Mark Rashid Clinic Report--Chapel Hill (Really Long)
Sylvana Smith
A report of the Mark Rashid clinic
Rivendell Farm -- Chapel Hill, North Carolina
October 19, 1999
"Show him who's boss."
"You've gotta be Alpha horse in his eyes."
"He has to respect you, no matter what."
"Get after him, make him do it."
You'll hear those words a lot around the horse world, but you sure
*won't* hear them from Mark Rashid. The soft-spoken Colorado horseman
spreads a philosophy that favors partnership instead of dominance,
guidance instead of restraint, support and help instead of correction,
faith instead of fear.
I was privileged to have an opportunity to ride in a private clinic with
Mark Rashid yesterday, held at Virginia Godfrey's gorgeous Rivendell
Farm near Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The clinic included seven
one-hour private sessions in the round pen and a large dressage arena
overlooking a lake and rolling pastures. The setting alone would have
been worth the trip!
The mounts were varied, as were the issues to be addressed. A
2-year-old Oldenburg stallion who had only been backed once before,
needing some good early mileage. Some veteran show-hunters that the
owner wanted to get softer to the aids. A glorious dressage horse and a
carefully raised Warmblood who tended to be spooky. An event horse a
little dull to the leg. A former breeding stallion being rehabilitated
from a history of abuse. The mounts and questions offered a good
sampling of the Rashid philosophy applied to various kinds of issues.
* * * *
"We're having a private clinic with Mark Rashid in October, just by
invitation only," Elise had told me at the Hunt Horse Complex in
September. "We have limited viewing room for auditors, and only a few
slots open for riders, but you're welcome to come."
That day, Elise was showing a two-year-old stallion in hand at the
NCDCTA Sporthorse Breeding show; I was scribing for judge Janet Brown.
She caught me with the invitation en route to the cafeteria when my mind
was everywhere else, and my body and writing hand were expected back on
duty in 15 minutes.
"Thanks, neat," I said, with no real intention of following up, because
I knew the clinician by name only, and I had already overextended my
bosses' patience by scheduling time off for three Buck Brannaman clinics
and one four-day Ray Hunt clinic in six weeks.
But when Jackie sent me her account of Mark Rashid's clinic in England,
in which she rode her sensitive, Welton-bred Meena, I was touched. In
two years of email correspondence, I've considered Jackie to be a
kindred spirit who shares my values in horsemanship and articulates them
better than I ever could. If she found value in this Mark Rashid guy, I
had to check it out.
That's how it came to be that a friend on another continent, whom I've
never met, opened my eyes to an opportunity right in my own backyard,
when my own intuition and understanding failed me. Here's my account,
from a first-timer's perspective, of a day with Mark Rashid.
* * * *
As I was driving home with Chance at the end of the day--alone with my
shallow thoughts since I have no radio in my 27-year-old truck--I tried
to organize my thoughts and impressions from the day, to figure out how
I would catalog it all in my memory.
I have pages and pages of scrawled notes from the day: impressions,
sound bites, actions, little revelations, nuances that revealed bigger
things. My notes are organized chronologically, of course, because I
wrote from 9:00 am to 5:00pm, page one to whatver… but since common
themes ran through all the sessions, I mentally catalogued the day by
themes, rather than horse by horse. So that's how I'll share those
impressions with you.
THEME #1: If you're going to err, err on the side of helping the horse.
This theme recurred in a dozen ways throughout the day, but was most
clearly illustrated in one example: how to deal with a spooky horse.
The conventional "wisdom," probably the dictum most of us were raised
on, was the need to make a horse face up to a shy, to march right up to
the object of his fear and make him stare it down, show him it's
innocent and show him that, well, you can make him. Mark has quite a
different take on it.
"Ten years ago, I'd ride through it," Mark said, referring to trouble
spots when a horse balks at some fearful object or circumstance. "Now
I'd more likely get off and walk her through it. Think about it: She's
acting spooky at something, she's screaming at you, 'I'm really
troubled,' and then do you want to drop her off the deep end anyway?"
Sometimes the best thing is to let it go. If you don't make a big deal
out of it, the horse is likely to figure it is no big deal. Granted,
it's not always necessary to dismount and lead the horse through the
demons, but as Mark put it, "if you're going to err, err on the side of
helping him out."
THEME #2: Horses don't disobey; they obey what we've unknowingly taught
them.
Working on the ground with an Appaloosa gelding that has been pushy with
his owner, Mark pointed out the subtle ways the horse pressured that
personal space between horse and human, and why the "disobedience"
wasn't really what it seemed.
"I don't believe that horses don't respect us," Mark said. "It's not
disrespect, it's just the way he's been taught. He's been told that
it's always been okay to do that, so it's not a matter of loss of
respect."
"You're looking for him to stop when you stop, and to keep the distance
between the two of you consistent, whatever you want that distance to
be," Mark said, inviting the owner to define where she wanted her horse
to be, a matter of personal choice.
When she demonstrated the walk and halt on the lead line, Mark asked us
to watch what the horse did after he committed to the stop with one
foreleg. Did the second foreleg stop behind the first foreleg? Square
up with the first foreleg? An inch ahead? Three inches ahead? That
subtle are the first indications of pushiness, lack of connection, Mark
noted. Sure enough, as the exercise progressed and the handler gently
replaced the horse back a step if he crept up, he was stopping the
second foreleg squared up with the first, or slightly behind. If the
handler got careless even one time, the gelding immediately went back to
three inches of creep instead of squaring up.
In ways as small as this, the horse asks us, "Is it okay if I creep up
on you?" If we're busy thinking of bigger actions, chatting with
friends, or admiring the scenery, we might be saying to the horse,
"Sure, that's okay. I don't mind if you creep up three inches." The
next time, he creeps up three inches twice. Then three inches thrice.
"Pretty soon, you have the horse doing things you don't want him to do,
running into your elbow or passing you by, only it's because you've
allowed him to," Mark said. It appears the horse is being disobedient,
but in fact he is only obeying what we accidentally taught him.
Now, this isn't news to anyone, is it? We all know the aphorism: "Every
time you're with you're horse, you're training him, for better or for
worse." But it can be enlightening to really, truly watch closely and
see how small and subtle are the early indications are that accidental
training is taking place!
What is it when the horse "crowds you?" Most folks think it's when the
horse passes you by or runs you over, Mark said. If you wait until the
behavior is that big, you have to make yourself pretty big to fix it.
Crowding begins with that creepy inch or two forward, and correcting it
at that point is just a matter of reaching gently to the underside of
the horse's halter and stepping him backward a step.
THEME #3: It's more about awareness than about action.
Theme #3 is a natural corollary to the previous theme. If you have
greater awareness of the beginnings of behavior, you don't have to
engage in such big actions to direct the behavior where you want it.
Therefore, Mark was constantly expecting the riders to tune in closely
to nuances that perhaps we'd overlooked before: feeling for that moment
when the horse is setting himself up for a response, rather than the
moment it takes place, or the moment after. You're looking to release
at the first indication of compliance, rather than wait until the
request is fully obliged.
This principle is where I had gone awry with my good-hearted homebred, I
found. Even though Chance is relaxed, comfortable, gentle, I knew he
could be more light off my leg. I brought him to the clinic seeking to
build in some cruise control. I didn't want to feel that when I took my
foot off the gas, the motor would stall. I told Mark that the horse has
been getting great dressage scores (he has), but sometimes it has felt
like pushing a wheelbarrow through mud. Obviously, this syndrome was
invisible to the eye (at least on our good horse trial days!), but I
felt it and so did Chance.
Intuitively, I knew that I should ask with the lightest possible aid,
and release the aid when I got the response, when the life came up.
Intellectually, I'd have told you that was exactly what I was doing all
along. But when challenged to really, really, really put awareness to
the task, I agreed I was releasing the leg a second or two too late, and
sometimes applying the leg out of sync with what I was getting from my
horse.
That meant that when I applied the leg, after he became livelier, what
he heard from me was: "No, increased energy is NOT what I want… oh yea,
maybe it is." Similarly, by habit I often failed to give him the
benefit of the doubt, and assumed he would slow down if I wasn't
vigilant. When you've ridden the horse for years, and perceive him as
needing a lot of leg, it's darned hard to drop that habit and give him
the benefit of the doubt!
We're not talking about a major disconnect--it's still something
dressage judges didn't notice--but when you consider several hundred
opportunities to "converse" with your horse through your legs and seat,
misfiring even half of those times can become a big disconnect to a
sensitive, aware animal.
So, did you get anywhere with it, you ask? Yes! The "less is more"
philosophy--and microscopic attention to timing-- worked like a charm.
Within 20 minutes, Chance was coasting around the arena in a fluid,
ground-covering free walk, no urging or nagging necessary. Between Step
One and Step 10 though, were intermediate achievements. We didn't
expect him to carry an "8" free walk on his own for an entire lap of the
arena right off. At first, I was happy to get three steps before the
energy started to subside. Then grateful for 10 steps. Then amazed at
how he coasted the entire long side of the arena in a better walk than I
had expected, even though I was inviting him to slow to a halt. What a
change, resulting from doing so little. Such a tiny change in HOW I
rode him, producing such a big change in how he rode.
I know what I'd be thinking if, two days ago, someone related this exact
same experience to me. "Big deal," I'd have thought. "Common sense.
It's just good timing and proper use of the aids." That's exactly what
I would have said. Yesterday afternoon, I received a different picture
of what "good timing" and "proper use" really mean. It's a very subtle
distinction that is profoundly received by the horse.
THEME #4: Do less to get more.
"I don't use a lotta tools," Mark noted. "I want the horse to pay
attention to me, not to my tools. That's why all the tools you'll see
me use to train a horse are right there in that bag," he said, pointing
to a duffel bag barely big enough for a trip to the gym.
All we ever saw emerge from the bag was a plain web halter, a web halter
with magnets in the crown, and a rope longe line with a simple brass
snap. Gimmick salesmen would go hungry 'round here.
How do we get results without tools to make ourselves bigger, extend our
reach, overcome our human frailties? By being aware of behaviors when
they are very, very small, offering guidance and support to the horse at
that stage, and not allowing the behaviors to escalate to the point
where tools and gimmicks would seem to be the only way out.
How do we get away with doing less? By releasing more, and releasing
with better timing. For instance, Mark pointed out that one rider, when
using a soft leading rein to reverse direction, kept contact on the rein
even as the horse was turning. "If you keep pulling the rein when he's
starting to turn, he'll start to brace." Release when you get the
response, or else you are breaking the trust.
He asked another rider how many times she tapped her horse to get him
moving past the gate. "Three times," she said. "SEVEN times," Mark
responded. "He was telling you way back there that he understood you
and he started going faster, but you couldn't feel it because your legs
were too busy." Breaking the trust.
Mark's suggestion to squeeze, hold the squeeze until the horse brought
up the energy, then release immediately, was a bit of a change to me.
I'd been taught that a squeeze makes a horse dull to leg, and a lively
leg, a tap rather than a squeeze, was more effective. Not so, according
to Mark. "With a tap, tap, tap, you're rewarding him every time you
take your leg off, which is rewarding him for doing the wrong thing. He
learns from the release."
"Do what it takes, but don't start there," Mark told the group. "I want
to be able to direct the horse with the smallest possible aid-a 1 on a
scale of one to 10. Usually the horse will tell me that's all he
needs. If he needs more, fine, I'll do what it takes, but next time,
I'll start back with the 1."
"You want to be so that it's a little bit from you and you get a lot
from him, that's what we're shooting for."
THEME #5: Look at the whole horse.
With each horse brought before him, Mark looked beyond the obvious and
the explicit behavior, asking questions that put the horse's behavior
into perspective in a holistic context. "What do you feed him?" "Is he
in a pasture with other horses?" "What does he do when you ride him out
of the arena?" "What does he do right before he does that?" "What are
you doing for this horse's hocks?" "We'll watch this scar tissue on his
knee and see if that's bothering him." "How long have you had him?"
"What has been done with him."
The questions were all part of troubleshooting, often yielding clues to
behavioral problems. Of course, if we look at the big picture, there's
always the fear of getting the answers we don't want, like "You're to
blame for this issue," or "Find another job for which this horse is more
physically suited."
"Don't look for the solution, look for the cause," Mark said. "When
you find the cause, you'll have your solution."
THEME #6: Don't think, "Do this, horse" think, "Go with me."
Forwarding a charitable view of the horse as willing partner, Mark
emphasized partnership rather than dominance. When longeing the
two-year-old Oldenburg stallion, for instance, he demonstrated the
subtle but effective difference between driving the horse away from you
versus asking him to connect, mentally, and go with you.
No more scaring the horse around a circle, threatening him with shakes
of the rope or whisks of a whip. Instead, Mark cues the horse by
bringing up the life in his own body, describing a track inside the
horse's track, and communicating a "go with me" message rather than a
"run away from me" message. The stallion responded by moving out with
fluidity, loosening up his tense back, showing a marked increase in
animation in his step and roundness in his topline.
THEME #7: There's a difference between riding ON the horse and riding
WITH the horse.
We've talked about timing, release, awareness, attitude, mutual respect,
helping the horse. Put all this together and you're starting to ride
with the horse rather than on him, by Mark's definition.
It's an intangible concept, but it has a lot of visible manifestations
that should start to give the idea. For instance, it's anticipating the
downward transition and riding the first step of the new gait as it is
developing, rather than getting the downward transition and then
adopting the body posture/rhythm of the new gait.
It's having a clear vision of the response you're seeking, and being
absolutely consistent in guiding the horse to that vision and
appreciating him for reaching it. It's seeking maximum softness in
every interaction with the horse, on and off his back. It's identifying
the most subtle messaging between horse and human, and responding at a
point when you can be very quiet, not waiting until the little messages
become arguments. It's communicating with seat, wherever and whenever
possible, following up with the hands only when necessary.
It's looking for a mental connection with the horse, seeing where his
mind is and responding to that rather than fixating on the physical. "I
need you to move, but how about we pay attention to each other," he said
to the stallion on the other end of the longe line. In that exercise,
running around the handler in circles was not the objective, and neither
was the NH concept of "hooking on" or "join up." Just a connection in
which the horse is engaged in a two-way communication with the human.
With both parties mentally engaged, presumably!
THEME #8: It's not about doing battle; it's about finding a way to get
along.
"People make corrections like they really enjoy doing it," Mark
lamented. "Sometimes people use their horses as a way to take out their
frustrations from work. It shouldn't be that. You're not supposed to
like correcting him."
Mark emphasized finding ways to help the horses to success, rather than
setting him up to fail only to be corrected for it. "He just wants to
get along, and we can help him find a place where we can get along."
"You don't want to be fighting with him," Mark said to a rider whose
horse was pushing out through the bit during the walk-to-halt
transition. What Mark considers to be a human fighting with the horse
is what many/most folks would call the horse bracing against the human.
Sense a different connotation here?
"The softer you're getting, the less brace you're getting from the
horse," he told one rider.
"The arguments are going away, because now we haven't argued with him,"
It did seem that the less the riders did, the more their horses were
open to being asked for more. The horse doesn't shirk working with the
human, just looks for a place where he can get along.
That meant sometimes overlooking a "misbehavior" in the short run for
long-term gain. Consider the example of the tense horse being
rehabilitated from abusive handling in a former life. He just couldn't
stand still to be mounted. Make him stand still, right? Naw, Mark
said. "If he feels he needs to move his fit a bit while you get on,
that's fine for now," Mark told the rider. "The last thing he needs
right now is more pressure." Anyone of us can picture scenarios where
trainers would have made a big issue of making the horse stand still
while being mounted, and made the horse worse for lack of big-picture
understanding.
Mark addressed the horse's tension with small serpentines and circles,
ridden at a loose-rein trot. The circular movements required that the
horse focus on his rider and served to "massage" some of the tension out
of his upside-down neck and back. By the end of the session, the horse
was making gentle explorations into stretching his topline down and
round. The effect was brought about by healing exercises for his mind,
not by fiddling with his head. And certainly not by tie-downs and
side-reins, devices that were likely to blame for the horse's inverted
posture to begin with.
Getting along has a lot to do with earning the horse's trust and giving
him your trust, Mark emphasized. He prefers the concept of "trust" to
the concept of "respect," and works with horses with that mentality,
emphasizing a mutual partnership rather than a domination borne of
respect. Where he did talk about respect, Mark made it clear that it
was valid only to the extent that it was reciprocated. "You're not
going to get respect if you don't give it," Mark said. "It's a two-way
street."
* * * * *
So, you ask, would you recommend attending a clinic with Mark Rashid?
It depends on the person asking, I guess. ;-)
Anyone with a penchant for histrionics will surely go away
disappointed. What Mark does is so quiet and so subtle that he'd be a
sure turn-off for anyone who thinks horse training should be a rodeo.
Folks who brag about how rank their horses are and wear that as a badge
of courage will hate to see their horses hypnotized by such seemingly
self-evident prescriptions as "how to do less to get more."
But folks who want to quietly get along with their horses and offer
their horses the best deal they can… those folks will find affirmation,
new ideas, and a new level of awareness from the soft-spoken cowboy from
Estes Park.
* * * * *
TrinityApp
Interesting post. Where else is Mark headed?
--
Tracy Meisenbach
http://www.users.lynchburg.net/trinityapp/
Updated 10-17-99
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
http://www.stylinontheweb.com/receq/
Horse Diary latest entry 10-17-99
OSGSL
Tallysgal
Sylvana, that was a very well written and interesting post. Thank you.
I was wondering, could you share with me what he had you do to refine your leg
aid and help move your "wheelbarrow" along?
My gelding and I could use the same lesson....he can be lovely when he wants
to, but most of the time I feel I am working too hard. Then I find that I have
developed the terrible habit of "busy" legs. I would love to find a way that
works to keep him "forward" on his own so we can work together.
Thanks. Karen
Sylvana Smith
Thanks a million for posting that URL. I wasn't aware Mark had a Web
site. It is more substantive than many trainers' Web sites I've seen,
with a good bit of philosophy and clinic reports from participants.
I passed mine along for consideration. So thanks! --Sylvana
Jan Flora wrote:
>
> In article <ldvP3.1934$hK6.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "TrinityApp"
> <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote:
>
> >Sylvana,
> >
> >Interesting post. Where else is Mark headed?
>
> He's got a website that probably has clinic dates on it.
>
> http://frii.com/~rockin5r/index.html
>
> He's not only a hand, he's cute :)
>
> Jan
>
> --
> "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
Sylvana Smith
Karen--Howdy! I agree totally with your perspective. As Mark put it,
"We want to get it so that a little bit from us gets us a lot from the
horse." That sounds like a good deal to me! I enjoy that feeling with
Zakarij, Prima, and Roadie, but have felt that quality lacking with
Chance. Cross-country he floats, but in dressage tests I always felt
like the motor would stall if I took my foot off the gas.
