('I'll get you before you get me' mentality). Immediately, he spun around and backed up to the end of the line, eyes huge, nostrils flared, entire body tense - he knew he'd 'done wrong' and expected me to come after him. Instead, I cursed under my breath, gathered myself (and boy I was mad! Somehow pain just has a way of doing that, lol), took a deep breath until I was calm, and continued on as if nothing had happened. Immediately I noticed a change in his demeanor, like he released some of that tension and relaxed just a little. I wasn't going to come after him, even if provoked, and he knew it and could trust me a little. A horse has to trust you and has to know that whatever happens, he will be ok. He needs to know that he can have utmost faith in you, that even if the two of you were attacked by a cougar and he had to 'disobey' your initial request so as to get away, that you would not be angry and punish him but that you instead would help him out. He needs to know that you will work in partnership with him, that you will not interfere or hinder him, but that you will help him think clearly and provide a safe and relaxed environment for him. You need to be assertive, but never aggressive, and usually punishment like 'booting the horse around' comes with aggressiveness, emotion behind it, and thus you create an unstable energy (rather than a strong leadership energy) and inspire fear and disrespect in the horse by taking the behaviour personally. I will point out in the above case that gradually Link's behaviours have disappeared with time. I would never ever anticipate his kicking me on the ground again, even if pressured, and he very rarely explodes under-saddle at this point (and if he does, he is now quickly recoverable and his reactions are not strong and frustrated). I anticipate everything will dissipate given time, just as they continue to decrease to this day. I've used the story and example of Link a number of times now, but I feel it's just your classic case and example of how not booting a horse around and otherwise punishing it, can work.


Another gem from Cathy's comment section a short while back (not from fugly though):
February 22, 2010 at 8:46 am
"Anyway, most stock horse trainers you see “jerking, yanking, spurring” are trying to get their horse to perform in a certain manner. They’re trying to get the horse rounded up (via draw reins), lifted in the front (via high port bits), hip moved over or rounded in the back (via constant spur contact in one side or the other), etc. Once the horse has learned what is expected of him, that kind of training is used very infrequently unless the horse “falls apart” and needs tuned back up for a show. What I see happening that’s abusive is uneducated people emulating the spur work, the high port bits, the draw reins, and the rein work but they have no idea what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and when to stop. Almost all top trainers use the method of releasing the method of discomfort when the horse is performing correctly.
I attend and compete at the highest level of stock horse competitions, plus get my young horses accustomed to show traffic at open shows, and I can tell you in all honesty that this is one of the biggest problems we have in front of us. The gap between the successfull, popular trainers and the do-it-yourself amateurs/up-and-coming trainer/youth rider has widened to an almost unsurmountable canyon."

I just wanted to post this as a scary thought - this person claims to compete at the highest level of stock horse competitions!! This is what some at the highest level looks like! The thought sends shivers up my spine. What this person is doing is not creating a frame - any frame created through a high port bit, draw reins, and rein and spur work (I don't care how 'gently' it's done), is a false frame. I absolutely guarantee you the horse will be croup high, that you will see unparallel cannon bones at the trot, that the horse will be strung out, that the back will be tense and hollow, that the horse will not be working from behind, and that the horse's best interests are ultimately not being served. Spurs are for extending the heel, not for 'pushing' the horse into a frame or lifting the belly up, draw reins are almost only ever going to create a false headset (with exceptions), and high port bits are meant only for the most intimate communicate between horse and rider - not to elevate the front (because they don't). Know how you can accomplish the elevated front, a horse working from behind, and the correct 'headset'? Patterns. Exercises. Gently and progressively moulding what the horse gives you. Spurs, draw reins, high ported bits - incorrect and not required and used in the fashion this poster describes - downright abusive. Know why there is an 'insurmountable canyon' between amateurs and these types of pro's? They (amateurs) are emulating how you're doing it, they're just not as 'smooth' at it as you - and neither of you are correct! Amateurs might be worse at 'disguising' what you do though, it is not that you (pro's riding in such a fashion) are doing it correctly!! The pro's who are not riding like this are the real ones to watch and the ones who are doing it properly. Even if there is a gap between amateurs emulating those pro's (those doing it correctly) and the pro's themselves, you will not see the type of treatment and abuse we are seeing among the amateurs who are emulating the pro's who are "jerking, yanking, spurring”, because their 'idols' are not "jerking, yanking, spurring" either.

Cathy's response to a different comment (the OP's comment being the one in the >><<, within fugly's response): fugly says February 22, 2010 at 10:48 am ">>Turns out, I asked about him from the previous abuser what was up with him not liking to be cinched up? He told me he never rode with a tight cinch, he would keep it loose and just yank it tight while riding.<< If you mean tightening the girth after you’re up, we do that all the time. Most horses bloat to some extent and nobody wants to eat dirt. That said, a horse should never be cranky about cinching if you do it slowly and give them walk breaks in between pulls. That horse probably has/had a rib out. Call the chiro.