For Chance and me, the solution really was as simple and self-evident as
I described in my clinic report. Squeeze when I needed to ask him to
bring up the life, release as he was poised to deliver it. Have total
faith that he will not need to be asked again, until he shows me that he
does. Always start the aid at a Level 1, even though last time it took
a Level 5 or Level 8. Don't squeeze when he is delivering. Don't
release when he isn't.
"It's so simple it's difficult," one participant remarked. Very true!
Describing the activities of the day, it *sounds* so pitifully simple
that readers are likely to say, "Well, like... DUH." Three days ago,
*I* would have said, "Well, like... DUH."
But that's where semantics fail us and only feel and awareness can come
in. The difference was in absolute awareness at a finer level than I
had ever before expected of myself, and coupling that with *absolutely
precise* timing.
The half-second or second of mismatch in the communication between horse
and rider... that teeny, tiny fraction of a moment made all the
difference in making him sensitive or making him dull. Doesn't seem
like it should make that big a difference to this 1,000-lb animal who is
allegedly dumber than a pig, does it? But their body awareness is
really much more acute than we tend to give them credit for.
So, what kinds of things distinguished good timing and awareness versus
the old ways that sounded correct--in fact, even *sounded*
identical--but didn't work as well? Here are some examples:
Did I release my leg when he got livelier, or when I knew he was *going*
to get livelier? Did I put my leg back on after he got sluggish, or
*before* the momentum had dropped so far as to be visible? Did I
accord him absolute faith between reminders, or did I absent-mindedly
niggle him at other times, out of habit? Did I occasionally nudge him
in a rhythm with the stride (very easy to fall into) or only in total
synchronization with what he was delivering?
Precision and awareness made all the difference. As I said in my clinic
report, a very, very tiny difference in HOW I rode him made a BIG
difference in how he rode. I would not have believed it had I not felt
it.
Similarly, a few tiny mistakes here and there caused big, big relapses,
made him dull all over again--at least for a few minutes until I had
"re-established the trust."
I'm not 100 percent there yet. Old habits die hard, for both horse and
human. But we're on track and have a clear vision of what we need to
work on. For that, the day playing hooky from work was well worth it!
--Sylvana
CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT
>"Show him who's boss."
> "You've gotta be Alpha horse in his eyes."
>"He has to respect you, no matter what."
> "Get after him, make him do it."
>
>You'll hear those words a lot around the horse world, but you sure
>*won't* hear them from Mark Rashid.
I still can't see what's so bad about being alpha. It means that you're the
person the horse wants to follow; and for him to trust you, you must be
trustworthy. It has nothing to do with 'making the horse do something'
>The conventional "wisdom," probably the dictum most of us were raised
>on, was the need to make a horse face up to a shy, to march right up to
>the object of his fear and make him stare it down, show him it's
>innocent and show him that, well, you can make him.
For *some* horses it's the right way of dealing with monsters. A friend of mine
has a youngster who by now walks up to anything he finds scary, pokes his nose
at it, and walks past. She just sits there and grins. Other horses are better
if you stay in their comfort zone and avoid the monster. It depends.
>When she demonstrated the walk and halt on the lead line, Mark asked us
>to watch what the horse did after he committed to the stop with one
>foreleg. Did the second foreleg stop behind the first foreleg? Square
>up with the first foreleg? An inch ahead? Three inches ahead? That
>subtle are the first indications of pushiness, lack of connection,
On the other hand, you can overdo everything. I shall *not* go out and examione
every minute action as to whether it's a sign of disobedience. I don't think
that taking everything as an infringement of my alphatude is a good idea,
because all it does is tell the horse that I'm not very secure in my position.
A square (or unsquare) halt is also a matter of balance. It might also be an
indicator of a slight off-ness (not enough to call it a lameness) - if a horse
who usually halts square suddenly leaves a foot behind, it's something to note.
>Therefore, Mark was constantly expecting the riders to tune in closely
>to nuances that perhaps we'd overlooked before: feeling for that moment
>when the horse is setting himself up for a response, rather than the
>moment it takes place, or the moment after. You're looking to release
>at the first indication of compliance, rather than wait until the
>request is fully obliged. =
Well, doh. It's nice to hear that someone is finally coming around to
acknowledge that, instead of stating categorically that you only release when
the horse does what you wanted him to. You need to give him the room to act.
*Expect* that the horse will comply. Don't leave your aids on just in case he
might not. He'll do what you expected him to.
>"Do what it takes, but don't start there," Mark told the group. "I want
>to be able to direct the horse with the smallest possible aid-a 1 on a
>scale of one to 10. Usually the horse will tell me that's all he
>needs. If he needs more, fine, I'll do what it takes, but next time,
>I'll start back with the 1."
If you want the horse to react to light aids, give light aids. It's that
simple.
>It's having a clear vision of the response you're seeking, and being
>absolutely consistent in guiding the horse to that vision and
>appreciating him for reaching it.
I think this is a crucial point, and it explains why schoolmasters are so
important, respectively why a green rider shouldn't try to school a green
horse. If the rider doesn't know where the horse should be going, how *can* he
communicate that to the horse?
>"The softer you're getting, the less brace you're getting from the
>horse," he told one rider.
>"The arguments are going away, because now we haven't argued with him,"
I takes two to fight?
>Consider the example of the tense horse being
>rehabilitated from abusive handling in a former life. He just couldn't
>stand still to be mounted. Make him stand still, right?
No - solve the problem of standing still as soon as you can.
>Naw, Mark
>said. "If he feels he needs to move his fit a bit while you get on,
>that's fine for now," Mark told the rider. "The last thing he needs
>right now is more pressure." Anyone of us can picture scenarios where
>trainers would have made a big issue of making the horse stand still
>while being mounted, and made the horse worse for lack of big-picture
>understanding.
Not standing still while mounting is *dangerous*. Unless the horse is a rehab
case, and there is *controlled* movement during the rehab process (which means
that someone else leads the horse) I don't think that it's something you should
take lightly. Much easier to mount from a block...
Catja
and Billy
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>He's not only a hand, he's cute :)
And his books are quite good.
jrw
cdhoward
>
> And his books are quite good.
I was disappointed to miss him here....but...the BIG family
farm/church/neighborhood fall whoo haaa was here on the same weekend...
CRAP!!!
if a certain gruop of shetlands had not been promised to the event held
here at our farm(by the inlaws) I'd have skipped the whole mess....
next time however I'll be there...
Tamara in TN
hating she missed the Rogersville show....
AlaTmPnr
>I think this is a crucial point, and it explains why schoolmasters are so
important, respectively why a green rider shouldn't try to school a green
horse. If the rider doesn't know where the horse should be going, how *can* he
communicate that to the horse?
What are your thoughts on same level horse and same level rider attempting the
next levels? The above would seem to counter that.
Bill
Jane H. Kilberg
ALEXANDRA PAFORT) wrote:
(snipped more)
>Sylvana wrote (snips along the way, plenty of):
>
>>"Show him who's boss."
>> "You've gotta be Alpha horse in his eyes."
>>"He has to respect you, no matter what."
>> "Get after him, make him do it."
>>
>>You'll hear those words a lot around the horse world, but you sure
>>*won't* hear them from Mark Rashid.
>
>
>I still can't see what's so bad about being alpha. It means that you're the
>person the horse wants to follow; and for him to trust you, you must be
>trustworthy. It has nothing to do with 'making the horse do something'
It isn't bad. Rashid might use different words to convey the same thing
such as leader, or guide, or head honcho, or boss hoss, or top dog.
Perhaps he uses expressions such as "horse's acceptance of the person" or
"willingness of the horse to follow." All convey same idea, just in
different ways. And Rashid shouldn't be any different than any other good
trainer or person who rides or handles horses.
>>The conventional "wisdom," probably the dictum most of us were raised
>>on, was the need to make a horse face up to a shy, to march right up to
>>the object of his fear and make him stare it down, show him it's
>>innocent and show him that, well, you can make him.
>
>For *some* horses it's the right way of dealing with monsters.
>It depends.
I agree it depends. And marching up and stare down the fear certainly
wasn't the only way I was "raised on" as a kiddo. The traditional way I
was taught included several methods: getting horse's attention on the
rider/handler; don't make a big deal out of a spook are the two main
things.
>>You're looking to release
>>at the first indication of compliance, rather than wait until the
>>request is fully obliged. =
>
>Well, doh. It's nice to hear that someone is finally coming around to
>acknowledge that, instead of stating categorically that you only release when
>the horse does what you wanted him to.
Release is probably the most common problem with riders and handlers.
People just don't know when to release. That release is almost
instantaneous after a cue is given. So if someone puts on leg pressure,
don't just leave it there - release!!!
>>"Do what it takes, but don't start there," Mark told the group. "I want
>>to be able to direct the horse with the smallest possible aid-a 1 on a
>>scale of one to 10.
>If you want the horse to react to light aids, give light aids. It's that
>simple.
And release!! <SEG>
down the spotted trails. . . in the great nation of Tejas
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
member: ApHC, Montgomery County Adult Horse Committee
editor/publisher: Appaloosa Network
Laura Friedman
>
> Sylvana wrote (snips along the way, plenty of):
>
> > "You've gotta be Alpha horse in his eyes."
> >"He has to respect you, no matter what."
> > "Get after him, make him do it."
> >
> >You'll hear those words a lot around the horse world, but you sure
> >*won't* hear them from Mark Rashid.
>
> person the horse wants to follow; and for him to trust you, you must be
> trustworthy. It has nothing to do with 'making the horse do something'
I can give you some insight on this.
I saw Rashid lecture in LA, and he spent most of the time addressing
this issue.
He feels that alpha horses are basically those who bully the other
horses into doing what they want. He claims that they are the boss
horses, but that the rest of the herd doesn't want to hang out with
those horses or be their companions they way they do an equal, and
Rashid doesn't want that kind of relationship with his horse.
He claims that there is another kind of horse in the herd, being the
passive leader. These horses basically do their own thing, and don't
threaten others. But the other horses kinda follow them around and seem
to feel comforated by their presence. This is the kind of leader Rashid
wants to be to his horse.
I haven't spent enough time watching herds to know if these creatures
really exist the way he claims or whether it's some kind of touchy-feely
view of herd dynamics. But this is why Rashid steers people away from
the alpha horse model of horsemanship.
Laura & Squiggles (who I rode twice this week for the first time in a
month and found her just as mellow and willing as she was when I left,
but quite a bit fuzzier with her winter coat in just in time for our 95
degree heat wave)
TrinityApp
-- > What are your thoughts on same level horse and same level rider
attempting the
> next levels? The above would seem to counter that.
>
I would look at the level. Saying green on green is level one. At level two
you have beginner on beginner and so on. At level four you have competent
and competent so I would say they could traverse the narrow chasm of the
next level fine BUT they will go slower than say a level six rider on a
level 3 horse or a level 4 rider on a level seven horse. Its always easier
to learn if someone, either the horse or rider can show the way.
Also it helps to work with someone above you in skill level and view things
from the ground. (Also to possible film it in case you could win that
$10,000.00)
AlaTmPnr
>Also it helps to work with someone above you in skill level and view things
from the ground. (Also to possible film it in case you could win that
$10,000.00)
I am a great believer in video. It never lies and is completely objective. It
is sometimes a cruel judge LOL.
Bill<who wants $10,000.00 but knows it aint gonna happen>
CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT
>>>It's having a clear vision of the response you're seeking, and being
>>>absolutely consistent in guiding the horse to that vision and
>>>appreciating him for reaching it.
>>I think this is a crucial point, and it explains why schoolmasters are so
>>important, respectively why a green rider shouldn't try to school a green
>>horse. If the rider doesn't know where the horse should be going, how *can*
>>he communicate that to the horse?
>
>What are your thoughts on same level horse and same level rider attempting the
>next levels? The above would seem to counter that.
Where do you see a counterindication? If the *rider* doesn't know how the horse
should move, and the horse has no idea what the rider wants from him, then how
*could* one show the other? If a rider who has never experienced a high degree
of collection for instance wants a green horse to collect, where would he
start? Usually by fiddling with the reins and shortening the frame of the
horse. True, the collected horse *will* move in a shortened frame - but he
won't be collected BECAUSE of it. The rider OTOH who knows what collection
feels like, and how to get a gymnasticiced horse to collect, will be able to
start reciproking the same actions, the same feelings, with the greener horse.
He already knows where he's going, and he can shape the horse with his seat.
There you go, long hand for Sylvana's post.
Catja
and Billy
Jackie
wrote:
>Sylvana wrote (snips along the way, plenty of):
>
>>"Show him who's boss."
>> "You've gotta be Alpha horse in his eyes."
>>"He has to respect you, no matter what."
>> "Get after him, make him do it."
>>
>>You'll hear those words a lot around the horse world, but you sure
>>*won't* hear them from Mark Rashid.
>
>
>I still can't see what's so bad about being alpha.
Don't worry - Mark has a new book out next spring called
"Horses Never Lie: The Heart of Passive Leadership"
But I'll give you a clue meanwhile - the more talking you do, the less
you deepen the skill of listening. Horses engaged in a dialogue are
far softer and more willing than horses subjected to a monologue -
Mark's value is in his ability to show riders just how much subtle
equine communication they are missing.
> I shall *not* go out and examione
>every minute action as to whether it's a sign of disobedience. I don't think
>that taking everything as an infringement of my alphatude is a good idea,
You see where your alpha idea gets you stuck? "every minute action" is
COMMUNICATION by the horse, communication which you have decided to
ignore. Hmm, bet that feels nice to a horse.
>Well, doh. It's nice to hear that someone is finally coming around to
>acknowledge that, instead of stating categorically that you only release when
>the horse does what you wanted him to. You need to give him the room to act.
>*Expect* that the horse will comply.
No, you simply need to perceive his response earlier. Your way is not
communicating - it is guessing.
>>"The arguments are going away, because now we haven't argued with him,"
>
>I takes two to fight?
No again - it takes two to hold a dialogue.
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>>Subject: Mark Rashid Clinic Report--Chapel Hill (Really Long)
>
>Sylvana, that was a very well written and interesting post. Thank you.
>
>I was wondering, could you share with me what he had you do to refine your leg
>aid and help move your "wheelbarrow" along?
>My gelding and I could use the same lesson....he can be lovely when he wants
>to, but most of the time I feel I am working too hard. Then I find that I have
>developed the terrible habit of "busy" legs. I would love to find a way that
>works to keep him "forward" on his own so we can work together.
I would say go back to square one, stop concentrating on 'talking'
with your legs and start listening for the horses response. Whisper,
and then really listen for his response, release at his first whisper,
and he will be encouraged that you finally heard him, and offer more.
What you will probably find is you ignored his response, carried on
talking, got in the way - and so he gave up trying.
Hold in your mind that he is trying to do as you ask, but you are
preventing him - give him the benefit of the doubt, believe in him,
and he'll come through.
Jackie
John Hasler
> I haven't spent enough time watching herds to know if these creatures
> really exist the way he claims or whether it's some kind of touchy-feely
> view of herd dynamics.
It's a slight improvement over the common "pecking order" view, but still a
gross oversimplification. Predictably, it is being used as an excuse.
Most horses are easily dominated, but it is still an essential step in
training them.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
jo...@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Julia Green
TrinityApp wrote in message ...
>Sylvana,
>
>Interesting post. Where else is Mark headed?
>
I know he's going to be in the Frederick, Maryland area this weekend--I'm
going as an auditor on Sunday.
Julia
Callen Molenda
Callen
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>On 21 Oct 1999 16:08:30 GMT, ca...@aber.ac.uk (CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT)
>wrote:
>>I still can't see what's so bad about being alpha.
>But I'll give you a clue meanwhile - the more talking you do, the less
>you deepen the skill of listening.
One doesn't have to be obscure in relaying information. All it means is -
don't nag the dang horse. Give the dang cue and release - don't nag and
don't prolong the cue forever when the horse is trying its dangest to
figure out what you want. To encourage the horse to keep trying - release
- release - release instead of cue, cue, cue, cue over and over without a
release.
>> I shall *not* go out and examione
>>every minute action as to whether it's a sign of disobedience. I don't think
>>that taking everything as an infringement of my alphatude is a good idea,
>
>You see where your alpha idea gets you stuck? "every minute action" is
>COMMUNICATION by the horse, communication which you have decided to
>ignore.
Not all communications by a horse requires response by the rider/handler.
However, that doesn't mean to forgo alpha otherwise the horse simply
ignores the person if it doesn't consider the human
alpha/leader/guide/boss hoss or whatever term you want to use.
>>Well, doh. It's nice to hear that someone is finally coming around to
>>acknowledge that, instead of stating categorically that you only release when
>>the horse does what you wanted him to. You need to give him the room to act.
>>*Expect* that the horse will comply.
>
>No, you simply need to perceive his response earlier.
I always expect a horse to comply with my cue. If I don't then the horse
doesn't need to comply. There is an old show saying that goes something
like this - "If you expect to win, you will put in your best performance.
If you expect to only take 10th place, you'll take 10th place."
So when I cue a horse to go forward, I expect that horse to go forward. If
it is a young horse just under saddle, the horse may take a second or two
to respond. This is fine the horse did exactly as I expected. As training
proceeds, the horse becomes quicker in response to the cue.
Jane H. Kilberg
(snipped parts)
>CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT wrote:
>> I still can't see what's so bad about being alpha. It means that you're the
>> person the horse wants to follow; and for him to trust you, you must be
>> trustworthy. It has nothing to do with 'making the horse do something'
>I saw Rashid lecture in LA, and he spent most of the time addressing
>this issue.
>
>He feels that alpha horses are basically those who bully the other
>horses into doing what they want. He claims that they are the boss
>horses, but that the rest of the herd doesn't want to hang out with
>those horses or be their companions they way they do an equal, and
>Rashid doesn't want that kind of relationship with his horse.
There are probably "bossy" type alpha mares around, but the best alpha
mares are those who don't use much pressure to keep the herd in-tact, who
guide and teach the others. As for hanging out with alpha mares, a good
alpha mare is always hanging out with the other herd members. Other herd
members do look to the alpha mare for guidance.
>He claims that there is another kind of horse in the herd, being the
>passive leader. These horses basically do their own thing, and don't
>threaten others.
Within each herd there are mini-herds. "Threats" by a horse are generally
when there is an infraction by another. One sees this with every horse in
the herd - even the omega horse. What form that "threat" takes can vary
depending on the horses involved and the situation at hand. It isn't a
case of one rule fits all.
>But the other horses kinda follow them around and seem
>to feel comforated by their presence.
This is not uncommon with a good alpha mare of the herd either.