Firstly, to Cathy's credit, she is right on the latter half of her response, that a horse shouldn't be cranky about cinching and that it should be done slowly and amongst walk breaks. Something else I wanted to put out there to think about/consider (to elaborate): if your horse is bloating up on you, you might be doing something wrong (usually, I have found in my experiences, thanks to my own mistakes and what I have been taught - hellooo little black pony!!). If most of your horses are bloating up on you (so much that you are in danger of eating dirt), you are almost definitely doing something wrong!! Bloating often points to a discomfort on the part of the horse, whether mentally and emotionally or physically. It can signal ulcers or it can signal a horse uncomfortable with your approach under-saddle or with being under-saddle and having a rider, in general. Start doing your girth up in stages, and start working with your horse in such a way that he actually enjoys working with you and is not going to bloat up. Secondly, if you eat dirt anytime your girth is loose, I have to point out that your seat is possibly not all that independent and evenly-balanced. I have ridden (at a gallop) with a loose and flapping cinch before (no, not on purpose of course, my mistake, haha) without eating dirt - because I had a solid, independent seat (of course I fixed it asap), and I have seen professionals do it to demonstrate their point. I am not advocating for riding with a loose cinch or girth of course, but I am just pointing out that a loose cinch, especially one caused by a horse bloating, should not be enough to (usually) cause you to eat dirt; of course it will for some, but then perhaps it is a sign of what you can work on (although sometimes shit just happens though, I understand that!). I actually very very rarely have to do up a girth after mounting; I do the girth/cinch up prior to leaving the barn, once or twice during groundwork, then I check it before mounting. The girth will loosen, however your horse should not actually be bloating (you should not see your horse's stomach inflate when you touch the cinch/girth), and certainly not enough to cause your saddle to slip so bad you eat dirt. Lastly, your cinch/girth does not have to be suffocating tight, just snug enough not to create rubs and to prevent slippage. In my experiences most people cinch up their horses way too tight.


Lastly, I just wanted to more openly publish the following conversation between Cathy and a reader of her blog, because I found it interesting, and a good point(s) by the blog reader:

February 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm
"I know you are not a fan of the foundation quarter horse shows, but you might find a lot of what you are discussing here has been addressed with them. Many of the members my FQHR affiliate has are coming out of AQHA or other breed shows because these issues. ‘Horse Care’ is the FIRST section of the rulebook and it says:
“It is expected that each Foundation Quarter Horse shall be treated humanely with kindness and respect at all times. This Registry will make an earnest effort to educate and encourage breeders, owners and exhibitors for the benefit and well being of these great horses. It is the desire of this Registry that these horses have the opportunity to display their great natural ability not hindered by drugs, surgical alterations or inhumane treatment. Our position is to hold to the highest standard of integrity in treatment and care of the horse.”
I have personally know of cases were people have been removed from the club for treatment of their horses and none of those cases were even close to what was described here and in the video!
They also address HYPP (although FQHR does banish the entire Impressive line rather than basing this condition on testing). I’d like to see a HERDA rule coming out since that one is more likely to affect our type of cow pony. They also do not allow performance points on horses under the age of three years old. Not that we don’t have our own problems but I think if you looked into some of these clubs you might find more pros than cons. I know they don’t encourage the “turnout” that you would like (although I have never seen anyone DQ’d for grooming).
A friend of mine emailed me in horror when she read your comment a few months (?) back where you stated that foundation shows were “un-shows”. She emailed me because I am involved with FQHR shows and she had attended several shows with me… so she was shocked that you commented against them (she’s a regular reader , I’m not). Personally I thought that the term “un-show” was awesome! That does describe a lot of what we stand for… I also thought it was HILARIOUS that you made the comment that “rules forbid things like clipping or nice tack or show clothes, so basically I don’t know what they are showing off”… since if you take away all of those things all that is really left is the HORSE and that is what I think should be the most important thing at a horse show! Just my opinion!"

fhotd says: February 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm
"I know…but I gotta tell you, I HATE that shaggy look. HATE IT. HATE IT. HATE IT.
To me, that’s just not a show. To me, a show is like a beauty pageant…showing up in a flannel shirt and not shaving your pits would take too much away from it. You can be pretty and not abused – really, you can!
My other gripe about foundation shows is the lack of equitation/horsemanship classes. I have a huge problem with that, because riding ability counts and I don’t like the idea of the inference that it is so meaningless that we won’t even have a class that judges the rider."

Foundation Quarter Horse says: February 22, 2010 at 4:33 pm
"I guess to each his own on grooming styles… I shave ears (although not as close as if showing AQHA halter) simply because I think it’s a good thing for them to get used to. I also clip jaw line and muzzle, just because. No one has said anything about that to me. Clipping done but not as extensive as YOU might like!
I love, love, LOVE the long manes… I have evened out a filly that rubbed some off but that’s about it. I like the hippie mane look over the short trimmed or pulled manes. And by no means does that mean that they don’t take just as much grooming time! I think they take more on most of my horses to keep them clean, conditioned and braided so they keep growing and look nice.
I’m an officer this year in our club and we are planning equitation clinics in addition to working cowhorse, reining and handy ranch horse. We don’t offer classes at the shows but we do try to get our members to focus on this aspect. Most of our membership are very good riders, you need a pretty solid seat to stay with some of the cutters that compete with us!
Beauty pagents aside, our main focus is on versatility. So we want to see horse and rider combos that can do it all! That is after all what the ORIGINAL Quarter Horse was all about!"

I think that looking at AQHA shows as a beauty pageant is what has got us into the trouble we are in - stallions and mares in their teens with multiple halter championships under their belt yet who have never been ridden. The very same horses whose musculature and skeletal conformation just does not hold up under-saddle: big double-layer muscles with stick legs and miniscule feet. WP horses being tied with their heads up, for hours, so that they will carry their heads lower in tomorrow's class, all in the name of 'fashion'. These shouldn't be beauty pageants. I am not saying not to groom your horse, but honestly, these horses should be useable and I think more emphasis needs to be placed on a horse's physical abilities, athleticism, conformation, and temperament, than the way they are groomed, the glitter on their tack, and whether or not they can appear and move according to today's fashion fad. This is not a runway, these animals are meant to be used and thus should be judged as such. In regards to the grooming, horses have those whiskers and hairs for a reason - hence the reason they grow them in the first place. When we clip out their ears, remove all eye and nose hairs, etc etc, we strip them of nature's protection, navigation system, etc. For what? For us? Because we like it? Yes, I do clip jawlines (not to the bone though, I use scissors just to trim it up and make an even line), whiskers (not short though, just so they are even and maybe not 8'' long, lol), and feathers for a show or to make a good impression at times, but that is the extent of my grooming. To each their own of course as to what look they prefer, and I certainly realise that show horses should look groomed and presentable, however perhaps it is time to look at things a little differently and to remove our personal appearance likes from the equation - make it more about the horse.


I think that is sufficient fodder to consider for the day!!!

When horses (don't) attack

Ok last but not least, I wanted to comment on the following that Cathy posted a recent blog about:

[sorry, I had initially embedded the wrong video however when I linked back on youtube to the correct video, to obtain its embedding code, it had already been removed by its poster. Sorry to any who missed it, it was a pretty neat video!!]

Here is Cathy's blog. Now I am not saying that the parent should not have been more careful. Heck, the very first time I saw the horse turn its hind end towards the child, I held my breath in fear, hoping someone would rush in and save the day. However that is really neither here nor there. We are not there to judge the situation.

First off, yes, of course the horse intended to knock over the 4yo. It is not even a question of whether it was a stumble or an intended knock. But it was not a 'horse attack', it was simply a horse being dominant over a kid who was annoying it, much as it would a foal who was acting disrespectful. If the parent did not want their kid bowled over by the horse, they should have reprimanded the child before the horse felt it had to. However that is besides the point. People and parents make mistakes (and perhaps the parent misjudged the horse's body language, though that thought makes me nervous) and in this case both parent and child were (apparently) lucky.

Just going over the video quickly, I wanted to point out:
0:13 the horse turns its hind end towards the kid once, warning it
0:15 the horse pins its ears at the child, steps towards it, and gestures to it with its head, to scat
0:20 that doesn't work, so it turns its hind end towards the kid again...and walks away, removing itself from the situation
0:31 child runs after the horse, so horse again turns its hind end in, and trots away
0:38 finally the horse has had enough; the child follows it again, so it sideswipes her (and even then, the horse moves slow enough and lays back its ears to the kid during its initial move, that had the child bopped out of the way immediately, as the horse indicated, the horse clearly would have stopped itself)
That poor horse gave not one, two, or even three warnings, it actually gave the child (and by extension, camera-man) FIVE warnings that it wanted the kid to respect its space and back off. Just putting it out there. I do think that whoever was watching this could and should have halted the incident before it even occured, however like I said, 'accidents' happen, common sense is not always all that common, and some people just cannot read equine body language.

I actually take issue with two individuals on this video though, hence my reason for posting:

First, I take issue with the poster of this vid with its kind captions. Mr.Poster, you are yet another media source who is so thankfully spreading the word of 'attack horses', sort of like 'attack of the clones' or something of the sort. This horse did not attack and you are just another who is spreading the word that horses, and animals in general, are dangerous and not to be trusted, that they are unpredictable. Thanks to videos such as this one, I am then yet another equestrian burdened with exasperatedly explaining to the next non-horsey individual that *sigh* no, horses are not dangerous attack animals (seriously). This is mis-reading, mis-interpreting, and mis-representing animal behaviour. If you are going to make a bold statement such as 'horse attacks four year-old', please then at least have the sense of mind and respect to investigate and speak with professionals beforehand, to properly represent this animal's behaviour. You claim to be a doctor, for heaven's sake, please do your research and be careful with your videos. Videos such as this grossly mislead the public in regards to animal behaviour and are yet another shovelful of sand creating a rift between animals and people, which only leads to poor consequences for the animals (which ultimately affects us as well). If it is clearly a joke, fine, post away, but when a video seriously asks such questions, I just personally feel it is misleading and harmful.

My second bone to pick is with Cathy Atkinson.
"I doubt it registered on him that the small, noisy thing was a human."
You are joking, correct? Are you now telling people that horses cannot tell the difference between a small, yappy dog (complete with a wagging tail, very different movements, and different body language), and a small human? Please forgive me, but I have to side against you on this one and say that horses are not that dim. I can tell you for a fact that a) horses in general can tell you the difference between a dog and a human child, and b) this horse was aware of the difference. My brother and I used to play with our horse herd growing up all the time and I can tell you they knew the difference. At one time I went missing (yes, this is the classic story all mothers who have horses seem to have, lol). My mother went to find me and alas, finally did. Between the hind legs of my dad's Quarter Horse x Arabian (and she threw to the Arabian side) mare. Playing with her tail. That mare loved all babies, from human children she carefully packed around, to foals she stole off of other mares. Actually, she still takes care of young human children - she is 30 this year and is still team-penning with a friend's young kids. You cannot tell me she did not know I was not a human, as opposed to a dog. Not only do I think she would have made the connection due to the interaction between my own mother and I, but she drove off any dogs, coyotes, or other such animals, yet cared carefully for my brother and I. My own horses regularly drive off dogs. Not only have they learnt to drive off pesky coyotes, but they also have learnt to drive off the Sheltie that annoyingly circles and nips at them at one of the places I board at. Yet they would never chase off a human child the way they would a dog or coyote the instant they recognise the animal - head snaking down, teeth out, ears back. Animals just are not that dense.

In addition, the horse did not 'smoosh' the child, it knocked the child over. Very carefully, in my opinion. Several times, that horse could have (and I thought it would) double-barrel kicked the child. It could have bit the child. Or run over it with its front legs. Even stomped the child into the sand. But it didn't. Instead, it strategically hit the child with its barrel. Moving purposefully sideways. This is just my opinion, but I have never seen a horse take out a dog, coyote, or any other such predator in such a fashion. It is the type of maneuver I could imagine a mare using to knock down a cocky foal who was bugging its elders. Or, a child. A maneuver that is not likely to cause irreversible harm, but a maneuver that is likely to get the message across to the youngster, human or equine alike. A horse would never expose its barrel to a predator with teeth (such as a dog), who could rip its belly open. It would do so to something it felt was harmless and simply needed a lesson in respect. That horse was simply doing what the human parents should have done - teaching the 4yo some respect (and it toted the child around the next day??! What a saint!!).