Kris Carroll
> There are probably "bossy" type alpha mares around, but the best alpha
> mares are those who don't use much pressure to keep the herd in-tact, who
> guide and teach the others. As for hanging out with alpha mares, a good
> alpha mare is always hanging out with the other herd members. Other herd
> members do look to the alpha mare for guidance.
Yeah but that definition makes the alpha mare like Mom while the kids get
to have all the fun. Though it explains better why the rest leave her
alone to do her job. I prefer to establish Happy Valley where everyone can
relax. <G>
Kris
Julia Green
door.
HIs website: http://www.frii.com/~rockin5r/
Julia
Jorene Downs
Joyce Reynolds-Ward <j...@aracnet.com> wrote
> And his books are quite good.
I hear Mark Rashid now has 3 books out?
--
Jorene
just moseyin' down the trail on a Paint horse
from the CEOates Ranch in California ... ;)
www.CEOates.com
meet other Rec.eq'ers on the Rogue's Gallery:
www.psnw.com/~jcdowns/RecEq/RecEq.html
Jorene Downs
Laura Friedman <Lfri...@nospam.net> wrote
> CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT wrote:
> >
> > Sylvana wrote (snips along the way, plenty of):
> >
> > > "You've gotta be Alpha horse in his eyes."
> > >"He has to respect you, no matter what."
> > > "Get after him, make him do it."
> > >
> > >You'll hear those words a lot around the horse world, but you sure
> > >*won't* hear them from Mark Rashid.
> >
the
> > person the horse wants to follow; and for him to trust you, you must be
> > trustworthy. It has nothing to do with 'making the horse do something'
I think the use of "alpha" is a matter of definition, and Rashid is
providing that "be less aggressive" definition to make a good point ...
assuming that people don't take it wrong and think that there is *never* any
situation where the human should show some degree of aggression around the
horse. This is like using "punishment" or "correction" when people could be
meaning the same thing but the word "punishment" has stronger negative and
physical connotations. Alpha is still alpha ... there are just many ways to
go about it. ;)
> I can give you some insight on this.
>
> I saw Rashid lecture in LA, and he spent most of the time addressing
> this issue.
>
> He feels that alpha horses are basically those who bully the other
> horses into doing what they want. [...]
"Bully" describes some of the alpha horses. Our alpha horse is a gelding,
and he is insistent and aggressive about his position ... but always has
several horses hanging around with him. The lower pecking order horses who
cater to him quickly do well with him. There are certain horses I don't put
in with this gelding because I'm guaranteeing a physical discussion about
the aggression of the gelding ... who always wins, and leaves his mark. So I
suspect Rashid is using this "bully" example to demonstrate that being the
herd boss doesn't mean you always need to get physical or confrontational
about being the boss.
> He claims that there is another kind of horse in the herd, being the
> passive leader. [...]
I think what Rashid may be describing is simply the alpha horse who provides
leadership more with a sense of presence rather than spend a lot of time
involved in physical discussions. We have several alpha mares in the herd
sub-system who demonstrate this leadership style quite well. If you don't
know what to look for, sometimes it isn't obvious which is the leader.
This is the kind of alpha that I think a good many of the posters refer to.
Most of this is accomplished using body language. The "I'm the boss" only
gets expressed when subtle warnings are being ignored, and then the alpha's
correction level may start with nothing more than pinned ears. In the case
of the human, this might be just taking a more aggressive stance or making a
sound to get the horse's attention.
This relationship is rather like a Team effort, but the horse also needs to
know there is a Team Leader who can / will pull rank when necessary. It is
somehow subtle to detect, but in the herd there is *always* a pecking order.
If the human isn't higher than the horse in the pecking order, the horse
will assume he is the boss because the human hasn't taught him otherwise.
> I haven't spent enough time watching herds to know if these creatures
> really exist the way he claims or whether it's some kind of touchy-feely
> view of herd dynamics. But this is why Rashid steers people away from
> the alpha horse model of horsemanship.
What Rashid describes is a whole lot closer than a lot of the "gotta be
alpha" explanations I've heard. He certainly gets the point across that the
being alpha is not intended to mean a "bully" type. By avoiding using the
word "alpha" he avoids the potential for misinterpretation. But it is a bit
confusing in the herd environment where there is always an alpha horse ...
and that alpha horse is often not a bully type. Depends on the herd, depends
on the horse. ;)
Jorene Downs
Sylvana Smith <sylv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:380F296C...@nospam.com...
> Tallysgal wrote:
> >
> > >Subject: Mark Rashid Clinic Report--Chapel Hill (Really Long)
> >
> > Sylvana, that was a very well written and interesting post. Thank you.
> >
> > I was wondering, could you share with me what he had you do to refine
your leg
[...]
> For Chance and me, the solution really was as simple and self-evident as
> I described in my clinic report. Squeeze when I needed to ask him to
> bring up the life, release as he was poised to deliver it. Have total
> faith that he will not need to be asked again, until he shows me that he
> does. Always start the aid at a Level 1, even though last time it took
> a Level 5 or Level 8. Don't squeeze when he is delivering. Don't
> release when he isn't.
[...]
What you describe is very much in keeping with the best Western style of
riding. Quality cues instead of quantity. Finesse and timing. Good
description of the details, Sylvana. From various posters previously
mentioning Mark Rashid, he sounded like a horseman worth listening to. Your
more specific comments tell me he is where many of the NHers would like to
be. ;)
Sounds like a Mark Rashid clinic is something I'd like to see. I checked
his schedule and he'll be S/E of Sacramento the weekend of Nov 6-7. The
dates conflict with the Cow Palace, but I'll investigate ...
Jane H. Kilberg
kcar...@horse-country.com (Kris Carroll) wrote:
An alpha mare isn't always "on guard" or working to keep the herd
together. Remember, there are mini herds within. The herd alpha doesn't
respond to everything that occurs. And yeah - she has "fun" too.
Jane H. Kilberg
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
(snipped parts)
>Laura Friedman <Lfri...@nospam.net> wrote
>> He feels that alpha horses are basically those who bully the other
>> horses into doing what they want. [...]
>
>"Bully" describes some of the alpha horses. Our alpha horse is a gelding,
>and he is insistent and aggressive about his position ... but always has
>several horses hanging around with him. The lower pecking order horses who
>cater to him quickly do well with him. There are certain horses I don't put
>in with this gelding because I'm guaranteeing a physical discussion about
>the aggression of the gelding ... who always wins, and leaves his mark. So I
>suspect Rashid is using this "bully" example to demonstrate that being the
>herd boss doesn't mean you always need to get physical or confrontational
>about being the boss.
And your gelding isn't always aggressive or always being a "bully" either! <SEG>
Laura Friedman
>
> Sounds like a Mark Rashid clinic is something I'd like to see. I checked
> his schedule and he'll be S/E of Sacramento the weekend of Nov 6-7. The
> dates conflict with the Cow Palace, but I'll investigate ...
>
you come down?
Laura
Tallysgal
more "forward":
>the solution really was as simple and self-evident as
>I described in my clinic report. Squeeze when I needed to ask him to
>bring up the life, release as he was poised to deliver it.
<snip details>
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed explaination for me. I
am going to print it up and take it to the barn. Next ride, we have a new
exercise to work on.
It is funny how you mentioned your horse just floats during the cross country
and dies in the dressage ring. Yesterday on our trail ride, my "lazy" one was
doing the coolest trot...almost a piaffe....such collection and self carriage
and impulsion...I didn't ask for it (don't know how) but I enjoyed it. I let
him trot like that for about 1/4 mile with no driving aids at all. If only he
could be such a show off in the schooling ring or the show ring...that would be
fun to work with.
Karen...with two totally opposite beasties..one who is teaching her the power
and purpose of the "half-halt" and the other who comes to a dead halt at the
slightest hint of a half-halt.
John Hasler
> ...in the herd there is *always* a pecking order.
"Pecking order" implies a strict hierarchy. It isn't that simple.
Jackie
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
> Alpha is still alpha ... there are just many ways to
>go about it. ;)
I don't think Mark's simile actually fully describes how he is with a
horse, only maybe the first step in attitude change needed to get
there...hopefully his new book will go further. In many ways he
actually allows a horse far more say that any alpha model would
suggest, demands far less, and is given far more in return.
>Most of this is accomplished using body language. The "I'm the boss" only
>gets expressed when subtle warnings are being ignored,
Ah, that is the point - only totally in reverse.
> In the case
>of the human, this might be just taking a more aggressive stance
If things have escalated to the point where an aggressive stance or
noise is 'necessary' it is mostly because the subtle communication has
been ignored, unresponded to, BY THE HUMAN. If the human is consistent
in seeing/feeling/responding to the subtlest communication from the
horse, he need not use more than the subtlest communication in
response. The whole thing becomes an invisible dance.
If the human furthermore learns to 'hear' the subtlest whispered
question, and I mean subtle, the horse will never have to shout one.
Consistency is the key - consistency in listening and responding TO
the horse - not in solely getting the horse to do all the listening,
and all the responding.
That requires a humility - and one that is not to be found in mindset
of 'I am the boss'. If the horse is a partner, then his view must be
given more consideration, and the more consideration is given, the
more is given back. Anyone who assumes that view will be antagonistic,
or rebellious, is used to a horse who has been unheard until he is
forced to yell.
Most horses don't want to be a leader - and as Tom D noted - most ARE
looking for an ally. The kind of leadership Mark too demonstrates is
one of consistency in listening - and the horses feel remarkably
secure and relaxed with that in a very short space of time.
It is our awareness they want - not our strength.
>If the human isn't higher than the horse in the pecking order, the horse
>will assume he is the boss because the human hasn't taught him otherwise.
And yet if the human is always concerned with being the boss, he will
never become the ally. Partnership involves 'give', as well as 'take'
- if unity is the goal, at some stage the human has to get down off
his high horse and offer something more interactive, start to really
consider the horse.
Jackie
Jackie
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
>Joyce Reynolds-Ward <j...@aracnet.com> wrote
>> And his books are quite good.
>
>I hear Mark Rashid now has 3 books out?
No, the third is due out in the spring.
Jackie
Jorene Downs
Laura Friedman <Lfri...@nospam.net> wrote
Wish I could, Laura - I'd like to see you again and get a Squiggles update
in person. <g> (Hope you go, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the rider
slots are already booked so you may only have an audit option.) But that
first November weekend is the only one I don't have already have something
confirmed on my calendar. Haven't invested in any Cow Palace tickets yet, so
that gives me the option to go elsewhere. And that clinic - @ 4 hours
drive - is convenient because I could combine the trip with other business
if I head north.
Hmmm. Think I'll suggest to Shari's barn that they get in touch with Mark
Rashid about a clinic in Bakersfield for 2000. Much more convenient for me.
<g> They're looking for more quality horsemen to put on clinics. Richard
Shrake was there a few weekends ago and I had to pass because I had a
conflict ...
Does this sound like I need to throw away my Palm Pilot and get a life???
LOL!
Jorene Downs
Jane H. Kilberg <jkil...@mcia.com> wrote
> <Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
> (snipped parts)
> >"Bully" describes some of the alpha horses. Our alpha horse is a
gelding,
> >and he is insistent and aggressive about his position ... but always has
> >several horses hanging around with him. The lower pecking order horses
who
> >cater to him quickly do well with him. There are certain horses I don't
put
> >in with this gelding because I'm guaranteeing a physical discussion about
> >the aggression of the gelding ... who always wins, and leaves his mark.
So I
> >suspect Rashid is using this "bully" example to demonstrate that being
the
> >herd boss doesn't mean you always need to get physical or confrontational
> >about being the boss.
>
> And your gelding isn't always aggressive or always being a "bully" either!
<SEG>
Good point! Slick is also the first horse we reach for to toss in the
trailer for mountain riding, Posse parades, and Search And Rescue. Glad to
have the ex-ranch horse around when local cattle escape, too ... ;)
Remember Christi's wild ride in the mountains packing supplies in when
Pretty Girl was injured 3+ years ago? Same horse. We also pulled Slick out
when my mother - very non-horsey - got this wild idea that she should ride
a horse for her 79th birthday a year ago. Good Ol' Slick stood like a rock
while we hoisted Mom on board, then patiently ambled around the round pen
with his grinning passenger. Gave a couple of cousins from Holland a "first
horse ride" on him that same day. Jade has done a few rounds on Slick's
back, too, but Jade is eager to plop on the back of any horse we're willing
to lift her up to ... LOL!
Slick has fooled us a couple of times, too. We had a yearling colt around
who hadn't been cut yet because he was still being considered as a stud.
That youngster was starting to get a little full of himself, so we plopped
him in with the old man to teach him some manners. Darned if Slick didn't
get a charge out of *playing* with that colt instead! We shifted the colt
in with a few preggie alpha mares who didn't tolerate his nonsense ... ;)
Jorene Downs
John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote ...
> Jorene writes:
> > ...in the herd there is *always* a pecking order.
>
> "Pecking order" implies a strict hierarchy. It isn't that simple.
Not gonna let me get by with that, eh? LOL!
You're right though, and I should explain more clearly since not everyone
has the advantage of daily observation of a herd's activities, much less
interaction with that herd.
"Pecking order" is the convenient description that doesn't address the
complexities. Not only are there subsets within the herd, but status within
the herd is often subject to change, particularly at the lower levels. It
also gets confusing when you start moving horses around and discover an
otherwise alpha horse just dumped way down in the hierarchy in a different
mix ... and sometimes a horse is under horse X yet alpha over one that horse
X yields to.
An example of a not-real-common herd situation ...
When I put the #2 gelding in with a few alpha mares, they treat him like a
King even though he never so much as twitches an ear to indicate he thinks
he should have that slot. He simply accepts the status they offer. The mares
don't hesitate to share a flake with him on dry lot when they'd run off - or
yield to - any other horse (with limited exceptions). Nor will they share
with any of the other geldings. And that #2 will run off the #3 gelding, but
not the mares who for some reason crowned him King. This situation changes
the instant the alpha gelding / herd boss enters the picture. Yep, herd
structure can not only be a moving target, but sometimes things happen you
don't expect and can't easily explain ... ;)
The herd situations can get complex trying to sort out current status. As
long as the human stays at the top of the heap with each horse, a lot of
problems are avoided in the individual handling as well as when wandering in
the herd. Lack of leader status can in some instances actually be hazardous
to the human with the individual horse or within the herd.
I'm yawning, going brain dead. Did I miss anything pertinent, John, or will
you let me pass with this brief summary? <g> Perhaps we could take a
virtual walk through the herd another time and anticipate and prevent some
misbehavior in the herd using only body language and a few audibles? There
are several posters who could contribute some handy tips on this new thread.
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:46:11 -0700, "Jorene Downs"
><Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>>Most of this is accomplished using body language. The "I'm the boss" only
>>gets expressed when subtle warnings are being ignored,
>
>Ah, that is the point - only totally in reverse.
>
>> In the case
>>of the human, this might be just taking a more aggressive stance
>
>If things have escalated to the point where an aggressive stance or
>noise is 'necessary' it is mostly because the subtle communication has
>been ignored, unresponded to, BY THE HUMAN.
This is fine for a horse who has a handle on it and a good goal to
achieve. In working with a horse who is in the beginning stages, it all
depends on the situation, and the individual horse. One cannot make one
rule for all situations. To do so is folly.
Of course, one should listen and respond prior to things getting out of
hand, but then not all situations call for subtlety. Some do, some don't.
An easy example to understand is a foal. One usually has to exaggerate
initial contact so it is very clear to the foal. Being subtle easily gets
ignored. Once the connection is made, then one can go subtle.
>Consistency is the key - consistency in listening and responding TO
>the horse - not in solely getting the horse to do all the listening,
>and all the responding.
In all handling or riding, one should always pay attention to the horse as
much, if not more than the horse needing to pay attention to the
handler/rider.
>If the horse is a partner, then his view must be
>given more consideration, and the more consideration is given, the
>more is given back.
The horse's job is to do what I want to do, which makes it more of a
subordinate than that of a supervisor or even a partner in the decision
making process. Paying attention to the horse enables the person to
develop communication cues that work nicely with that horse.
>It is our awareness they want - not our strength.
Treat a horse in kind.
>>If the human isn't higher than the horse in the pecking order, the horse
>>will assume he is the boss because the human hasn't taught him otherwise.
>And yet if the human is always concerned with being the boss, he will
>never become the ally.
I'm not concerned with being the boss, I am. The horses I deal with pay
attention to me, and I pay attention to them. Why? Because of how I
present myself to the horse in action and presence. It is automatic with
me. I expect a horse to do what I ask. If the horse begins to refuse, I
work accordingly to the situation and the individual horse being
consistent, fair yet firm and treating the horse in kind. It's that
simple. One has to learn to think Horse 101 and the rest falls into place.
TrinityApp
-- > He feels that alpha horses are basically those who bully the other
> horses into doing what they want. He claims that they are the boss
> horses, but that the rest of the herd doesn't want to hang out with
> those horses or be their companions they way they do an equal, and
> Rashid doesn't want that kind of relationship with his horse
This is so weird that you posted this!
I just had a herd leader change. For the first time in 8 years Smartie is
not the alpha mare. The new mare Chica, after two weeks in the side pen, was
moved into the big pasture. Up until food time the herd hierarchy seemed the
same. At feeding time Chica took Smartie's buckets. Freaked me out because
Smartie has had the first bucket since we got her. Smartie got bumped down
to bucket 2 and so on down the line. Chica however does not rule the herd,
they stay near Smartie, who has never been a bully, just a calm quite mare.
AND once away from food Chica is quiet and doesn't trouble the other mares.
Its been enlightening to watch.
Tracy Meisenbach
http://www.users.lynchburg.net/trinityapp/
Updated 10-17-99
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
http://www.stylinontheweb.com/receq/
Horse Diary latest entry 10-17-99
OSGSL
Jorene Downs
Jackie <JJ...@dial.pipex.com> wrote ...
> <Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
re: the subtle alpha / herd leader
> >Most of this is accomplished using body language. The "I'm the boss"
only
> >gets expressed when subtle warnings are being ignored,
>
> Ah, that is the point - only totally in reverse.
Huh? I was describing the activity in a herd, where if the more subtle alpha
horse sends a message and the other horse doesn't respond, the alpha horse
sends a less subtle message. As I indicated in the part of the sentence you
snipped, this may mean escalating to ear pinning. The more subtle body
language that was ignored may have been a minor adjustment in stance or tail
swish. This example was to contrast the "bully" type alpha who is more
likely to start with the pinned ears and escalate rapidly with teeth or
hooves.
> > In the case
> >of the human, this might be just taking a more aggressive stance
>
> If things have escalated to the point where an aggressive stance or
> noise is 'necessary' it is mostly because the subtle communication has
> been ignored, unresponded to, BY THE HUMAN.
You completely missed the context, Jackie. I was responding to discussion of
the actions of the alpha horse as demonstrated in the herd, recommending
subtle as better for the human to use as an example ... apparently agreeing
with Mark Rashid. And I suspect you're reacting to the term "more
aggressive stance" without understanding my version of escalation to that
status. Sorry, I figured an example with pinned ears as an *escalation*
would show that nobody was launching an immediate war, just being more
obvious about expecting an appropriate response. ;)
Yes, you definitely need to pay attention to the horse's subtle messages -
tough to have 2-way communication if you're not listening. <g> This is an
important point and should be fundamental to any dealings with any horse.
Sometimes referred to on rec.eq as Horse 101. But you also want that horse
responding to your own messages or there is no real conversation. If the
horse is ignoring a message you send - and yes, you can tell if the horse
just didn't notice, didn't understand, or if he has chosen to not respond -
then the human needs to do something different to ensure the message gets
across correctly. Otherwise you have a serious failure to communicate caused
by the human. This "ignoring the human" is typically related to the
established human-horse hierarchy since the horse is far less likely to be
inclined to pay any attention to the messages from a "lower in the herd"
status human.
If, like in my prior example, the human's message to the horse is being
ignored, the "more aggressive stance" may mean leaning toward the horse and
perhaps something audible to encourage the eye to turn your direction.
Leaning toward the horse using particular body language is considered a
"more aggressive stance" by the horse because it indicates you are
escalating. The more subtle message might be a shifted shoulder angle.
Graduate or modify as required, depending on how you read the horse's
response to your actions. Once you have the horse's attention, resend the
original message and carry on depending on the horse's response.
The first step is to open the communication avenues and pay attention to
what the horse is saying. Then ensure that what you are trying to
communicate is perceived correctly. If the horse doesn't *understand* your
communication, it is your failure to communicate blocking the message.
>If the human is consistent
> in seeing/feeling/responding to the subtlest communication from the
> horse, he need not use more than the subtlest communication in
> response. The whole thing becomes an invisible dance.
What I was describing doesn't conflict with this. But communication must
work in both directions, and communication from the human won't work unless
the horse is also tuned in to listen. Initial contact with a horse may
require more obvious body language, which can become more subtle over time.
Consistency from the human is an important factor.
> That requires a humility - and one that is not to be found in mindset
> of 'I am the boss'. If the horse is a partner, then his view must be
> given more consideration, and the more consideration is given, the
> more is given back.
You call it a partner relationship. You snipped my reference to this being a
Team relationship, which I think is a better description. The clarification
I make is that the human must be considered the Team Leader, because the
process won't work if the human isn't accepted by the horse as herd leader.
(This is the quiet leadership option, not the bully.) You may recall about a
year ago (?) I mentioned my concept of the Team Leader in more detail. In
this Team relationship, the human is listening carefully to the horse and
placing value on that input, and the horse is willingly tuned in to respond
to communication from the human. You can't go forward successfully as a
Team if there is a breakdown in communications. If there is a breakdown,
odds are it is the human's error.
The horse will send all kinds of messages on a variety of subjects. And yes,
the subtle communication is where the human can catch early information
where the less observant person waits for a slap in the face to become
aware. If the horse's behavior is slightly different than normal or
expected, ask why and learn from the answer. If you're not listening, the
horse has to rely on escalation to get the message across. This is where a
lot of "problem" horses originate.
> >If the human isn't higher than the horse in the pecking order, the horse
> >will assume he is the boss because the human hasn't taught him otherwise.
>
> And yet if the human is always concerned with being the boss, he will
> never become the ally.
It isn't necessary for the human to always be concerned with being the boss.
It is simply mentioned for those people who aren't aware of that
distinction. In the herd, one horse is always somehow higher ranking than
the other. It may be a very subtle distinction, but the horses are
definitely aware of that status and respond to the other according to that
status. The horse is also aware of the status of the human in the
horse-human relationship. I find this "leader" status is usually related to
my expectations. If I calmly *expect* the horse to respond a certain way,
I'm automatically sending the subtle message that I'm the leader ...much
like that subtle alpha in the herd. Most of the horses in the barn tend to
agree without further discussion so I don't often need to concern myself
with clarifying my status. This leader status isn't a conscious issue until
/ unless the horse tells me he is somehow questioning that status. If I've
been reading the horse's messages correctly, I'll see it coming and deal
with it low key ... before it becomes an issue. Miss the messages and my
error may have set me up to deal with an otherwise unnecessary confrontation
of some kind.
I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, Jackie, just coming at it
from different angles. You start with placing value on communication from
the horse, and so do I. I just went further and got into the improved
communication from the human side using the more subtle alphas in the herd
as role models since that was the topic I was responding to in my prior
post.
I've inquired about a Mark Rashid clinic in a couple of weeks and hope I can
get it on my calendar to audit.
Jackie
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>> >Most of this is accomplished using body language. The "I'm the boss"
>only
>> >gets expressed when subtle warnings are being ignored,
>>
>> Ah, that is the point - only totally in reverse.
>
>Huh? I was describing the activity in a herd,
And I was applying exactly the same point to horse human relationships
and Mark's teaching, which is a total reversal.
You explain how the horse only has to 'act alpha' when the
*subordinate ignores* subtle language.
I was explaining how the human rarely has to act alpha unless *HE has
ignored* subtle horse language.
This is the essense of the style of leadership Mark offers -
consistency and consideration. It is based in considering the horse's
view more than the human, to redress the balance.
>You completely missed the context, Jackie.
I understood perfectly - but you were in fact making the opposite
point. The difference is in terms of responsibility - the alpha horse
misses nothing, and yet carries no responsibility, obligation or even
desire to create a soft, willing and fear free response in the
subordinate horse.
In order to try to communicate the benefits of another, subtler way,
Mark eschews the popular 'alpha' model for horse/human relationships
because it leads to a limiting mindset that he is trying to help
people overcome.
>And I suspect you're reacting to the term "more
>aggressive stance" without understanding my version of escalation to that
>status.
No, I am reacting to it in reference to a totally different attitude -
we have after all discussed this several times, your position is very
clear to me.
>Sorry, I figured an example with pinned ears as an *escalation*
>would show that nobody was launching an immediate war, just being more
>obvious about expecting an appropriate response. ;)
I understand completely - this is still in direct opposition. Your
'expecting of a more appropriate response' places the focus on
changing the horse. Mark teaches how better observational skills, and
greater consideration avoid this 'unappropriate response' in the first
place - focusing on changing the handler. He is primarily training
people, not horses.
>Yes, you definitely need to pay attention to the horse's subtle messages -
>tough to have 2-way communication if you're not listening. <g>
If there is a requirement for an aggressive stance mostly one has not
been listening well enough for what I want. And even when that is not
the case, Mark still offers many alternatives to aggressive expression
and considers them far more beneficial on a day-to-day basis. He will
up the pressure if it is necessary - it's just that his way it is far
less likely to be so. 'Treat the horse in kind' is a gross injustice
if you have created the very response you are trying to quash by your
own adversorial approach and mindset, AND can create a very different
response merely by changing that approach and mindset.
> This is an
>important point and should be fundamental to any dealings with any horse.
>Sometimes referred to on rec.eq as Horse 101.
As I have long stated Horse 101 as described on rec.eq is an
inadequate model for the horsemanship I seek, as inadequate as the
alpha herd model.
> But you also want that horse
>responding to your own messages or there is no real conversation. If the
>horse is ignoring a message you send - and yes, you can tell if the horse
>just didn't notice, didn't understand, or if he has chosen to not respond -
>then the human needs to do something different to ensure the message gets
>across correctly.
Not necessarily. Oftentimes horses don't respond entirely because they
have not been heard. Ever had a conversation with someone who had
little interest in your view, talked over you all the time, was only
interested in what they had to say? How long did it take you to lose
interest, listen less, even find them irritating? Can you imagine how
it would be if such a terminally self-centred bore then resorted to
threats of aggression to hold your attention? This is how many, many
horses experience humans. As Ray Hunt said, if you want respect, you
first have to give it, and far more than you may suppose would be
beneficial if you have an alpha model.
> This "ignoring the human" is typically related to the
>established human-horse hierarchy since the horse is far less likely to be
>inclined to pay any attention to the messages from a "lower in the herd"
>status human.
Marks work demonstrates that this is a fallacy much of the time. The
horse is not questioning status, he is simple trying to change a
monologue into a dialogue. Your model unfortunately leads to nothing
but more drowning out - louder communication, more alphaness. As I
said before, the horse does not need more strength - he needs more
awareness. He does not need a stronger leader, he needs a more aware,
more consistent and often a softer, more considerate one. This is the
kind that Mark demonstrates so well - and it proves that the *problem*
had nothing to do with status at all.
>If, like in my prior example, the human's message to the horse is being
>ignored, the "more aggressive stance" may mean leaning toward the horse and
>perhaps something audible to encourage the eye to turn your direction.
>Leaning toward the horse using particular body language is considered a
>"more aggressive stance" by the horse because it indicates you are
>escalating.
Why would you want to indicate anything of the sort unless you were
stuck in the mindset that assumed his lack of response was his lack of
fear of, or respect for, you and your status? I don't want my horse to
pay closer attention because there is less risk involved in doing so -
but because he finds it more satisfying - he is full of a desire for
intimate dialogue, all I have to do is fulfill that (a lifetimes work
maybe).
>The first step is to open the communication avenues and pay attention to
>what the horse is saying.
For sure - is aggression (threat of escalation) necessary for this? I
say not.
>Then ensure that what you are trying to
>communicate is perceived correctly. If the horse doesn't *understand* your
>communication, it is your failure to communicate blocking the message.
Maybe - but there could be more wrong with it than lack of perception
on the horses part - that may actually be the problem!. You may
believe that a perception of your 'intention to escalate upon further
lack of response' may be the best way to ensure a response - I say it
is not. It is based on a view of the horse, again based on the
wretched alpha model, that assumes he will respond to threat better
than anything else.
This is not true - the perception of the intention to escalate is the
perception I MOST want to avoid. Mark is banging on the same drum as
Tom Dorrance - remember what he said, the thing that he wasn't sure he
had got across to anyone? This was part of it:
"He needs to realise how the persons approach can *assure the horse*
that he can have his self-preservation and still respond to what the
person is asking him to do" and "The person.. doesn't realise what the
horse is trying to apply, what it really wants the person to grasp.
This is very seldom recognised by the person, but the horse is chuck
full of it ...we need to understand this thing the horse is so full
of, and that he has such a strong desire to get from ther person in
return...togetherness."
I had long since known this was true, and sought to remove all the
'alpha attitude' that was such an impediment to it, but Mark helped me
see just how 'chuck full of it' my horse was, and the incredible depth
of awareness that was the key to providing the kind of leadership that
would allow the horse to express that, that intense desire for
closeness, mutual awareness and co-operation.
>>If the human is consistent
>> in seeing/feeling/responding to the subtlest communication from the
>> horse, he need not use more than the subtlest communication in
>> response. The whole thing becomes an invisible dance.
>
>What I was describing doesn't conflict with this.
I say it does - there is nothing subtle about a mindset which includes
aggression and escalation a la alpha model. This goes in EXACTLY the
opposite direction - it is not about higher status, making yourself
heard, getting what you want from the horse. It is about humility,
listening, giving the horse more of what he actually wants and needs
from us. That is a *total conflict* in approach.
>But communication must
>work in both directions, and communication from the human won't work unless
>the horse is also tuned in to listen.
And the more the human learns to tune in, the more the horse will be
able to in return. You don't have to demand something the horse
actively wants to give, especially when demanding it actually prevents
him giving it! He has oh so much more to give than you can ever take!
>You call it a partner relationship. You snipped my reference to this being a
>Team relationship, which I think is a better description.
It may be a better description of what you seek, but not what I seek -
I want something far closer than any team.
>The clarification
>I make is that the human must be considered the Team Leader, because the
>process won't work if the human isn't accepted by the horse as herd leader.
I disagree. The acceptance of the human as *alpha herd leader* by the
model you describe is very detrimental to the relationship I describe.
>(This is the quiet leadership option, not the bully.) You may recall about a
>year ago (?) I mentioned my concept of the Team Leader in more detail. In
>this Team relationship, the human is listening carefully to the horse and
>placing value on that input, and the horse is willingly tuned in to respond
>to communication from the human.
This model does not go far enough for me. Wherever that model reaches,
it will multiply beyond recognition when the human begins to respond
TO the horse more.
>> And yet if the human is always concerned with being the boss, he will
>> never become the ally.
>
>It isn't necessary for the human to always be concerned with being the boss.
It is in your model, it is implicit. Not once have you mentioned your
responding to a positive communication from your horse, only negative.
You have not described anything that is received by you and responded
to willingly, only in a blocking, negative way. Does your horse only
offer you what you do not want? I'm sure you must do it sometimes, but
the balance of perception is wrong for what I seek.
>I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, Jackie,
You have always said that - I am 100% sure we are not, I can hear the
difference in every line.
>I've inquired about a Mark Rashid clinic in a couple of weeks and hope I can
>get it on my calendar to audit.
I hope he works on something that will illustrate this to you - it is
sometimes hard to grasp without feeling it, though some of my auditors
shed as many tears as the riders. But those who knew the horses well
were the ones who could most appreciate the difference in their
response, the magnitude of their increased softness and willingness
over whatever level they had reached in their relationship.
Jackie
lut...@aol.com
(deletia)
> All we ever saw emerge from the bag was ... a web halter
> with magnets in the crown...
> Gimmick salesmen would go hungry 'round here.
Really.
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 23:15:38 -0700, "Jorene Downs"
><Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
>>> >Most of this is accomplished using body language. The "I'm the boss"
>>only
>>> >gets expressed when subtle warnings are being ignored,
>>>
>>> Ah, that is the point - only totally in reverse.
>>
>>Huh? I was describing the activity in a herd,
>
>And I was applying exactly the same point to horse human relationships
>and Mark's teaching, which is a total reversal.
>I was explaining how the human rarely has to act alpha unless *HE has
>ignored* subtle horse language.
As soon as a human gives a cue and the horse responds, this is alpha. This
means the horse views the human as head honcho or it would ignore that
human and do what it wants to do instead.
>>You completely missed the context, Jackie.
>
>I understood perfectly - but you were in fact making the opposite
>point. The difference is in terms of responsibility - the alpha horse
>misses nothing, and yet carries no responsibility, obligation or even
>desire to create a soft, willing and fear free response in the
>subordinate horse.
Then you missed something because an alpha mare does miss and does create
responses without fear. You are assuming the alpha role is create fear
100% of the time and this is far from accurate. You assume the alpha role
is always negative and this is far from accurate. You assume the alpha
role is detrimental and this is far from accurate.
>>And I suspect you're reacting to the term "more
>>aggressive stance" without understanding my version of escalation to that
>>status.
>
>No, I am reacting to it in reference to a totally different attitude -
>we have after all discussed this several times, your position is very
>clear to me.
You think it's clear only because you missed the entire picture and prefer
to stay on one resulting part of communication. One rule does not fit
every horse and every situation. And that communication is wide ranging,
not always subtle and not always obvious. So, too are the pressures and
the rewards.
>'Treat the horse in kind' is a gross injustice
>if you have created the very response you are trying to quash by your
>own adversorial approach and mindset, AND can create a very different
>response merely by changing that approach and mindset.
Then you don't understand "treat the horse in kind." It simply means being
fair, consistent and within the understanding of the horse. A fearful
horse doesn't learn, so one must understand that and treat the horse
accordingly in kind. One does not copy what the horse is doing but rather
deal with helping the horse control that fear without abuse. IOW, by
understanding how a horse functions, lives, acts then one can treat that
horse in kind in accordance with the horse's makeup, not the human's.
If you think it is a "gross injustice" then you think a human should never
treat another person as that first human wishes to be treated.
>As I have long stated Horse 101 as described on rec.eq is an
>inadequate model for the horsemanship I seek, as inadequate as the
>alpha herd model.
Then you have no understanding of basic Horse 101 which is the psychology
and physiology of the horse including its instincts, abilities, behaviors,
and capabilties.
>> But you also want that horse
>>responding to your own messages or there is no real conversation. If the
>>horse is ignoring a message you send - and yes, you can tell if the horse
>>just didn't notice, didn't understand, or if he has chosen to not respond -
>>then the human needs to do something different to ensure the message gets
>>across correctly.
>Not necessarily. Oftentimes horses don't respond entirely because they
>have not been heard.
Often times horses don't respond because the human didn't communicate in
such a manner that was clear and consistent. The horse has to associate
the pressure (or no pressure) in terms it understands.
>Ever had a conversation with someone who had
>little interest in your view, talked over you all the time, was only
>interested in what they had to say?
And with horses this is because the human didn't communicate in such a
manner that was clear, consistent, easily understood and didn't treat the
horse in kind.
>the horse does not need more strength - he needs more
>awareness. He does not need a stronger leader, he needs a more aware,
>more consistent and often a softer, more considerate one.
You seem to think that all horse interactions with humans involve nothing
but physical strength or force. Perhaps that is how you learned to deal
with horses, but it is far from Horse 101. I agree, you do need to
continue to read and attend all those clinics.
Be consistent, firm yet fair and treat the horse in kind.
>>The first step is to open the communication avenues and pay attention to
>>what the horse is saying.
>
>For sure - is aggression (threat of escalation) necessary for this? I
>say not.
As soon as one directs the horse, one is "aggressive." How much depends on
the pressure utilized. One example of common "aggression" is the round pen
whereby one directs the horse in which direction and movement it takes.
You are always under the impression that this all means constant physical
force, but it does not.
>>Then ensure that what you are trying to
>>communicate is perceived correctly. If the horse doesn't *understand* your
>>communication, it is your failure to communicate blocking the message.
>This is not true - the perception of the intention to escalate is the
>perception I MOST want to avoid.
Good, because one should never work with a horse with the intent of
esculating confrontation. It seems this is consistent with you, so one can
assume this is or was your normal way of dealing with horses. Keep going
to those clinics.
>there is nothing subtle about a mindset which includes
>aggression and escalation a la alpha model.
And once again, you are of the mindset that alpha/boss hoss/head
honcho/leader/guide or whatever you want to term it means force,
aggression, esculation and all things negative. Very far from reality.
>This model does not go far enough for me. Wherever that model reaches,
>it will multiply beyond recognition when the human begins to respond
>TO the horse more.
When you begin to realize you cannot pigeon hole all horses into some type
of human perception of what that model should be, you might begin to open
your eyes a bit instead of being academic toward the horse.
>>It isn't necessary for the human to always be concerned with being the boss.
>
>It is in your model, it is implicit.
Only because you keep thinking it is. Again, there is no one rule for all.
CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT
>As I have long stated Horse 101 as described on rec.eq is an
>inadequate model for the horsemanship I seek, as inadequate as the
>alpha herd model.