Now, my other bone to pick with Cathy is in her black-and-white statement that 4yo's should never be allowed in the pasture with horses. While I strongly advise parents to have careful supervision over their children, a) kids will get into trouble at times and you cannot have your eye on them 24/7 (though of course you can do your best to prevent situations such as this and this is a bit of an exception with someone filming the whole thing), and b) we cannot bubble wrap our kids. I learned a lot of innate horse behaviour by playing with our horses and our entire herd (save for one colt, haha, but we learned pretty quick to be careful around him!) was very careful and safe with us kids. Now while I do not recommend doing what my brother and I did at our age (obviously mom and dad were busy with their eyes elsewhere at certain, rare, times), however we lived to tell the tale and learned a lot in the process. I do not think that the situation is a blind, 'never allow kids in the pasture', but instead it should be:
1. Teach your child to respect animals, including the horses, and teach them animal behaviour (as much as you can given their age)
2. Set boundaries for your kids and supervise as much as is possible (Cathy, have you ever even babysat any rugrats? Those things are everywhere! You are going to miss some things...of course this situation is a little different though, but still).
3. Allowing your kids to interact with the horses, in pasture included, in my mind, is ok, provided the herd is comprised of 'safe' animals and your child is supervised and accompanied.
There is much more to this one and I know I'll want to bubble wrap my kids one day too. But we can't. Shit happens, and most horses are ok with kids, even in a pasture setting; it simply depends upon the scenario. It's not simple black and white. I can actually recall my mom chastising me from a distance as I walked in amongst our herd of cattle (regularly). I cannot recall why she did not walk in and scoop me up herself, though I seem to recall it likely having something to do with a fear of spooking the cattle over me or accidentally goading a cow to charge in the wrong situation. Anyways, even supervised, you cannot control everything your child does. My mom was within speaking distance but of course I did not listen and would walk right in amongst the cows and pet them all. I can recall this one yellow and white cow in particular whom I always loved to pet - out in the pens and pasture. Those cows were quiet, safe, and always took care of me. Of course it did help that my parents never kept any nutcases or dangerous cows around (and I did listen when instructed if told to stay away from someone obviously dangerous, I remember instances such as that), but still. I do not think that the answer is to bubble wrap our kids and lock them away from everything. Instead, educate them and do what you can, but they should also have experiences. I just don't buy the 'horses are all dangerous, keep them away from our kids!' theory. Sorry.

Wonder Rider

This time the FSOTD blog post was in regards to a girl who can (gasp!) ride!! Yeah. It sort of inadvertently happens when you are around horses a long time and have ridden a lot, Cathy. You sorta learn to ride along the way. I will refrain from remarking on Cathy's own riding habits despite alleged years in the saddle, but honestly!!! What the girl is doing is certainly nothing special, for a young lithe rider who has spent years in the saddle. Check out the video Breathe.

Such riding should not usually be necessary however - for the most part. The 8yo Paint I trained last year had bucked off his owner as a 4yo and had not been ridden since. When I first worked with him on the ground it was obvious, just as with the first horse in the video Breathe, that he was going to buck if I got on him (exact same displays of behaviour). He was fearful, reactive, and dangerous (and studly, to boot!). When I did saddle him my first week with him, he immediately humped up and acted like he was about to explode. And the first time or two I worked with him on the ground with a saddle on his back, he did explode, in much the same way as that first bay in the video. SO I DID NOT GET ON. I worked with him on the ground, had a few tense moments here and there in the saddle later, and eventually (over 60 days) produced a horse who was henceforth ridden on a daily basis by his owners on their ranch. One of our Thoroughbreds (my main guy, Link), whom I acquired late 2008, was extremely explosive under-saddle when I first got him. So much so, that I quit riding him for several months until I could sort out his myriad of issues on the ground first. He would just explode under-saddle (and on the ground, of course) and there was absolutely no stopping him. Now however, he is going great and is currently working towards showing Training Level dressage this year. We worked from the ground up though and thus I never had to invite his head nailing my nose into my brain, because by the time we got to the saddle work, he was ready for it.

I am not saying this girl is wrong in getting on (to each their own and she is not abusing the horses, plus we only see short clips of her actual time with each horse so cannot propose to know the full story), but the method she is using really does invite possible injury and it does escalate the situation, which can result in a terrible experience for the horse and/or a horse/rider injury or even death. Just for me personally, it is not worth it. I can and will ride through a buck or two, or even more if necessary (and my main Thoroughbred does have panic attacks every so often still yet that I usually ride through), however if the horse is going to full-blown explode such as did some of the horses in the video, and (seemingly) often - I can and will work it out on the ground first, because it works and is safer. The bay horse at the beginning of the video is clearly upset, reactive, dangerous, and not focusing on the individual longeing. Safe to mount? Nope. If he is not paying attention to the person on the ground, there is no way in hell he is going to pay attention to a person on his back. Work with the horse until they are safe, relaxed, and focused on the ground, then mount up. I know many proclaim it impossible to work through an under-saddle problem with a horse without riding it, but that simply just is not true. The reasons for problems under-saddle: tension, fear, disrespect, are all root causes that can be resolved on the ground. The loose, supple, relaxed, trusting, respectful, happy horse is going to remain so under-saddle (to an extent).

I just kept thinking throughout watching the video: sure the young woman has a nice velcro seat, but she is on the horses' mouths quite a bit (though she is actually decent in that respect, and I do not blame her with the bolter in that particular scenario), is using spurs (such as with the grey Arabian) to push already fearful and reactive horses forward (which carries the high risk of increasing the horse's fear response because you are increasing the pressure), is seemingly always carrying a whip (which she uses for punishment, though granted it is simply a dressage whip and she only taps lightly)...and man, that's just a lot of horses that buck under her!!!! Why do they all want her off? I love the challenge and associated rewards of working with the tough problem horses too, but they don't all buck by the time we progress to under-saddle work! In fact when they do, I know I have pushed them too much (which sometimes is necessary with a horse in training, unfortunately, just due to the logistics of time constraints, but not to that extent). There is the bay at the dressage show - if he was such a problem horse (who nearly flipped over backwards), what is he doing at a show? Was he really ready yet? Is that correct training and riding to be applauded? Or is it a mistake on her (the trainer's) part, or even ill training? Granted it is rather difficult to judge from my seat at my desk.