<snip>
<begin quote Tom Dorrance>
>"He needs to realise how the persons approach can *assure the horse*
>that he can have his self-preservation and still respond to what the
>person is asking him to do" and "The person.. doesn't realise what the
>horse is trying to apply, what it really wants the person to grasp.
>This is very seldom recognised by the person, but the horse is chuck
>full of it ...we need to understand this thing the horse is so full
>of, and that he has such a strong desire to get from ther person in
>return...togetherness."
<end quote>
That's a very wordy way of saying that the horse should trust the leadership of
the human. If I tell Billy that a monster won't eat him, he believes me, and he
hasn't been eaten yet.
I fail to see where the 'rec.eq model' falls short of this concept. Billy is
quite happy to pass the decisions whether something is dangerous or not to me -
it saves him a lot of energy and eliminates constant worrying. That concept
*is* part of herd dynamics - all horses may startle, but the alpha decides
whether to run from something or not. For the sake of security, horses
shouldn't be left to decide that plastic bags or double-decker buses are
dangerous and merit running away from. You cannot force a horse not to be
afraid - but you can provide calm leadership, and the horse will follow your
lead.
Catja
and Billy
Jorene Downs
Jackie <JJ...@dial.pipex.com> wrote
> "Jorene Downs" <Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
> >You completely missed the context, Jackie.
>
> I understood perfectly - but you were in fact making the opposite
> point. The difference is in terms of responsibility - the alpha horse
> misses nothing, and yet carries no responsibility, obligation or even
> desire to create a soft, willing and fear free response in the
> subordinate horse.
No, you still don't understand. Why do you make the assumption that every
request by a subtle alpha and yielding by the subordinate horse involves
fear? That certainly isn't what I observe in the herd, nor is it the kind of
relationship I have with our horses. If you see a fear response in the
horses you spend time around, something is wrong.
[...]
> >Sorry, I figured an example with pinned ears as an *escalation*
> >would show that nobody was launching an immediate war, just being more
> >obvious about expecting an appropriate response. ;)
>
> I understand completely - this is still in direct opposition. Your
> 'expecting of a more appropriate response' places the focus on
> changing the horse.
No, you didn't understand. I'm not changing the horse, just asking for
something the horse is capable of providing and very willing to provide. If
I have expectations and provide no information to the horse regarding those
expectations, we sure wouldn't get far. If you're not listening to the
horse's expectations you won't get far either. Communication works both
ways, Jackie. You got hung up at "listen to the horse" and I went on to
complete the connection.
> [...] Mark still offers many alternatives to aggressive expression
> and considers them far more beneficial on a day-to-day basis. He will
> up the pressure if it is necessary - it's just that his way it is far
> less likely to be so.
While I'm sure Mark Rashid must work better with a horse than I do - I'm
certainly not an expert - I think you are once again leaping to conclusions.
I called it taking a more aggressive stance, indicating that this was a
subtle change in body language merely intended to gain the horses attention,
applied only when necessary, and indicated that it is rarely necessary.
You're calling it upping the pressure and indicating it is rarely necessary.
Your terminology sounds softer, but in reality indicates the same thing that
I tried to describe. Rarely necessary. And human error likely caused that
situation, because the human wasn't paying attention to the horse's
messages.
If you need any help connecting the dots, you might wonder why that subtle
body change to gain the horse's attention is considered rare around my herd.
> > But you also want that horse
> >responding to your own messages or there is no real conversation. If the
> >horse is ignoring a message you send - and yes, you can tell if the horse
> >just didn't notice, didn't understand, or if he has chosen to not
respond -
> >then the human needs to do something different to ensure the message gets
> >across correctly.
>
> Not necessarily. Oftentimes horses don't respond entirely because they
> have not been heard. [...]
You weren't paying attention Jackie. First step is listening to the horse.
Nobody said you stopped listening. Your comments don't make sense since I'd
moved on to mention a potential problem with the horse listening to the
human. The human needs to hear that message from the horse, figure out what
went wrong, and modify so the horse understands and communication continues
from there. Communication takes two, remember? It is tough to form a Team if
the other half of the Team isn't receiving any of the messages or speaking
clearly in return. And yes - so you don't misunderstand again - that applies
to both the human and horse members of this relationship.
> > This "ignoring the human" is typically related to the
> >established human-horse hierarchy since the horse is far less likely to
be
> >inclined to pay any attention to the messages from a "lower in the herd"
> >status human.
>
> Marks work demonstrates that this is a fallacy much of the time. The
> horse is not questioning status, he is simple trying to change a
> monologue into a dialogue.
There is a difference between a horse indicating he doesn't consider the
human higher in the hierarchy and a horse simply trying to communicate and
be heard. I hope Mark Rashid can help people learn the difference. The
supposed "problem" horse is often seeking some kind of quiet leadership and
comfort zone and the human has been offering none ... very likely
intimidated as the horse asks more loudly. Failure to understand what the
horse is saying - and not responding to those needs - creates the vast
majority of the "problem" horses. And there are huge numbers who are either
problem horses, or on their way to that status, due to the human's errors
that likely started with not paying attention to the horse. The need to
have quality communication isn't new news, Jackie, just being said
differently.
BTW - Why do I get the feeling that whenever I use a phrase like "pay
attention to the horse" you assume I'm looking only for potential problems
to deal with? Perhaps the problem is that on rec.eq most of the discussion
revolves around problems and problem solving. I don't spend near as much
time commenting on the antics of the foals playing or wandering through the
herd or other more positive situations where the horses certainly express
themselves clearly. I get both positive and negative feedback from the
horses. It makes little sense to intentionally and selectively tune out
certain messages.
> >The first step is to open the communication avenues and pay attention to
> >what the horse is saying.
>
> For sure - is aggression (threat of escalation) necessary for this? I
> say not.
That's quite a spectacular leap you made from "open lines of communication"
to assuming some form of aggression. I'm beginning to think you didn't read
what I wrote, but simply inserted whatever comments you were in the mood
for.
> >Then ensure that what you are trying to
> >communicate is perceived correctly. If the horse doesn't *understand*
your
> >communication, it is your failure to communicate blocking the message.
>
> Maybe - but there could be more wrong with it than lack of perception
> on the horses part - that may actually be the problem!. You may
> believe that a perception of your 'intention to escalate upon further
> lack of response' may be the best way to ensure a response - I say it
> is not. It is based on a view of the horse, again based on the
> wretched alpha model, that assumes he will respond to threat better
> than anything else.
Huh? Not only did you obviously not understand, and jumped in with more
assumptions, you're seriously hung up on threats and fear. Perhaps you've
forgotten the difference betweeen the "bully" alpha and the subtle alpha?
Failure to communicate is the human error. Why do you assume this should
mean that if the horse doesn't understand the human should change to some
kind of threatening behavior? Greater clarity is needed here, not some form
of intimidation. It would make little sense to intimidate the Team member
who would otherwise work with you quite willingly.
> >>If the human is consistent
> >> in seeing/feeling/responding to the subtlest communication from the
> >> horse, he need not use more than the subtlest communication in
> >> response. The whole thing becomes an invisible dance.
> >
> >What I was describing doesn't conflict with this.
>
> I say it does -
Only because you're not listening. It appears you find it easier to make
assumptions or launch off on your own.
> >But communication must
> >work in both directions, and communication from the human won't work
unless
> >the horse is also tuned in to listen.
>
> And the more the human learns to tune in, the more the horse will be
> able to in return. You don't have to demand something the horse
> actively wants to give, especially when demanding it actually prevents
> him giving it! He has oh so much more to give than you can ever take!
Did you used to "demand" something from your horses? I'm glad you seem to
understand now that asking works much better, with few exceptions. (See how
easy it is to make an assumption?)
> >You call it a partner relationship. You snipped my reference to this
being a
> >Team relationship, which I think is a better description.
>
> It may be a better description of what you seek, but not what I seek -
> I want something far closer than any team.
Apparently you've never been part of a quality Team relationship?
Even pulling a wagon, with horses accustomed to working together as a team,
at some point in this joint effort one horse acts as the leader ... if only
to establish a direction. And I doubt the subordinate in a quality team is
responding to a cue from the leader to turn right because he is somehow
fearful. I'm sure you can envision what would happen if your partner with an
equal vote decided it was time to go left instead of right, or stopped to
discuss the advantages of going left.
Even between 2 herd buddies one horse is the leader, even if it is a very
subtle leadership. Horses understand this kind of relationship, because it
is part of what they live daily in their herd.
> >The clarification
> >I make is that the human must be considered the Team Leader, because the
> >process won't work if the human isn't accepted by the horse as herd
leader.
>
> I disagree. The acceptance of the human as *alpha herd leader* by the
> model you describe is very detrimental to the relationship I describe.
You disagree because you apparently don't understand the subtle alpha herd
leader that I'm familiar with, and keep thinking that threats and fear are
constants in the relationship. Not remotely true. Is the bully alpha style
detrimental in trying to create a relationship? Yes.
> >> And yet if the human is always concerned with being the boss, he will
> >> never become the ally.
> >
> >It isn't necessary for the human to always be concerned with being the
boss.
>
> It is in your model, it is implicit. Not once have you mentioned your
> responding to a positive communication from your horse, only negative.
Not once? It appears that you still weren't listening. Part of what I
mentioned was the rare example of a horse ignoring the human. Anyway, it is
certainly rare in my herd. Why did you assume an example of a rare situation
would apply to *all* situations?
A few examples of what you ignored in your reading included:
** you definitely need to pay attention to the horse's subtle messages
** The first step is to open the communication avenues and pay attention to
what the horse is saying.
** the human is listening carefully to the horse and placing value on that
input, and the horse is willingly tuned in to respond
** The horse will send all kinds of messages on a variety of subjects.
** the subtle communication is where the human can catch early information
** If the horse's behavior is slightly different than normal or expected,
ask why and learn from the answer.
Those examples were positive comments, if they were read as intended. Maybe
you were just reading from a negative perspective, Jackie. Or making
assumptions. Or seeing what you wanted to see. What part of "the human is
listening carefully to the horse and placing value on that input, and the
horse is willingly tuned in to respond" did you see as "only negative"?
> >I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, Jackie,
>
> You have always said that -
Actually, I have often disagreed with you because you have insisted for
several years that only the rare few on this newsgroup are worthy of you
considering them capable of having any kind of reasonable communication with
a horse.
> I am 100% sure we are not, I can hear the
> difference in every line.
I find it fascinating that when I agree about something, your reflex is to
say that I'm wrong because I couldn't possibly understand. However, you
claim to perfectly understand what I have tried to explain ... then in your
own response blatantly demonstrate that if you read what I wrote, you
certainly didn't read for comprehension.
You're seriously hung up on fear and threats as a big factor in anything
related to the alpha status. Perhaps back in the days before you got
"enlightened" by Tom Dorrance or whoever, you believed that a horse responds
better to a threat, or believed that in order to be alpha you need to
constantly appear to be a threat, but you make a very wrong assumption if
you think that everybody has those same beliefs.
I also get the feeling you still believe if someone hasn't studied Tom
Dorrance - or Mark Rashid, or whoever your flavor of the month is - that
person can't possibly grasp the concept of listening to the horse as the
most critical part of the relationship. Once again I'll share with you that
this isn't new news to many people. Just different ways to describe it. Is
there more for me to learn? Certainly. Always. But you fail to take into
consideration that your favorite clinic gurus are not the only people with
the answers to pass along to others who are willing to listen.
Once more the mini history lesson - which you should have learned from
Dorrance - is that much of the Natural Horsemanship that you discovered a
few years ago and now embrace as the One True Way originated from the
vaqueros. A large percentage were in California, but they were also
throughout western states and the southwest. Were they all what you'd call
NH types? Nope. But there were enough to get the message out with the same
kind of concepts that you're hearing from Dorrance, Hunt, Rashid, etc. From
what I understand, Dorrance makes no bones about learning from the old
vaqueros, and continued to seek answers. Why do you assume that all others
failed to learn or continue to seek answers? Is a book mandatory to qualify
in these exalted ranks? Clinics? Videos? Nope. Watch the best Western
horsemen work with a horse or ride, and you'll see this kind of knowledge in
far more places than books and clinics. But thanks to the more visible gurus
the word has been spreading further ... even as far as England where IIRC
you had your first exposure to this kind of thinking a few years ago. While
perhaps this was a moment of Great Revelation to you, in some parts of the
world this had been passed down for a few generations.
I'll make an assumption based on past experience and expect you will again
claim worlds of difference, and I can't possibly begin to understand what
can only be learned from Dorrance and other Jackie Approved Gurus.
I tried to communicate. Your response indicated you're not remotely
interested in discussion, but only in informing me that you are right and I
can only be very wrong. Yet you based your response on something other than
what I wrote. I sure hope you do substantially better trying to understand
the communication of any horse you're around.
Let me know if you're ever in a listening mode. Meanwhile, I'm up to my
eyebrows in work and I don't have the time to waste attempting to
communicate with someone so obviously not interested in communicating.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
snip
>I'll make an assumption based on past experience and expect you will again
>claim worlds of difference, and I can't possibly begin to understand what
>can only be learned from Dorrance and other Jackie Approved Gurus.
Sad but true. I don't know why Jackie can't see it, but you two *are*
just using different words to express the same things.
>I tried to communicate. Your response indicated you're not remotely
>interested in discussion, but only in informing me that you are right and I
>can only be very wrong. Yet you based your response on something other than
>what I wrote. I sure hope you do substantially better trying to understand
>the communication of any horse you're around.
Me too.
Meanwhile, I've had some interesting experiences with adding Truffi
and M & M to my lesson horse experiences. For all of his posturing
and dominance, M & M (who I guess was pretty mean as a stud and is a
big tough gelding who tests each human by making faces at them in the
stall) is a big soft marshmallow pushover for humans who appreciate
him for what he can do. I swear, he makes Porsche look like an
amateur when it comes to being an affectionate goof making silly faces
while asking for treats or special skritches.
First time I saddled him he broke a crosstie because he shied at the
breast collar--tension from being saddled because he tends to be tense
with a new handler (he has cinching issues and is very
self-protective, second time I just sang "boring, boring, boring" to
him to promote relaxation). Second time, I fumbled and dropped a
brush while grooming him after the ride (just call me butterfingers)
and he flinched, but all the time was looking at me to ask "should I
spook?" I laughed and scratched him in his favorite itchy spot for
being a good boy. I was surprised that it only took the one session
for him to be so mellow with me, plus be very interactive (pricked,
curious ears rather than tense nervous ears, relaxed eyes and lips,
relaxed enjoying of the brushing before and after the ride).
The Truffle took a bit longer, but then she has eczema issues and from
what I know with humans and eczema, sometimes the itchy skin and the
treatment for the itchy skin just blocks everything else out. When
your skin itches, of *course* you're gonna be edgy and jumpy, and when
you're on prednisone to settle it, of *course* the dang stuff is going
to make you irritable. But I rode her during one of the times she's
generally considered to be difficult--when she's horsing and at the
point where she sings love calls to any bay gelding she sees, plus
pees for the special guys, and found that I actually *like* her energy
during this time (especially when she's trotting big to show off for
the guys). Yeah, she spooks for no reason but it's nothing compared
to ol' Copy's spook and spin.
Then again, I let her chase the Canada geese once, and she's been
looking at me as a kindred soul ever since.
jrw
Jim & Laura Behning
>As soon as a human gives a cue and the horse responds, this is alpha. This
>means the horse views the human as head honcho or it would ignore that
>human and do what it wants to do instead.
Much of the horse's responses in a given situation are not the horse
is thinking "he is alpha, I must obey" but rather because the response
has become near instantaneous from habit.
I am not sure the horse has any "view" of us- or their herd-mates- as
"alpha"- more like they have simply established habitual behaviour in
certain situations and with certain individuals.
Laura Behning
morgans at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~morgans/Laura.htm
Eiyan
>whether to run from something or not.
Not true. The alpha horse only decides whether he/she should run or not. The
alpha horse does not make that decision for any other horse besides
him/herself. Often times other horses WILL run when startled, but if no one
else in the herd runs with them, they suddenly see they are separated from the
herd and quickly return. It is through that process that they learn it is best
to stay with the herd.
> - but you can provide calm leadership, and the horse will follow your
>lead.
Once he has learned it is in his best interest to do so. Watch young horses in
a herd - they "learn" to stay with the herd by periodically leaving it. Young
foals will stray from their grazing mothers and wander off - only to suddenly
realize they are separate from the herd - at which point they high-tail it
back.
Ann
Jane H. Kilberg
mor...@atl.mindspring.com wrote:
>jkil...@mcia.com (Jane H. Kilberg) wrote:
>
>>As soon as a human gives a cue and the horse responds, this is alpha. This
>>means the horse views the human as head honcho or it would ignore that
>>human and do what it wants to do instead.
>
>Much of the horse's responses in a given situation are not the horse
>is thinking "he is alpha, I must obey" but rather because the response
>has become near instantaneous from habit.
Of course, the horse isn't thinking this no more than the horse thinks,
"uh, oh, that mare is alpha, better obey."
>I am not sure the horse has any "view" of us- or their herd-mates- as
>"alpha"- more like they have simply established habitual behaviour in
>certain situations and with certain individuals.
Horses are simply followers for the most part (herd orientation) as long
as they are comfortable with whom they are following. Humans call this
alpha/boss hoss/head honcho/leader/guide or whatever term one wishes to
use.
Jackie
wrote:
>
><begin quote Tom Dorrance>
>
>>"He needs to realise how the persons approach can *assure the horse*
>>that he can have his self-preservation and still respond to what the
>>person is asking him to do" and "The person.. doesn't realise what the
>>horse is trying to apply, what it really wants the person to grasp.
>>This is very seldom recognised by the person, but the horse is chuck
>>full of it ...we need to understand this thing the horse is so full
>>of, and that he has such a strong desire to get from ther person in
>>return...togetherness."
>
>
>That's a very wordy way of saying that the horse should trust the leadership of
>the human. If I tell Billy that a monster won't eat him, he believes me, and he
>hasn't been eaten yet.
Huh? It has virtually NOTHING to do with that, nothing to do with
facing monsters! You think he could teach for 20, 30, 50 years without
coming across **anyone** who understood the horse 'should trust the
leadership of the human' enough not to be afraid of strange objects?
You must think pretty poorly of American horsemanship, how'd they ever
get as far as international competition!
>I fail to see where the 'rec.eq model' falls short of this concept.
How could you without grasping the concept.
I'll spell it out again to see if I can get through where Tom could
not - it is about our approach to the horse, the feeling we bring to
him - our attitude and intent, and whether or not that is the kind of
approach that will allow the horse to draw close to us, to act upon
the desire for intimate unity he is so full of.
It is not about feeling safe enough to walk past a spook, it is about
feeling safe enough to embrace 'true unity' with us.
Jackie
Jackie
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>No, you still don't understand. Why do you make the assumption that every
>request by a subtle alpha and yielding by the subordinate horse involves
>fear? That certainly isn't what I observe in the herd, nor is it the kind of
>relationship I have with our horses. If you see a fear response in the
>horses you spend time around, something is wrong.
Indeed, it is far too subtle to see most of the time, but equine
authority is ultimately based solely in 'move or else', and a bold
young horse will often times have to experience the 'or else' a few
times to find out 'alpha horses mean it'.
Alpha horses do not have the mental capacity, or the desire to find
alternative strategies to make it easier for the subordinate to draw
close to them - driving them away works fine for them, they rarely
want anything else from most.
But it is based on fear - the reason subordinates don't experience
fear day-to-day is that 'good alpha' horses are totally consistent,
and they know the 'rules' - 'If I move, all will be well.', and so
they yield habitually. This can be used as a human model - if that is
all you want. 'Fear' in this context would be whatever stops a
subordinate drawing close to the alpha - and the fact that he never
allows it.
Of course if you have an unpredictable or bullying alpha you will
indeed see fear around him or her. You seem to assume this is what I
am laying at your door - it is not on this occasion - just the above.
>> >Sorry, I figured an example with pinned ears as an *escalation*
>> >would show that nobody was launching an immediate war, just being more
>> >obvious about expecting an appropriate response. ;)
>>
>> I understand completely - this is still in direct opposition. Your
>> 'expecting of a more appropriate response' places the focus on
>> changing the horse.
>
>No, you didn't understand. I'm not changing the horse,
You are indeed seeking to change his response, via threat - pinned
ears are a communication which means 'move or I will escalate'. But,
if it helps you understand that I am not opposing merely 'Jorene
threatening violence' this time, then just look at the attitudes
involved instead:
The horse did not respond, your stated strategy is to 'be more obvious
about expecting a response' adding a little pressure 'by leaning in'
for example? Yes? That is what you described as a subtlety.
An opposite strategy might say 'you asked the horse something he could
not answer yes to - you can learn to recognise that, find ways to get
him into a more receptive state before you ask. Or, you can even go
along with his idea instead, so that the two of you can find a place
of agreement'. See the difference yet?
Your strategy is of the alpha model, reinforces status in a direct
line drive towards the goal. The alternative strategy is more like
lateral thinking - does not seek to reinforce alpha status to acheive
the goal, it ignores it.
>I have expectations and provide no information to the horse regarding those
>expectations, we sure wouldn't get far.
Well, either your first request was clear enough to convey 'all the
information needed to fulfill the request' or it was not. You agree it
is our responsibility to make sure the horse heard and understood, but
I say it is also our responsibility to make sure he is in a place to
answer 'yes' before we ask. If he didn't without additional pressure,
however slight, he actually wasn't there was he.
Now you can indeed often 'tip the balance' by adding more pressure of
some kind but that will often be detrimental to what I seek. A
horsemanship that is based on 'getting the horse to the right place to
respond with a yes first time' can avoid that.
>While I'm sure Mark Rashid must work better with a horse than I do - I'm
>certainly not an expert - I think you are once again leaping to conclusions.
I have come to conclusions based on a lot of your posts, sure. I
compare what you write and the way you describe things to a lot of
other people's descriptions, and their experience of Mark. I have
never heard of one participant, that I recall, who did not find, to
their astonishment, that they could do WAY less than they thought they
needed to - if they attended to other things.
>I called it taking a more aggressive stance, indicating that this was a
>subtle change in body language merely intended to gain the horses attention,
Well, I can make many subtle changes in body language that will elicit
a response without 'taking an aggressive stance', 'being more obvious
about expecting a response', and 'indicating I am escalating' because
' the horse wa ignoring the human because he is lower in the
hierarchy'.
You repeated your attitude and intent many times, and it was crystal
clear that it was based on the 'alpha model' that you were supporting
- however subtly and skillfully applied.
Mark has taken great pains to try to describe something he calls
'passive leadership', something which he says is NOT based in the
alpha model, and which he believes is a different approach. That
approach may not take you where you want to go - fine, but to make an
informed choice you do need to understand how different it is.
>There is a difference between a horse indicating he doesn't consider the
>human higher in the hierarchy and a horse simply trying to communicate and
>be heard. I hope Mark Rashid can help people learn the difference.
What people mostly find is that what they thought was the former, was
in fact the latter. So much so that Mark apparently feels the need to
give people a model which deliberately EXCLUDES the former
possibility! I don't think I heard him once try to teach 'ways to get
the horse to accept', only 'ways to get the human to offer something
more acceptable'.
>BTW - Why do I get the feeling that whenever I use a phrase like "pay
>attention to the horse" you assume I'm looking only for potential problems
>to deal with?
Because you did not once mention hearing anything else, like a
solution perhaps.
>That's quite a spectacular leap you made from "open lines of communication"
>to assuming some form of aggression.
Not really - again, you only described an aggressive response, naming
it as such yourself. If you didn't mean it, why say it?
>> Maybe - but there could be more wrong with it than lack of perception
>> on the horses part - that may actually be the problem!. You may
>> believe that a perception of your 'intention to escalate upon further
>> lack of response' may be the best way to ensure a response - I say it
>> is not. It is based on a view of the horse, again based on the
>> wretched alpha model, that assumes he will respond to threat better
>> than anything else.
>
>Huh? Not only did you obviously not understand, and jumped in with more
>assumptions, you're seriously hung up on threats and fear. Perhaps you've
>forgotten the difference betweeen the "bully" alpha and the subtle alpha?
So, perhaps you'd better explain - what does your 'subtle alpha' do if
his 'ear-pinning' is not responded to? Where does your model go? Hmm?
You cannot deny he will escalate, and that anything that preceeds
escalation, such as ear-pinning, is indeed a threat - even if
responded to habitually without current fear.
>Failure to communicate is the human error. Why do you assume this should
>mean that if the horse doesn't understand the human should change to some
>kind of threatening behavior? Greater clarity is needed here, not some form
>of intimidation.
Well, you have not described greater clarity without increased
pressure which you labelled aggressive - I can only comment on what
you write. And you said the horse was ignoring based on his perception
of lower status - so that greater clarity would have to clarify status
too, by your model.
>> >What I was describing doesn't conflict with this.
>>
>> I say it does -
>
>Only because you're not listening.
No, because you cannot seem to admit that there might be something
'out there' which you do not already understand, possess and utilise.
Why bother going to see Mark if you know it all already? You might as
well save your money and stay at home if nothing he has to say is
different..
>Did you used to "demand" something from your horses?
Sure, if he didn't respond well to a request, I did just as you have
described many times. Then I learned better ways of setting the horse
up so that he responded better when I asked.
But from Mark I learned an even better way - to merely accept what my
horse was offering.
>> It may be a better description of what you seek, but not what I seek -
>> I want something far closer than any team.
>
>Apparently you've never been part of a quality Team relationship?
Sure I have - but none can be as intimate as a one-on-one partnership.
> I'm sure you can envision what would happen if your partner with an
>equal vote decided it was time to go left instead of right,
Ah, here's a good case in point - would you agree with the strategy if
I said I might well go left, and that Mark might suggest it?
>Even between 2 herd buddies one horse is the leader, even if it is a very
>subtle leadership.
Always, on every decision - are you sure? Is the alpha horse the
leader when the beta horse does not follow?
>> I disagree. The acceptance of the human as *alpha herd leader* by the
>> model you describe is very detrimental to the relationship I describe.
>
>You disagree because you apparently don't understand the subtle alpha herd
>leader that I'm familiar with,
Incorrect.
>and keep thinking that threats and fear are
>constants in the relationship.
Again, what does your subtle alpha do if his 'ear-pinning' is not
acted upon? I do not think they need be constantly eveident, but they
are constantly implicit.
>> It is in your model, it is implicit. Not once have you mentioned your
>> responding to a positive communication from your horse, only negative.
>
>Not once?
Not in this thread - please quote yourself if I am mistaken.
>A few examples of what you ignored in your reading included:
>** you definitely need to pay attention to the horse's subtle messages
>** The first step is to open the communication avenues and pay attention to
>what the horse is saying.
>** the human is listening carefully to the horse and placing value on that
>input, and the horse is willingly tuned in to respond
>** The horse will send all kinds of messages on a variety of subjects.
>** the subtle communication is where the human can catch early information
>** If the horse's behavior is slightly different than normal or expected,
>ask why and learn from the answer.
Exactly. None of the above describe your responding positively to the
horse's initiative, only monitering his response to yours - the
nearest you get is 'placing value on his communication'.
> What part of "the human is
>listening carefully to the horse and placing value on that input, and the
>horse is willingly tuned in to respond" did you see as "only negative"?
The part that didn't say 'the rider doesn't simply value input from
the horse, he willingly responds to it, instead of merely expecting
the horse to respond to him all the time, and sometimes even in
opposition to his short term goal'.
>Actually, I have often disagreed with you because you have insisted for
>several years that only the rare few on this newsgroup are worthy of you
>considering them capable of having any kind of reasonable communication with
>a horse.
I didn't say what you have is not reasonable communication - I said it
is not what I seek. You may prefer it and consider it finer, your
choice - but if it is based on the alpha model it is nowhere near what
Mark showed me, and many others.
>> I am 100% sure we are not, I can hear the
>> difference in every line.
>
>I find it fascinating that when I agree about something, your reflex is to
>say that I'm wrong because I couldn't possibly understand.
But you are not agreeing with it at all - you are hell bent on
insisting you fully understand something you have never seen, and do
not describe, which is based on a model *specifically designed* to be
totally incompatible with your declared model! You are agreeing with
something quite different!
>However, you
>claim to perfectly understand what I have tried to explain ...
Of course, it is very familiar to me - I used to operate under exactly
the same model! Describe eventing, and I will understand your
description because I used to event - I will recognise it. Describe
saddle seat, and I will likely not - I have never even seen it, so I
do not recognise it.
>You're seriously hung up on fear and threats as a big factor
Hmm - so's Tom Dorrance. He never met anyone he was sure fully
understood what he saw in that regard, even though they wrestled with
it in their mind for years. But you're sure you understand it totally
without ever neeting him huh? Really.
Well I understood a bit after spending years studying him and his
students, and Mark showed me a whole heap more.
>related to the alpha status. Perhaps back in the days before you got
>"enlightened" by Tom Dorrance or whoever, you believed that a horse responds
>better to a threat, or believed that in order to be alpha you need to
>constantly appear to be a threat,
Not at all, like you I didn't believe that what I did was threatening
or in any way detrimental, after all I was softer than anyone around
me and all the horses I rode did whatever I asked. Now I see
different.
>I also get the feeling you still believe if someone hasn't studied Tom
>Dorrance - or Mark Rashid, or whoever your flavor of the month is - that
>person can't possibly grasp the concept of listening to the horse as the
>most critical part of the relationship.
To the depth and extent that they do, without studying someone like
them and showing some evidence of embracing what they learned - I am
100% sure of it.
I have seen some great masters, and seen none of them demonstrate such
a fine eye and deep insight and empathy. I think Oliviera may have had
it all, but I never saw him, and he did do some things to the
contrary. I have nowhere read or heard any evidence from any other
quarter. And it isn't just listening, it's hearing, and responding in
the right way.
>. Is
>there more for me to learn? Certainly. Always.
Just nothing I could possibly find before you huh, that'd be too much
to bear.
>Once more the mini history lesson - which you should have learned from
>Dorrance - is that much of the Natural Horsemanship that you discovered a
>few years ago and now embrace as the One True Way originated from the
>vaqueros.
Who got it from the old world - even Bill Dorrance is now found to
have read Beudant as a young man, a direct influence of a French
master outside of vaquero tradition. No, this is not news - and there
are Vaqueros alive and well in Europe still - but no-one teaching all
of what Tom and Mark teach, least of all represented here.
> But there were enough to get the message out with the same
>kind of concepts that you're hearing from Dorrance, Hunt, Rashid, etc.
Then how come no-one here has 'got it'? If it were that 'out', there
would be evidence on this newsgroup - and I have never seen any that
covers the depth, no-where near, and no-one else I know has either.
>. Watch the best Western
>horsemen work with a horse or ride, and you'll see this kind of knowledge in
>far more places than books and clinics.
Hmm, the last 'good western' trainer I saw did not appeal to me at
all. And all the good western riders that had been going to the good
western trainers in the good old west seem to find something new too -
funny that. Guess they are all from isolated pockets of ignorance are
they? Yea right.
And yet even those who have been commited for years to the softest
kind of leadership learned something softer from Mark. Others like
them heard their reports and could not believe them - could not
believe, for instance, it could possibly be beneficial to give the
horse THAT much leeway, and flew him halfway round the world to find
out.
No, the 'you're just an ignorant english rider' back-foot argument
does not hold water at all, never did.
> While
>perhaps this was a moment of Great Revelation to you, in some parts of the
>world this had been passed down for a few generations.
By-passing everyone around here for starters - for sure, it would not
be alive and well in the few otherwise.
>I'll make an assumption based on past experience and expect you will again
>claim worlds of difference, and I can't possibly begin to understand what
>can only be learned from Dorrance and other Jackie Approved Gurus.
Oh I am sure you could if ever you really tried - but since you state
you know it all already, inherited it as your birthright - well I
doubt you ever will. It takes a bit more application than that, a
touch more humility perhaps.
>I tried to communicate. Your response indicated you're not remotely
>interested in discussion,
On the contrary, I have replied at great length to try to explain to
you something you have not seen - but you can't bear to take anything
from me, and believe you have nothing to learn about softness of
leadership and observation from Mark
But there are questions and answers in the above which could help you
understand, if you really wanted to. I'll still be here.
Jackie
AlaTmPnr
>An opposite strategy might say 'you asked the horse something he could
not answer yes to - you can learn to recognise that, find ways to get
him into a more receptive state before you ask.
Instead trying to find a way to get him in a more receptive state(which is
anthropomorphic to say the least) why not rephrase and accept a smaller give
.... make the right thing easy.
>Or, you can even go along with his idea instead, so that the two of you can
find a place of agreement'.
Oh geez and the difference between this and Klimke's "accept his mistake and
praise" is?
>See the difference yet?
No and obviously you dont either. You are still looking for a spiritual
connection and are using anthropomorphic models for it. Too bad.
Bill
AlaTmPnr
<major snippage>
>What people mostly find is that what they thought was the former, was in fact
the latter. So much so that Mark apparently feels the need to give people a
model which deliberately EXCLUDES the former
possibility! I don't think I heard him once try to teach 'ways to get the horse
to accept', only 'ways to get the human to offer something more acceptable'.
Hmmm Parelli and just about every guru out there uses something similar to
this or at least a blend of the alpha model and the passive leadership role
promulgated by Rashid ... they just call it something different. Rashid is
attempting to get away from the alpha role because of the major
misinterpretation by folks that cant seem to be less aggressive with their
horses. So he has developed the passive leadership model of training. He
still uses the alpha model of training but softened by a good bit because he is
insisting on smaller gives and rephrasing and ensuring the answer is easy to
find. A horse that is allowed to find easy answers and given appropriate
confidence is willing and easy to work with. If you ask and the horse gives
the wrong answer then you didnt phrase the question right. Rephrase and ask
for smaller gives. This is where you get lighter. With the other models ....at
this point you escalate the degree of asking by getting heavier. Not a good
thing.
>So, perhaps you'd better explain - what does your 'subtle alpha' do if
his 'ear-pinning' is not responded to?
My "subtle alpha" escalates otherwise he does not maintain or gain status but
loses it.
<much snippage of sniping>
>But from Mark I learned an even better way - to merely accept what my
horse was offering.
Aah yes back to Klimke. Accept what is offered. Sorry I disagreed with Klimke
and I disagree with Rashid. Accepting what the horse offers can get you
anything. If I want my horse to lower its head and I apply pressure ... the
horse is going to seek to relieve pressure ... it will move sideways, up and
down .... I hold until I get the slightest movement downward ... most of the
time if I am on my game the release is simultaneous with the action I seek or
even a little ahead. But IMHO giving reward for the wrong thing only slows
down your training. Rewarding the horse for trying keeps him interested and
willing. It is a difference only in your thinking but it doesnt let you get
confused in what you are doing.
JMO
Bill
CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT
>Accepting what the horse offers can get you
>anything. If I want my horse to lower its head and I apply pressure ... the
>horse is going to seek to relieve pressure ... it will move sideways, up and
>down .... I hold until I get the slightest movement downward ... most of the
>time if I am on my game the release is simultaneous with the action I seek or
>even a little ahead.
That's where I depart from the 'make the wrong thing hard' crowd. I set the
horse up so that he does not need to search through possible responses, but is
steered towardsthe response I want. If I don't get it, then I probably haven't
explained it clearly enough.
>But IMHO giving reward for the wrong thing only slows
>down your training. Rewarding the horse for trying keeps him interested and
>willing. It is a difference only in your thinking but it doesnt let you get
>confused in what you are doing.
Sometimes you play a 'warmer/cooler' game. Some reactions are undesireable,
they are not 'valid answers' to anything a rider asks - bucking for instance.
The reaction to that would be different to a horse who, when asked for an
extention in trot, would break into a canter - with a green horse, all you
would convey is 'nice try, wrong answer, try again' - you reward the horse *for
trying to understand you* - not for what he's actually DONE.
Catja
and Billy
Jackie
>Jackie
>
>>An opposite strategy might say 'you asked the horse something he could
>not answer yes to - you can learn to recognise that, find ways to get
>him into a more receptive state before you ask.
>
>Instead trying to find a way to get him in a more receptive state(which is
>anthropomorphic to say the least)
Nonsense. A horse is either in a place where he can accept your
request, or he isn't. If he is fearful, for instance, he may well not
be receptive - nothing anthropomorphic about that Bill, don't slap an
inapropriate label on every sentence you do not understand. If a horse
is fearful, first you have to recognise that fact, then allay the fear
to get him to a receptive state.
> why not rephrase and accept a smaller give
>.... make the right thing easy.
That is one way for sure, once you have arrived at a level playing
field, though Jorene's hypothetical horse was 'ignoring' the handler.
>>Or, you can even go along with his idea instead, so that the two of you can
>find a place of agreement'.
>
>Oh geez and the difference between this and Klimke's "accept his mistake and
>praise" is?
It does not view the horse's ideas as mistakes for one.
Surely you understand Tom's principle of 'operating from where the
horse is' first, rather than always from where the rider is, 'getting
with him so he can come along with you'? Did you go to the loo when
Ray explained that one in words of one syllable, would you like a page
number from his book?
>You are still looking for a spiritual
>connection
No, I found that a while back, but interesting that you bring it up
because I have not so far in this thread.