The 'after' clips do show improved horses and so I have to applaud that. I personally don't like every detail (some of the nosebands, tense tails/backs, riders' loud legs, possible hand-dominated headsets [??], etc), however I am being a bit picky because the overall picture is one where the horse is obviously much happier and more compliant than initially. Also, I appreciate this girl's philosophies. Like I said, overall she is creating useful horses out of former problem horses and is trying to educate people along the way, so I am not trying to sound overly down on her (sorry!). Her methods simply differ from my own and those I admire, and that is ok because she appears to still be doing good by the horses (which I respect, because it is what is ultimately what is important). I just thought Cathy could have featured something even better I guess; the rider in question is a good rider, but not beyond what I would expect of someone experienced with horses and who is training problem horses is all. Furthermore, I do not think that what she (the rider, that is) is doing on those horses (as an experienced rider who knows how to get out of sticky situations and how far to/not to push a horse) is recommended for the average rider, as Cathy obviously believes (heck, Cathy tells beginners to take note in her blog!). Cathy also points this out as being better than what Linda Parelli was doing - how so if they ultimately produce the same (and in my opinion, Linda's methods can produce better, but that's just my biased opinion)? I can personally attest to the Parelli method turning out horses with similar and better behaviours of the 'after' vids of the horses in question in the video, because I have done so myself, using Parelli methods (including on horses formerly deemed 'untrainable' who later turned out to be fantastic dressage/jumping/youth prospects) - and often without the 'chaos' in between. And this LACK of pissy behaviours Cathy speaks of? The horses were definitely going much better in the 'after' vids, however I did see some pissy behaviours afterward.

Here is an excellent 'after' for a problem-horse. Gaston is a former stud and was quite dangerous at one time. Parelli Natural Horsemanship, btw.

Here is a video of another problem horse, Quincy, trained by Jonathan Field (the instructor I initially learned Parelli from):



I can assure you none of the above riders used spurs or whips and they did not 'ride out the buck' (etc). Also, they have successfully dealt with many a problem horse since! What they do, I would (and do) definitely recommend to beginners.

Fugly Shit of the Day: Part II

I just recently quickly perused the comment section of Cathy's post I blogged about the other day concerning Linda Parelli - most was just repetitive BS and whining, and no, I did not read all 550+ comments (I do not wish to garbage quite that much time), however I did pay particular attention to Cathy's comments. See, I was never aware of Cathy's existence until maybe a year ago or so when one of her little sheep snarked at me on a forum and quoted Cathy - if Cathy said it, it must be right!! Since then, I admit I have not really devoted a whole lot of time 'researching' Cathy or her past, so I wanted to read her some of her recent comments to gauge what she really knows about horses. The following are my recent findings and a follow-up of Fugly Shit of the Day. I just think people should realize how little she actually knows in terms of horses so they may make an informed decision. Here are a few of Cathy's comments:

(the first part of the following is Fugly quoting a previous poster)
fugly says: March 10, 2010 at 8:33 pm
"“My gelding spent the first 6 months or so I had him spooking into me and he knocked me over 3 times. The third time (last June) I finally got my nerve up and convinced him I was going to kill him (which consisted of backing him up and screaming at him). You know what? He has spooked in place or away from me since that day.”
Amazing how that works, isn’t it? Someone realized YOU were more scary than the silly thing he was spooking at.
Congratulations. You understand horses better than Linda Parelli, already!"

Honestly? Our solution to a fearful horse spooking is to make it more scared of you and your reaction to its fear, than of the object it is afraid of? To quote John Lyons:
"It's unreasonable to ask a horse not to be afraid. That's like my telling you to go into a bad area of town for a walk at two in the morning, and not be frightened."
So if it is unreasonable to ask a horse to not be afraid, by extension, is it not unreasonable to reprimand a horse for being afraid? Why would you want a relationship in which your horse is afraid of being afraid, because it is afraid of your reaction? A horse cannot help being afraid and some horses are more prone to being alert and reactive than others - some require stronger leadership and stronger trust in their rider to follow said leadership without spooking. The solution is simple: gain your horse's trust (not just in you, but in your leadership), guarantee to your horse that you have it's back, and it will follow you wherever you ask. Do you honestly want a horse who is tense and anxious because it is afraid of you? Excuse me while I vomit. I have seen and ridden those horses, and they are an emotional mess because they're constantly trying to read and anticipate you, because they are afraid of your reaction and of doing something wrong. Horses are not spooking at 'silly things' for the fun of it, they are acting like prey animals. They have very different worries than us and they have very different perceptions, thinking, and even vision, than us. Our job is to teach them to think and to follow our leadership, to act less reactive and more relaxed. Not to scare them into submissiveness.

Cathy, for someone who purports to know so much about horse training and horse behaviour, I am ashamed for you and am dismayed at your lack of actual knowledge. I suppose I should not be overly surprised, when your 'training' looks like this though:



That was no 'surprise jump', any idiot could see that was minutes away from happening, simply by watching the first 5 seconds of the video where the horse was observed to be frantic, anxious, and tense. She was looking for an escape route, and found it. Want to know why Pat and other NH trainers have such low-fenced roundpens? So they remember to never push a horse past its threshold, to encourage themselves to create draw and relaxation in the horse. This was not a wild horse, Cathy, this is a poor QH filly that was pushed too far.