>and are using anthropomorphic models for it.
Nothing anthropomorphic about setting a horse up to answer softly -
you just can't be bothered to think enough.
Jackie
Jackie
>Hmmm Parelli and just about every guru out there uses something similar to
>this or at least a blend of the alpha model and the passive leadership role
>promulgated by Rashid ...
Sure, all horsemanship is a balance - but Mark is someone who has
learned some very good ways to tip this balance further towards
passive leadership, and he is an excellent teacher who gives
individual attention to try to ensure understanding.
> Rashid is
>attempting to get away from the alpha role because of the major
>misinterpretation by folks that cant seem to be less aggressive with their
>horses.
For sure, and for people who are seeking ever-increasing softness -
the continuum does not stop at 'lack of overt aggression' you know, it
goes all the way to 'true unity'.
> He
>still uses the alpha model of training but softened by a good bit because he is
>insisting on smaller gives and rephrasing and ensuring the answer is easy to
>find.
For sure - but I wonder what you mean by 'insisting on smaller
gives'?? He is helping people to see and feel ever smaller tries,
never mind about gives, tries they never knew were there - his eye is
superb, best I have ever seen demonstrated. And he is giving the horse
far more 'benefit of the doubt' because he understands that lack of
response is rarely a matter of status. When status isn't an issue, far
more mutual co-operation is possible.
>A horse that is allowed to find easy answers and given appropriate
>confidence is willing and easy to work with. If you ask and the horse gives
>the wrong answer then you didnt phrase the question right. Rephrase and ask
>for smaller gives. This is where you get lighter. With the other models ....at
>this point you escalate the degree of asking by getting heavier. Not a good
>thing.
Exactly so. But in addition to that Mark will show people the tries
that were there all along - but that they could not perceive.
>>So, perhaps you'd better explain - what does your 'subtle alpha' do if
>his 'ear-pinning' is not responded to?
>
>My "subtle alpha" escalates otherwise he does not maintain or gain status but
>loses it.
Exactly so. Your subtle alpha is depending on status alone,
constantly reinforcing it, whereas we have other strategies available
to us. And your subtle alpha probably never misses a try - we do.
>>But from Mark I learned an even better way - to merely accept what my
>horse was offering.
>
>Aah yes back to Klimke. Accept what is offered. Sorry I disagreed with Klimke
>and I disagree with Rashid.
And Dorrance, and Hunt....
Maybe you disagree because you only see the horse as offering
mistakes, maybe because your horses still only offer what you do not
want. What if he offered you precisely what you wanted, or even more
than you asked for? What if you merely did not perceive all those
subtle tries and offers? If what Tom says about togetherness is true,
then he should be trying his socks off, given half a chance.
> But IMHO giving reward for the wrong thing only slows
>down your training.
For sure - but I am not talking about wrong things, as Tom says 'The
horse can do no wrong'. You are talking about a wrong response to a
cue - which as you have already stated simply means you set it up
wrong. I am talking about a dialogue, a conversation with no right and
wrong to it, one with the goal of unity, not right or left turns! As
Ray said 'when you get to square ten, all of square one will be in
it'.
>Rewarding the horse for trying keeps him interested and
>willing.
Absolutely. So what does missing his tries do? Think.
> It is a difference only in your thinking but it doesnt let you get
>confused in what you are doing.
Partly - what I am talking about does indeed require considerable
thought if the rider is not to be confused about it, thus confusing
the horse.
Don't reject something out of hand without understanding it first Bill
- the biggest struggle is in the understanding.
Jackie
Jorene Downs
Joyce Reynolds-Ward <j...@aracnet.com> wrote
[...]
> Meanwhile, I've had some interesting experiences with adding Truffi
> and M & M to my lesson horse experiences. For all of his posturing
> and dominance, M & M (who I guess was pretty mean as a stud and is a
> big tough gelding who tests each human by making faces at them in the
> stall) is a big soft marshmallow pushover for humans who appreciate
It's amazing what you can find inside the horse that others are avoiding
because they only see a problem. I've watched (and sometimes helped a bit)
Shari turn around horses that others had given up on. I recall one mare who
had panic attacks as fast as she saw the saddle coming. Hate to think what
prior humans did to create that trying to turn her into a cutter! This mare
wasn't whispering messages to humans, she was screaming them. I rode that
same mare on out on the trail a few months later and she was soft, steady
and willing ... and not a hint of fear. Shari legitimately sold that Alpo
Bait rehab as a reliable kid's horse. Obviously, the prior owners saw what
they wanted to see, or expected to see, and never looked into the horse to
discover what was possible.
I think part of the advantage is Shari's versatile All-Around background.
Since she has the habit of figuring out what that horse would like to do -
she says they'll all express an opinion <g> - I suspect it is easier for
her to identify nuances that others may not see. We've had some fascinating
discussions over the years, batting around ideas about what else might be
going on in a certain horse's head that hadn't been clearly identified yet.
Christi is real good at picking up messages from the horse, too, and we've
had many back porch conferences about different horses in the herd. And Jade
still excels as the Foal Whisperer. <g> That natural innocence and openness
of a toddler is like a magnet for the animals. That kind of connection is
far more difficult as you grow older and start unconsciously building
shields ... ;-/
I have to share this new Jade tale. <g> Christi, Eric, Jade, and Eric's
parents spent the past weekend on the coast to celebrate his mom's birthday.
They discovered a single horse carriage ride along the beach, got to
chatting with the owner/driver and ended up going for a ride. Jade was
parked on her other Grandma's lap, facing forward. Although she'd had a
grand time petting the Belgian before getting in the carriage, apparently
this 2yo didn't quite connect the dots that the horse pulled the carriage.
Every time they turned, the horse was suddenly visible, and Jade
ecstatically announced the wonderful discovery of "Horse! Horse!" being
right there *again* as they moved along down road! What a hoot! Needless to
say, the driver wanted to adopt Jade ... ;)
Please note that Jade in the past few months has *finally* clarified between
the animals. We no longer have a herd of Dawgies! It does get confusing
that we have "baby horses" and a mare named Baby Doll when she asks to go
"help feed baby"! Jade goes with me and carries a small bucket with some
supplements to whichever horse, then on the way back picks up gravel from
the driveway for the bucket (makes a neat rattling noise <g>) and later
offers these delicious bits of hand-picked rock to the cats and dogs, who
have learned it is wiser to decline when Jade is trying to hand feed ...
LOL!
Bill Kambic
>
>Indeed, it is far too subtle to see most of the time, but equine
>authority is ultimately based solely in 'move or else', and a bold
>young horse will often times have to experience the 'or else' a few
>times to find out 'alpha horses mean it'.
Why is this a problem?
>
>Alpha horses do not have the mental capacity, or the desire to find
>alternative strategies to make it easier for the subordinate to draw
>close to them - driving them away works fine for them, they rarely
>want anything else from most.
Nonsense. If you WATCHED a herd intereact over an extended period
(like a few hours) you would see that alphas interact quietly MOST of
the time. Very few people EVER take the TIME to observe. Rather,
they see the group in short, stress filled intervals, like feeding
time. Clearly, the alpha eats first and it is at this time that
agressive "alphaness" is most pronouced. Few wait around to see what
happens later. If they did they would see a much more relaxed
atmosphere.
Further, in the ordinary course of a day there is a great deal of
mutual grooming that goes on within the herd. The alpha gets more
grooming, typically, than others. In my experience (and I am not a
professional ethologist) grooming of the alpha originates more
frequently from lower ranked horses. But the alpha will frequently
initiate the grooming of an subordinate. This approach is soft, with
a relaxed expression.
So, perhaps a bit more watching and learning is in order, here.
>
>But it is based on fear - the reason subordinates don't experience
>fear day-to-day is that 'good alpha' horses are totally consistent,
>and they know the 'rules' - 'If I move, all will be well.', and so
>they yield habitually. This can be used as a human model - if that is
>all you want. 'Fear' in this context would be whatever stops a
>subordinate drawing close to the alpha - and the fact that he never
>allows it.
Yes, the realtionship is based upon fear. This has been the equine
model for a few millenia. It is coded into the genes. I doubt a few
"whisperer" clinics will change this.
But "fear" does not always equal "violence." As you observed, the
flick of an ear can be enough to communicate volumes. Further fear
has survival, as well as other social benefits. It is a limiting
emotion. Limits are not always bad things (no matter what Mad Ave.
says).
>
>
>Your strategy is of the alpha model, reinforces status in a direct
>line drive towards the goal. The alternative strategy is more like
>lateral thinking - does not seek to reinforce alpha status to acheive
>the goal, it ignores it.
A horseman/woman ignores alpha status at their peril. As pointed out
above, the horse has been conditioned over many millenia (that's,
like, thousands of generations) to live within a certain mileau. The
essence of "Horse 101" is understanding and using that conditioning to
achieve human purposes. To try and "wire around it" seems to me to be
a very wasteful. In addition to being very anthropomorphic and
arrogant.
>So, perhaps you'd better explain - what does your 'subtle alpha' do if
>his 'ear-pinning' is not responded to? Where does your model go? Hmm?
>You cannot deny he will escalate, and that anything that preceeds
>escalation, such as ear-pinning, is indeed a threat - even if
>responded to habitually without current fear.
Within the herd, a subtle "hint" from the alpha is percieved,
generally, as a "loud and clear command." This presumes, of course, a
stable herd setting. If the setting is unstable (new member,
challenge for alpha status, etc.) THEN there will be considerably more
"force and violence." Once a stable situation as been again realized,
agression and violence levels decline.
The horse is a prey animal and, as such, is always somewhat "fearful."
This is a survival characteristic "hard wired" into the horse. We
deal with this by being the Great Alpha. A flick of our "ear" should
be enough to say "there is no threat." If we have our situation
stable then that should be enough. If not, FIRST we must establish
stability and, to the best of our ability, calm fear. The horse
flushed with fear cannot learn.
>
>>Failure to communicate is the human error. Why do you assume this should
>>mean that if the horse doesn't understand the human should change to some
>>kind of threatening behavior? Greater clarity is needed here, not some form
>>of intimidation.
>
>Well, you have not described greater clarity without increased
>pressure which you labelled aggressive - I can only comment on what
>you write. And you said the horse was ignoring based on his perception
>of lower status - so that greater clarity would have to clarify status
>too, by your model.
I spent many years as a flight instructor. One of my early lessons
was that effective instruction requires that I have the attention of
the student. Quiet (but authoritative) speech was usually all that
was required to get that attention. BUT, every now and then you get
somebody who requires use of a " 'splainer." (That is a 2 x 4 with a
handle carved at one end. You hit the inattentive between the eyes
with the 2 x 4 so that you get their attention and that permits you to
" 'splain" the situation to them.)
Another lesson I learned was that when a student developed a
difficulty in mastering some manuerver, it was not effective for me to
just repeat the instructions in a louder voice. I had to figure out
where the block to learning was and remove it.
My admittedly limited experience with horses reinforces these early
lessons. If I do not have the attention of the horse I can teach
nothing. If all I do when I do not get a desired response is to
increase pressure I will not be successful. I must have more than one
"arrow in my instructional quiver." BUT, before anything I must have
the horse's attention. I get that attention because I am the Great
Alpha.
Are there other ways? Maybe. But I doubt it.
Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Style, Stamina, Symmetry, Smoothness
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1816
AlaTmPnr
>That's where I depart from the 'make the wrong thing hard' crowd. I set the
horse up so that he does not need to search through possible responses, but is
steered towardsthe response I want. If I don't get it, then I probably haven't
explained it clearly enough.
Really!? Example please.
Bill
AlaTmPnr
Jackie previously wrote:>>An opposite strategy might say 'you asked the horse
something he could not answer yes to - you can learn to recognise that, find
ways to get him into a more receptive state before you ask.
I wrote in reply:>Instead of trying to find a way to get him in a more
receptive state(which is anthropomorphic to say the least)
>>>Nonsense. A horse is either in a place where he can accept your request, or
he isn't. If he is fearful, for instance, he may well not be receptive -
nothing anthropomorphic about that Bill, don't slap an inapropriate label on
every sentence you do not understand.
If you have made the horse fearful with your asking then I would say that is
pretty damn inappropriate and you might want to reconsider your training
strategy as you havent a clue. I assumed that we were talking about a calm and
willing horse here I didnt know that we were again in the world of conjecture.
Excuse my gaucheness for only addressing what was written.
Bill
Muleskinner
>Not true. The alpha horse only decides whether he/she should run or not. The
>alpha horse does not make that decision for any other horse besides
>him/herself ...
You've never actually seen one, have you?
"Serene" *Sheila Green* "Sagacity" [aka Word Warrior green*@tristate.pgh.net]
"Eat me, and use your head for better than the absorption of monitor radiation."
http://minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~s8904850/wisdom.html
http://www.olympus.net/personal/pvd/LamIntro.html#Interdigitate
http://www.jenkinspublishing.com/humanure.htm
AlaTmPnr
I wrote previously:> why not rephrase and accept a smaller give .... make the
right thing easy.
>>>That is one way for sure, once you have arrived at a level playing field,
though Jorene's hypothetical horse was 'ignoring' the handler.
The horse is ignoring the handler because the horse doesnt understand. I see
this all the time with newbies .... they give a garbled signal and when the
horse doesnt respond they escalate the signal. I am not saying this is what
Jorene is using for an example but it is the most common. It is best to back
up reask and wait ... if it is really time sensitive you can escalate but dont
expect the horse to be other than confused and looking to escape.
Jackie wrote previously:>>Or, you can even go along with his idea instead, so
that the two of you can find a place of agreement'.
>
I replied:>Oh geez and the difference between this and Klimke's "accept his
mistake and praise" is?
>>>It does not view the horse's ideas as mistakes for one.
Oh geez .... even worse.
>>>Surely you understand Tom's principle of 'operating from where the horse is'
first, rather than always from where the rider is, 'getting with him so he can
come along with you'? Did you go to the loo when
Ray explained that one in words of one syllable, would you like a page
number from his book?
Spare me. One the rider has to stay focused as to what they want to
accomplish. If they go completely with "where the horse is" rarely if ever is
any work going to get done. You find "where the horse is" and bring it to
where you are. That is, if the horse is fiddle farting around, you get his
attention back on you and then give the instruction. You can not instruct
while the horse is fiddle farting around. You are making this harder than it
really is.
Bill
Jackie
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:29:39 GMT, JJ...@dial.pipex.com (Jackie) wrote:
>>
>>Indeed, it is far too subtle to see most of the time, but equine
>>authority is ultimately based solely in 'move or else', and a bold
>>young horse will often times have to experience the 'or else' a few
>>times to find out 'alpha horses mean it'.
>
>Why is this a problem?
It isn't for a horse, he doesn't want much from another horse. It may
well be for a human who wants more, or wants a horse to be able to
'come to him when he gets troubled' as Tom D puts it, particularly if
the human is less consistant or less perceptive than a horse (I defy
anyone to claim they are as much so).
>
>>
>>Alpha horses do not have the mental capacity, or the desire to find
>>alternative strategies to make it easier for the subordinate to draw
>>close to them - driving them away works fine for them, they rarely
>>want anything else from most.
>
>Nonsense. If you WATCHED a herd intereact over an extended period
>(like a few hours) you would see that alphas interact quietly MOST of
>the time.
Quite so - I said nothing to the contrary. A look is all it takes for
my mare to move a horse on or send him away mosttimes. She has rather
more trouble getting them to come to her when she wants - but she
rarely does unless she wants a scratch. Why do your alpha horses draw
subordinates close then?
>Further, in the ordinary course of a day there is a great deal of
>mutual grooming that goes on within the herd. The alpha gets more
>grooming, typically, than others. In my experience (and I am not a
>professional ethologist) grooming of the alpha originates more
>frequently from lower ranked horses.
Something that most humans do not want - anything else?
>
>So, perhaps a bit more watching and learning is in order, here.
Nope, you are tilting at a windmill I have not erected.
>Yes, the realtionship is based upon fear. This has been the equine
>model for a few millenia. It is coded into the genes.
Quite so, as is the desire for near-ranking alliances - even Budiansky
worked out that much. So why does everyone here choose the one model
at the expense of the other?
>But "fear" does not always equal "violence." As you observed, the
>flick of an ear can be enough to communicate volumes.
Absolutely. Depends what you want to communicate doesn't it - your
willingness to escalate to preserve your status, or the welcoming
safety of your proximity.
>A horseman/woman ignores alpha status at their peril.
Well, it all depends on the truth of what they are dealing with
doesn't it. If it is a case of a horse overtly challenging a human for
dominance I might say yes - but even then then is no need for adding
pressure, only meeting it. But Mark proves that most of the time
there is nothing further from the horses mind, it is the human that is
status obsessed.
>>So, perhaps you'd better explain - what does your 'subtle alpha' do if
>>his 'ear-pinning' is not responded to? Where does your model go? Hmm?
>>You cannot deny he will escalate, and that anything that preceeds
>>escalation, such as ear-pinning, is indeed a threat - even if
>>responded to habitually without current fear.
>
>Within the herd, a subtle "hint" from the alpha is percieved,
>generally, as a "loud and clear command."
Sure, but that was not the question.
>The horse is a prey animal and, as such, is always somewhat "fearful."
>This is a survival characteristic "hard wired" into the horse. We
>deal with this by being the Great Alpha.
And I say the best way to deal with a fearful nature is not a model
based on fear. The easiest, sure, not the most beneficial. Calm fear
will not take me where I want to go, only calm without fear.
>I spent many years as a flight instructor. One of my early lessons
>was that effective instruction requires that I have the attention of
>the student. Quiet (but authoritative) speech was usually all that
>was required to get that attention.
Sure, but I do not want to remain forever an insructor to my horse - I
want dialogue, and I want him to teach me too!
And sometimes, a bad, self-centred, monologue-orientated uninvolving
teacher will have to resort to far more 'use of authority' that the
one who has his students entranced with a process of discovery
-motivation is a huge key.
>Another lesson I learned was that when a student developed a
>difficulty in mastering some manuerver, it was not effective for me to
>just repeat the instructions in a louder voice. I had to figure out
>where the block to learning was and remove it.
>
>My admittedly limited experience with horses reinforces these early
>lessons. If I do not have the attention of the horse I can teach
>nothing. If all I do when I do not get a desired response is to
>increase pressure I will not be successful. I must have more than one
>"arrow in my instructional quiver." BUT, before anything I must have
>the horse's attention. I get that attention because I am the Great
>Alpha.
If that is what you want...... I prefer to get it because my horse
finds me rewarding to relate to. The more I give him, the more he
gives me back - far more than anything I could take from him.
>Are there other ways? Maybe. But I doubt it.
Go see Mark Rashid - he demonstrates well, and teaches very clearly
what people like Tom struggled for so long to get across.