I see Cathy removed the video of her unable to effectively get even a green filly trotting under-saddle. It's not for no reason that she is unable to train the supposedly very quiet VLC stallion of hers. I just wish she would then admit her limitations (because that's ok! we all have them!!) and quit criticizing everyone else and methods she obviously does not understand nor know anything about. Cathy, if you do not know enough about training to train your own docile animals, please refrain from 'educating' the public in regards to how to train. That's all - I'm not asking for much!!!!


Here are some more goodies (*sigh*):
fugly says: March 10, 2010 at 8:31 pm
"I have sung on young OTTB’s to distract them from spooky stuff, particularly during the first rides out in the open. But an Appy is just going to laugh at you and walk your knee into the nearest tree.
And I am a huge devotee of the old fashioned butt rope for recalcitrant trailer-loaders. I’ll be damned if I’m going to screw around for 45 minutes when all it takes is 2 people and a butt rope and the horse is in the trailer in 30 seconds flat."

I just for once want to see Cathy do that to my Thoroughbred Link. When we first purchased him he wasn't the greatest loader and had you just put a butt rope on him and tried to shove him in (btdt - the barn owner bullied his way into doing so), he would have balked HUGE. He not only panicked and flew backwards, fighting, but he also double-barrel kicked at any people behind him. Now, of course, he loads fine, but the point is not to simply shove the horse in in 30s and slam the door shut! The point is for the horse to be comfortable enough with your leadership and have sufficient respect in you to do as you ask, and for the horse to be relaxed in the trailer and want to go in there. Otherwise you get the horse in there by force and have to deal with something throwing a wreck in there. I realise there are exceptions where you just have to get the horse in or there seem to be no other options in very rare cases - but those cases are not hugely common; most of the time you can work with a horse beforehand until they are comfortable loading. However with a horse who is usually ok with loading and whom I have worked with before (though obviously not enough, if he is balking at the trailer), I am going to take that 45min instead of 30s. 1,200lbs is a lot of weight and is not always physically possible to shove in in 30s anyways, not without risk to the horse. Why is Cathy's answer always force and fear?? I am asking honestly.


fugly says: March 9, 2010 at 6:39 pm
"Then the first thing I would have picked up is a longe whip…before I took the lead.
I’ve dealt with chargers. They are not hard to fix. Once or twice, bam, and they realize that on top of you is not a good place to be. You have to watch them like a hawk, because some will wait for a moment of inattention and then take another dive at you. But all in all, I could have fixed this with one or two good whacks with a whip – at the CHEST as he dove at me – NEVER at the face – and the horse would not have been confused, and it would have been over a lot faster.
This is a good example of “picking at” a horse. Instead of making a simple point, once, and making it clear what behavior was not acceptable, it’s a thousand annoying little pinpricks to the horse."

Honestly, I actually was thinking a carrot stick (or similar) would have perhaps helped Linda communicate better with the horse in question as well. However, what she did worked, and I cannot say for certain that a stick would have been more effective anyway. This horse was not a 'charger' per se, he was not doing what he did out of aggressiveness, he was simply bowling over humans in disregard, because he had other concerns on his mind and had very little respect for his handlers. I think what Linda did was much better than hitting the horse in punishment, because judging from the state the horse was in as Linda worked with it, it would have had to have been some pretty hard hits!! What Linda did took a little longer, however it was effective in earning the horse's respect and it was a long-term solution by engaging the horse's mind (she'd never have to hit the horse, as Cathy advises, or work so hard again). I actually did not see Linda hit the horse directly in zone 1 (the nose area), which is a very sensitive area - had she hit the horse there, it probably would have caused an adverse reaction. Instead, she smacked the horse loudly on the sturdy jaw and on the neck (most people I see pat their horses as hard, or harder, than Linda did! In praise!), to get its attention. You don't see the horse panic, jerk its head suddenly, or act fearful towards Linda or headshy afterwards. So obviously she did not traumatize the animal. In addition, she was not 'picking at', or 'nagging', the horse, she was correcting him whenever he made a wrong move (which, at first, was often). You certainly never see an annoyed horse, and you see a very responsive and respectful horse at the end of the session.


fugly says: March 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm
"I agree – there’s nothing NEW about it. 30 years ago, we knew we had to be the alpha or we were gonna have hoofy-prints on our backs.
It’s all marketing, packaging and unfortunately, it’s laced with a seriously deep thread of bullshit.
What it comes down to for me is this: There was absolutely nothing wrong with traditional horsemanship and traditional training. It did not need to be fixed or improved upon. Were there some jerks that needed to stop training? Sure. They still exist. Only now some of them use Natural Horsemanship, as can be seen in this video.
My main problem with NH is this: It has a culture which discourages people from improving their riding skills. You hardly ever (yes, I know, a few people do it – Chris Cox, I think) hear a NH’er say “ma’am, the horse is fine – you need to improve your seat and develop a stronger leg.” Instead, they tell you that playing this game or that game will develop some kind of magical “bond” with your horse. Do you know what an actual bond comes from? RESPECT. Horses, much like women, walk all over you if they perceive you to be a wimp. They do not love you for it. They may love carrots but they don’t go “wow, this person is so nice to me, I won’t run back to the barn with her any more!” That’s just not how the equine mind works and selling that idea is misleading tomfoolery. Your horse needs to think “wow, I’d like to go back to the barn but I know I can’t, ’cause the last time I tried I just got hauled in a circle and made to chase my tail and really, it wasn’t much fun and I didn’t wind up back at the barn any sooner.” And you can’t BE that confident rider who simply pulls the barn sour horse in a circle and sends it on in the direction YOU want to go unless you’re a good, solid competent rider.
Which takes lessons…and work without stirrups…and that hurts…and makes you sweat…and boy, you have to get off the couch and away from the DVD player and maybe, gasp, get a bit more fit to do it.
Lots of people aren’t interested in buying the truth!"

Pat does not claim to have created something new and gives full credit to his teachers, equine and human alike, both at his conferences and in his books. He also says himself that what he teaches is nothing new (and lists off where and how the methods he teach have been used in the past). Plain and simple. He knows what he is doing is not new, but he knows it is not mainstream (and it isn't, I had heard of Dorrance, Hunt, etc prior to Parelli, however I had never actually seen their techniques nor did anyone in my areas ever use them; I had no idea what they were about). Many people I encounter still know nothing about NH (and similar) techniques; probably a good 90 percent of the riders at any of the barns I have boarded at use very traditional techniques - techniques that are usually as bad as and worse than those Cathy advocates for (though I am going to say that some of the techniques are soft and gentle, yet assertive - ones that I greatly admire and respect). You are right, Cathy, that Parelli is perhaps over-marketed, however that does not take away from the method itself. No, one cannot learns solely from DVD's, however they can still learn from them! DVD's and books can lead to experimentation, correction, adaptation, and learning in one's methods and personally, I see nothing wrong with that. Pat and Linda are not advocating that individuals replace hands-on learning and instruction with DVD's, they are simply presenting a method that includes materials to help the rider. While you (Cathy) might feel that there is no reason to ever improve one's method, I stand by Pat's philosophy: "Good, better, best, never let it rest." Strive to be better and constantly improve yourself and your relationship(s) with your horse(s) - and constantly improve your horses! Furthermore, if Cathy honestly knew anything about Parelli, she would realize they do in fact focus on the rider. In fact, it's all about the rider - there are no problem horses, only problem riders. Which is why they do not focus on the horse, but rather upon teaching the human, which includes proper equitation, among other important skills. Lastly, respect is paramount in PNH - the idea is to create a partnership that balances trust and respect and that is based on love, language and leadership...in equal doses. Pat and Linda recognize that one cannot have a partnership that does not include respect and have developed a program that revolves around earning both trust and respect (just take a look at the 7 games!). Even the carrot stick obtained its name for that reason: it is not supposed to be a carrot (a bribe or 'wimp', not assertive enough), but neither is it supposed to be a stick (aggressive and punishing) - the way the person works with the horse is supposed to be a reflection thereof, always assertive yet never aggressive and never bribing yet friendly. I never have to boot my horses in a circle, but they also enjoy being with me and follow my leadership, so I don't have to struggle with them wanting to go back to the barn, either :) And I don't know about you Cathy, but I never walk all over a man, 'wimp' or not. I have more respect and decency than that.

For the record, I am all for good horsemanship, whatever be its name or technique, so long as it is always in the best interests of the horse. I am also not always in agreement with everything Parelli: I have my own concerns and I certainly do not like the intense marketing. On the other hand, it is a method that works and that gets the word out there. Hell, I even admit to have grossly mis-interpreted and mis-used the method for awhile! Yes, I was one of those years ago (lol!). I made a lot of mistakes. But I learnt. We are not born in perfection nor with 100 percent knowledge of anything. I learnt through reading, through watching DVD's, through playing with my horses, and through whatever instruction or clinics I could afford.


LMAO while I do not 100 percent side with what this commenter said, I loved how they said it...particularly at the end:
redroanpony says: March 10, 2010 at 1:51 pm
"I disagree, but I think I’m going to disagree with pretty much everybody here on this one. I mean, there are things the Parellis do that I think are just ineffective and/or stupid, and I don’t think this was a great example of the kind of work they do. I did watch it again, and here’s what I saw: the horse doesn’t respond to pressure. At all. Linda asks him to back, and he ignores the pressure or moves into it. He is nervous and unable to stop moving his feet. Linda asks him to back and stop moving his feet. He doesn’t. When he moves, she tries to put him back again and get him to stop moving. When she’s hitting him on the butt with the rope, she’s trying to get him to yield his hindquarters, not move forward, which is why she’s checking with the lead line. She doesn’t do either very well. She is NOT lunging this horse or in any way asking him to lunge, so I’m not sure why everybody is jumping on her “lunging” technique, but whatever.
Did Linda do a good job with it? No. She should’ve stopped very early on and gotten her hands on a carrot stick, because she needed the stick to be more effective in her communication, and it would’ve led to her being much less emphatic and repetitive with the rope. (Or maybe she should’ve just stopped and called Pat. ) She also needed the stick to be more clear when asking him to yield his head, because she’s not tall enough and he’s too tall for her to properly do what she’s trying to do. When I first watched this, I do recall wondering whether that was her first time working with a half-blind horse, because she didn’t seem entirely certain on how to account for his blindness.
But did she scar the horse for life? No. Did she make him headshy? No. I’ve used that same technique — much more gracefully, mind you — to teach countless horses to yield their forequarters. It’s part of teaching them to lead and to yield to you, and it’s no more than a tap on the cheek… even with the hardest cases, a good bump with the heel of the hand is more than enough. And what I’m seeing here isn’t Linda beating the horse in the face. She’s ineffective, but that doesn’t exactly make her a monster.
At the end of the video, there actually *is* a change: the horse is able to stand. He’s not exhausted, and I wouldn’t say he’s “frozen” at all. He appears less nervous than he began and doesn’t feel the need to constantly move his feet. He actually puts his head down of his own accord. When she asks him to back or yield he’s doing it instead of completely ignoring the pressure. It’s not huge progress, but it is progress.
I’m sure my fellow commenters will now write me off as a moron, but I see nothing worse here than a trainer letting a situation get a bit out of control, which happens to everybody now and again. I can’t really believe the amount of histrionics in these comments; you’d think everybody else just watched a video of Linda gutting a horse and eating its heart. And I thought NH people were hysterical about what *they* consider to constitute “abuse”…"


fugly says: March 9, 2010 at 4:03 pm
"Every single natural horsemanship trained horse I have ever worked with REFUSES to stop on the circle on the longe. They ALL spin toward you, if not dart in and try to run you over. I have never seen an exception to this, and many other people here will tell you they have had the same experience.
And the whole basis of all this NH crap is the idea that you can do it yourself without hiring a trainer – that somehow going to clinics and watching videos will be enough. That is the foundation of the entire Cult of Natural Horsemanship. I don’t NEED a trainer, I’m the only one who can “bond” with my horse, and if my horse “bonds” with me, he won’t do bad things to me.
That spinning sound is my eyes rolling around in my head."

I am not surprised Cathy cannot accurately communicate with a horse enough to tell it to stop on the circle and not turn and face (and what's the problem with the horse turning and facing anyway??). See the above video, though too bad some will miss out on seeing the ones of her riding she had posted on youtube in the past. I will say this: all my horses who are Parelli trained will stop on the circle should you ask. The point of the turning and facing though is this: it is not about facing you, it is about the horse disengaging their hind end, which robs their hindquarters, their engine, of driving power (since their hind legs are crossed as they disengage), and thus forces them to stop. It is also an act of respect and trust (if you cross your legs, you cannot effectively run from a predator, so we are in effect also asking the horse to relax and trust us to ensure their safety, plus we are driving their hind end away, much as a herd leader would do in dominance). Teaching them to stop in such a way makes it easy to then relax the tense or reactive horse on the ground in the future, by having them disengage. The maneuver is also taken into the saddle to either halt or calm a horse. Should you wish the horse to not face you, simply ask the horse to stop. Without asking them to disengage. And if a horse is darting in and trying to run you over, you have not been clear in your direction and/or have not been sufficiently assertive, and/or the horse has not learned to be respectful and thus is lacking in its training, Parelli or not. Pat has never told anyone using his methods to train or re-train a horse using his methods without hands-on education - in fact I have personally heard him say the exact opposite, that training is an advanced skill and requires intense one-on-one learning with a professional. His intent with his program is to help riders improve their communication (and thus partnerships) with their horses, to better themselves and tweak their way of doing things with horses, or to even look at things from another perspective, approach things differently, and change how they do things. His intent is to teach riders better horsemanship and he definitely recommends as much hands-on learning as possible. In the event someone cannot do as much hands-on instruction with a trainer as they would like though, is it not better for them to have the appropriate materials to help them, as opposed to stumbling along blindly by themselves? It's not about bonding with the horse at all, it is much more than that. Cathy, you seriously sound like some of the traditional riders I talk to sometimes, who claim they already have a bond with their horse and thus do not require anything more.

Show me "Parelli-ruined" horses, or "NH'ers mishandling horses", and I'll show the same, or more, "traditionally-trained" ruined horses or "traditional trainers and riders ruining horses". I own several such horses myself and see it every day at some of the barns I ride in. It's about the people using the technique rather than the technique itself, in this case. Piss-poor training, bad techniques, bad riding, bad horsemanship - happens across the board, no matter the method (for the most part) or discipline.


Okay, I can't help it, I thought the following conversation was just absolutely hysterical (video embedded below):
kmathews says: March 10, 2010 at 12:55 am
"Now this is a horse that has been trained well and NOT by any Parelli fanatic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHQczRbBHxI
Just goes to show you, you don’t need to be whacking a horse in the face or jerking his halter and whatever else those idiots do to train their horses."
shadowsrider says: March 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm
"I don’t really care about the tricks he does, or how he trained the horse, but I would kill to have his seat!!"
rollkursucks says: March 10, 2010 at 5:58 pm
"OMG that halfpass at 1:15 looks so cool, I really wish the video would have shown it going for more than like two seconds! Passage at the end was cute too. Didn’t like all the laying down and crawling around at the beginning– to me, that’s just begging to get your spine broken, but just my personal opinion. I’ve seen the horse agility videos before and thought they were cute. Not my cup of tea, but something I would respect as long as people train it the right way and the horses enjoy it."



Snicker snicker. Most fellow PNH'ers can understand the reason for the snicker. The sheep failed to notice the carrot stick being used. Honza Blaha's site here. Honza credits Pat Parelli's methods as the reason for the turnaround in his Gaston, who was previously very dangerous. Gaston was Honza's first horse of his own, I believe out of a Czech mustang and by a Czech warmblood stallion. The horse grew increasingly dangerous, to the point where Honza's mother and sister (who were caring for Gaston while Honza was living away at school) could no longer even leave the house for fear of the young stallion. Honza eventually took Gaston to Parelli and spent two years studying under Pat, turning Gaston into a superhorse (after gelding him!). I cannot find the story but recall reading it on the Parelli site and watching Honza on youtube tell the story himself. I love watching those two! And, if you want to see sporthorses and serious competition horses (show jumpers in particular) being raised and trained Parelli, Honza is your man too. My goodness, I just find it amusing that the sheep are admiring the very technique they are criticising. If you want to see similar trainers, check out Jonathan Field (former Parelli instructor with whom I have attended clinics with my boys) and Mike and Red Sun (and his other horses of course), on youtube. Then get back to me and tell me that type of partnership is not useful at the competitive level!


Last point was in regards to the Yo-Yo game specifically: some seem to be misunderstanding its purpose and are criticizing the fact that the horse's head goes up and their back hollows during the game. Yes this occurs when initially teaching the game, however it is not the goal as the game progresses over time. Over time the horse backs with a lowered head, at the lowest phase of 'ask' possible (preferably, an assertive body posture and a glare, with maybe a slightly wiggling finger - no ropes!). Parelli has discussed over and over the importance of the contents of the dressage Training Scale as well as the importance of teaching the horse in such a way that they carry themselves efficiently and develop correctly. Hence programs such as "Hill Therapy" and such - working your horse over hills to develop topline.