Jackie
AlaTmPnr
>>For sure - but I wonder what you mean by 'insisting on smaller gives'?? He is
helping people to see and feel ever smaller tries, never mind about gives,
tries they never knew were there - his eye is
superb, best I have ever seen demonstrated. And he is giving the horse
far more 'benefit of the doubt' because he understands that lack of response is
rarely a matter of status. When status isn't an issue, far more mutual
co-operation is possible.
Geez and you were so close too LOL. Status is always an issue even if it is
background noise. This seems to be a bone of contention to you in your quest
for partnership. Even in human marriage one partner will be in charge
depending on the situation. Why would you think that riding would be any
different? When you are riding a cutting horse, that horse isnt working
strictly on its own ... it is being supported by the rider, much like a husband
supports the wife in her endeavors(actually better). If the horse is sure and
confident that the rider isnt going to suddenly get after it but only help it
.... that horse will get more independent in its actions and require less
support but that support is always there.
I wrote:>A horse that is allowed to find easy answers and given appropriate
confidence is willing and easy to work with. If you ask and the horse gives
the wrong answer then you didnt phrase the question right. Rephrase and ask
for smaller gives. This is where you get lighter. With the other models ....at
this point you escalate the degree of asking by getting heavier. Not a good
thing.
>>>Exactly so. But in addition to that Mark will show people the tries that
were there all along - but that they could not perceive.
"Attempt to show" might be a better way of describing it. You can not show a
blindman a sunset and expect him to see the colors.
Jackie previously wrote:>>So, perhaps you'd better explain - what does your
'subtle alpha' do if his 'ear-pinning' is not responded to?
>
>My "subtle alpha" escalates otherwise he does not maintain or gain status but
>loses it.
>>>Exactly so. Your subtle alpha is depending on status alone, constantly
reinforcing it, whereas we have other strategies available to us. And your
subtle alpha probably never misses a try - we do.
Hmmm I dont argue that we miss things with a horse as we do. Communicating via
pressure alone is a bit chancy for us as we are crude in our usage of it. The
nuances found in the herd are beyond most of us unless trained to see them.
Jackie wrote:>>But from Mark I learned an even better way - to merely accept
what my horse was offering.
>
I replied:>Aah yes back to Klimke. Accept what is offered. Sorry I disagreed
with Klimke and I disagree with Rashid.
>>>And Dorrance, and Hunt....
Just your interpretation of what they said.
>>>Maybe you disagree because you only see the horse as offering mistakes,
maybe because your horses still only offer what you do not want. What if he
offered you precisely what you wanted, or even more
than you asked for? What if you merely did not perceive all those subtle tries
and offers? If what Tom says about togetherness is true, then he should be
trying his socks off, given half a chance.
Hahaha! My horses do just fine. We have good days and we have bad days. It
depends on my timing .... if it is off it is going to be a bad day as I am too
slow. I never get after a horse for my failings.
I wrote:> But IMHO giving reward for the wrong thing only slows down your
training.
>>>For sure - but I am not talking about wrong things, as Tom says 'The
horse can do no wrong'. You are talking about a wrong response to a
cue - which as you have already stated simply means you set it up
wrong. I am talking about a dialogue, a conversation with no right and
wrong to it, one with the goal of unity, not right or left turns! As
Ray said 'when you get to square ten, all of square one will be in
it'.
Hmmm that quotation is referring to building blocks of instruction and of
course block one is going to be in block ten. It has nothing to do with
accepting the wrong thing as right or even a dialogue with the horse. It is
simply breaking down a task into smaller pieces and training those pieces and
then putting them together to get the task you want.
I wrote:>Rewarding the horse for trying keeps him interested and willing.
>>>Absolutely. So what does missing his tries do? Think.
It coarsens the communication. It makes the horse a bit heavier in its
response.
I wrote:> It is a difference only in your thinking but it doesnt let you get
>confused in what you are doing.
>>>Partly - what I am talking about does indeed require considerable thought if
the rider is not to be confused about it, thus confusing the horse.
Not if you stay focused.
>>>Don't reject something out of hand without understanding it first Bill
- the biggest struggle is in the understanding.
As you have amply demonstrated IMHO.
Bill
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:10:10 -0700, "Jorene Downs"
><Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
>>No, you still don't understand. Why do you make the assumption that every
>>request by a subtle alpha and yielding by the subordinate horse involves
>>fear? That certainly isn't what I observe in the herd, nor is it the kind of
>>relationship I have with our horses. If you see a fear response in the
>>horses you spend time around, something is wrong.
>
>Indeed, it is far too subtle to see most of the time, but equine
>authority is ultimately based solely in 'move or else',
Authority??? You've got to be kidding. And no, it isn't based solely on
move or else. An alpha is one who provides leadership. She is the one who
leads the herd and the rest follow because horses prefer following. An
alpha doesn't need "move or else" action to do this. The alpha of the herd
doesn't get into every horse's business
>and a bold
>young horse will often times have to experience the 'or else' a few
>times to find out 'alpha horses mean it'.
This is learning how to live within a herd and all the social rules that
come with being a herd member. It does not, however, mean it is a constant
thing.
>Alpha horses do not have the mental capacity, or the desire to find
>alternative strategies to make it easier for the subordinate to draw
>close to them - driving them away works fine for them, they rarely
>want anything else from most.
Your figment of imagination is working over time.
>But it is based on fear -
>'Fear' in this context would be whatever stops a
>subordinate drawing close to the alpha -
Fear? fear? sheez.... you need to observe a lot better than you claim you
do. Horses are "polite" and tend to ask first before interacting. However,
it is probably too subtle for you to notice. I wouldn't call this 'fear'
at all. If a horse fears an alpha, you can bet your bottom pound that it
would stay the furthest distance it could. If that is as you say, then
there would be no herd at all.
>Your strategy is of the alpha model, reinforces status in a direct
>line drive towards the goal. The alternative strategy is more like
>lateral thinking - does not seek to reinforce alpha status to acheive
>the goal, it ignores it.
Without alpha leadership, the horse will not follow. KISS
>>There is a difference between a horse indicating he doesn't consider the
>>human higher in the hierarchy and a horse simply trying to communicate and
>>be heard.
Horses communicate all the time and it's up to the human to listen.
However, there are two sides to this coin. The horse also has to listen
and understand communication of the human. If the horse does not consider
the human capable (ie leader/alpha/guide/boss hoss or whatever word you
wish to use), then the horse simply won't listen.
>>BTW - Why do I get the feeling that whenever I use a phrase like "pay
>>attention to the horse" you assume I'm looking only for potential problems
>>to deal with?
>
>Because you did not once mention hearing anything else, like a
>solution perhaps.
Paying attention is part of the solution.
>But from Mark I learned an even better way - to merely accept what my
>horse was offering.
That's nice.....and what if the horse offers what you don't want? Guess
you accept it anyway.
Bill Kambic
<selective snipping for brevity>
>
>Quite so - I said nothing to the contrary. A look is all it takes for
>my mare to move a horse on or send him away mosttimes. She has rather
>more trouble getting them to come to her when she wants - but she
>rarely does unless she wants a scratch. Why do your alpha horses draw
>subordinates close then?
She does not usually draw them in. They come on their own.
Volunarily. Quietly. After asking and receiving permission. Without
fear. When she approaches a subordinate it is done the same way.
Curious, no?
>
>>Further, in the ordinary course of a day there is a great deal of
>>mutual grooming that goes on within the herd. The alpha gets more
>>grooming, typically, than others. In my experience (and I am not a
>>professional ethologist) grooming of the alpha originates more
>>frequently from lower ranked horses.
>
>Something that most humans do not want - anything else?
What don't most humans not want?
>>
>>So, perhaps a bit more watching and learning is in order, here.
>
>Nope, you are tilting at a windmill I have not erected.
Well, I surely saw a structure based upon failure to appreciate the
true nature of the animal in question. Whether it was a windmill or
not remains to be seen.
>
>>Yes, the realtionship is based upon fear. This has been the equine
>>model for a few millenia. It is coded into the genes.
>
>Quite so, as is the desire for near-ranking alliances - even Budiansky
>worked out that much. So why does everyone here choose the one model
>at the expense of the other?
What other model?
>
>>But "fear" does not always equal "violence." As you observed, the
>>flick of an ear can be enough to communicate volumes.
>
>Absolutely. Depends what you want to communicate doesn't it - your
>willingness to escalate to preserve your status, or the welcoming
>safety of your proximity.
Half a bingo!!! When the subordinate moves in proximety of the alpha
they GET that "safety." When I am the Great Alpha, they get even
more.
>
>>A horseman/woman ignores alpha status at their peril.
>
>Well, it all depends on the truth of what they are dealing with
>doesn't it. If it is a case of a horse overtly challenging a human for
>dominance I might say yes - but even then then is no need for adding
>pressure, only meeting it. But Mark proves that most of the time
>there is nothing further from the horses mind, it is the human that is
>status obsessed.
If Mark does not believe that herd status is important (to the horse
and, by extension, to the human) then his knowledge of horses is quite
deficient. This does not mean that he cannot get performance, only
that he is operation will less than full knowledge.
I am not status obsessed. I try not to be obsessed, period. But
performance is important to me. Safety (mine) is of paramount
importance to me.
However I must say that I have received a number of favorable comments
on Mr. Rashid from some folks that I respect highly. I fear that your
interpretations of his teachings are as skewed and incorrect as your
interpretations of the nature of the horse.
>
>>
>>Within the herd, a subtle "hint" from the alpha is percieved,
>>generally, as a "loud and clear command."
>
>Sure, but that was not the question.
Then what do you see the "question" as being? And might there be more
than one question?
>
>>The horse is a prey animal and, as such, is always somewhat "fearful."
>>This is a survival characteristic "hard wired" into the horse. We
>>deal with this by being the Great Alpha.
>
>And I say the best way to deal with a fearful nature is not a model
>based on fear. The easiest, sure, not the most beneficial. Calm fear
>will not take me where I want to go, only calm without fear.
The nature of the prey animal makes the complete erasing of fear a
most unlikely situation. Control is very possible. Calm is very
possible. But erasure? Not likely.
>
>>I spent many years as a flight instructor. One of my early lessons
>>was that effective instruction requires that I have the attention of
>>the student. Quiet (but authoritative) speech was usually all that
>>was required to get that attention.
>
>Sure, but I do not want to remain forever an insructor to my horse - I
>want dialogue, and I want him to teach me too!
This is a serious flaw in your plan. You WILL always be the
instructor of your horse. The best instructors I have ever had always
told me (and they were right) that they also LEARNED from every
student they ever had. That simultanious instructing/learning
capability is what made them great instructors, probably.
In instruction, as in most things, "the door swings both ways."
>
>And sometimes, a bad, self-centred, monologue-orientated uninvolving
>teacher will have to resort to far more 'use of authority' that the
>one who has his students entranced with a process of discovery
>-motivation is a huge key.
Some learning goes best by interaction; some does not. If you want to
learn about the importance of the Napoleonic Wars on the history of
Europe you must do two things: learn the sequence of events (unusally
from one of those "monologue-oriented uninvolving" sources) and then
try and make sense of that sequence by asking questions (the
"interactive" part).
With the horse you use a building block approach to learning. Start
with the simple (walk, stop, turn left and right on direct rein, back
a step) and then on to other things, up to and including the High
School. You, as the instructor sets the "what." You also set the
first "how." You might modify the "how" based upon the horse's
performance (this is the interactive part) but the WHAT remains the
monologue part. The horse learns from you; you learn from the horse.
Simple, no?
>
>>Another lesson I learned was that when a student developed a
>>difficulty in mastering some manuerver, it was not effective for me to
>>just repeat the instructions in a louder voice. I had to figure out
>>where the block to learning was and remove it.
>>
>>My admittedly limited experience with horses reinforces these early
>>lessons. If I do not have the attention of the horse I can teach
>>nothing. If all I do when I do not get a desired response is to
>>increase pressure I will not be successful. I must have more than one
>>"arrow in my instructional quiver." BUT, before anything I must have
>>the horse's attention. I get that attention because I am the Great
>>Alpha.
>
>If that is what you want...... I prefer to get it because my horse
>finds me rewarding to relate to. The more I give him, the more he
>gives me back - far more than anything I could take from him.
You should post an "anthropomorphization" warning before posting stuff
like this. The horse finds eating, breeding, and generally haning out
with the herd as rewarding activities. Because they are domestic
animals (and have been selected over a couple of thousand generations
to tolerate, if not actively seek, human contact) they might seem to
be engaging in some sort of conscious mutual exchange. Do not mistake
your own "template" of reality for reality itself.
But, then, we have had this discussion before.
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>On 26 Oct 1999 01:10:29 GMT, alat...@aol.com (AlaTmPnr) wrote:
>
>>Jackie
>>
>>>An opposite strategy might say 'you asked the horse something he could
>>not answer yes to - you can learn to recognise that, find ways to get
>>him into a more receptive state before you ask.
>>
>>Instead trying to find a way to get him in a more receptive state(which is
>>anthropomorphic to say the least)
>
>Nonsense. A horse is either in a place where he can accept your
>request, or he isn't. If he is fearful, for instance, he may well not
>be receptive - nothing anthropomorphic about that Bill, don't slap an
>inapropriate label on every sentence you do not understand. If a horse
>is fearful, first you have to recognise that fact, then allay the fear
>to get him to a receptive state.
Fear has no place in training. Is that what you are attempting to say?
Fear training does not work well and never will. KISS
Jane H. Kilberg
ALEXANDRA PAFORT) wrote:
>Bill (alatmpnr) wrote:
>
>>Accepting what the horse offers can get you
>>anything. If I want my horse to lower its head and I apply pressure ... the
>>horse is going to seek to relieve pressure ... it will move sideways, up and
>>down .... I hold until I get the slightest movement downward ... most of the
>>time if I am on my game the release is simultaneous with the action I seek or
>>even a little ahead.
>
>That's where I depart from the 'make the wrong thing hard' crowd. I set the
>horse up so that he does not need to search through possible responses, but is
>steered towardsthe response I want. If I don't get it, then I probably haven't
>explained it clearly enough.
>Sometimes you play a 'warmer/cooler' game. Some reactions are undesireable,
>they are not 'valid answers' to anything a rider asks - bucking for instance.
>The reaction to that would be different to a horse who, when asked for an
>extention in trot, would break into a canter - with a green horse, all you
>would convey is 'nice try, wrong answer, try again' - you reward the
horse *for
>trying to understand you* - not for what he's actually DONE.
Since the horse broke into the canter instead of the trot extention, isn't
that "search through possible responses?" You did steer the horse toward
the response you wanted, but the horse tried something else instead. This
is normal. Until the horse can associate the desired response with the
cue, it will "search" and choose different directions.
As to reward - reward is simply releasing of a cue. Pressure - release is
the basics of all horse training. KISS
Jackie
>Jackie previously wrote:>>An opposite strategy might say 'you asked the horse
>something he could not answer yes to - you can learn to recognise that, find
>ways to get him into a more receptive state before you ask.
>
>I wrote in reply:>Instead of trying to find a way to get him in a more
>receptive state(which is anthropomorphic to say the least)
>
>>>>Nonsense. A horse is either in a place where he can accept your request, or
>he isn't. If he is fearful, for instance, he may well not be receptive -
>nothing anthropomorphic about that Bill, don't slap an inapropriate label on
>every sentence you do not understand.
>
>If you have made the horse fearful with your asking then I would say that is
>pretty damn inappropriate and you might want to reconsider your training
>strategy
Absolutely, and learn to get him to a more receptive state.
Jackie
Jackie
>The horse is ignoring the handler because the horse doesnt understand.
Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of other reasons - it may simply be
distracted for instance.
>Jackie wrote previously:>>Or, you can even go along with his idea instead, so
>that the two of you can find a place of agreement'.
>>
>I replied:>Oh geez and the difference between this and Klimke's "accept his
>mistake and praise" is?
>
>>>>It does not view the horse's ideas as mistakes for one.
>
>Oh geez .... even worse.
Depends what the idea is really. I get the feeling many reject a good
offer merely because of their own ego - most simply never recognise
them.
>>>>Surely you understand Tom's principle of 'operating from where the horse is'
>first, rather than always from where the rider is, 'getting with him so he can
>come along with you'? Did you go to the loo when
>Ray explained that one in words of one syllable, would you like a page
>number from his book?
>
>Spare me.
>One the rider has to stay focused as to what they want to
>accomplish.
Nah - you sure you wouldn't like a page number?
>If they go completely with "where the horse is" rarely if ever is
>any work going to get done.
Nah - far more can be acheived. Sure now?
>You find "where the horse is" and bring it to
>where you are.
Hmm - that is not what Tom and Ray teach, nor Mark - but if it turns
you on.......keeps the old male ego inflated......
"I like to work from where the horse is.."TD
> You are making this harder than it
>really is.
"It's so simple it is difficult"...now who said that I wonder?
Jackie
Jackie
> Status is always an issue even if it is
>background noise.
I disagree - most of the exchanges people think are about status are
nothing of the kind to the horse.
> Even in human marriage one partner will be in charge
>depending on the situation.
Never hear 'submit yourselves to one another in love?'
>Why would you think that riding would be any
>different?
Why would you.
>.... that horse will get more independent in its actions and require less
>support but that support is always there.
Support is fine - that is not the same as domination by monologue.
>>>>Exactly so. But in addition to that Mark will show people the tries that
>were there all along - but that they could not perceive.
>
>"Attempt to show" might be a better way of describing it. You can not show a
>blindman a sunset and expect him to see the colors.
For sure, yet I have never known him fail with a participant.
>>>>Exactly so. Your subtle alpha is depending on status alone, constantly
>reinforcing it, whereas we have other strategies available to us. And your
>subtle alpha probably never misses a try - we do.
>
>Hmmm I dont argue that we miss things with a horse as we do. Communicating via
>pressure alone is a bit chancy for us as we are crude in our usage of it. The
>nuances found in the herd are beyond most of us unless trained to see them.
Exactly so, that is why 'pressure alone' can still be improved upon,
even if not crude.
>Jackie wrote:>>But from Mark I learned an even better way - to merely accept
>what my horse was offering.
>>
>I replied:>Aah yes back to Klimke. Accept what is offered. Sorry I disagreed
>with Klimke and I disagree with Rashid.
>
>>>>And Dorrance, and Hunt....
>
>Just your interpretation of what they said.
No way Hose - if you don't want a page number I'll have to quote, on
gatesourness for instance 'other times you'll purposely set it up to
let the horse go to the gate, and you'll go with him...The feeling of
staying together is what you're trying to establish. In this instance
you're going with him so he can stay with you.'
That's an example of accepting something you don't want, even better
to accept things you do, respond to the horse when he feels for you
and offers himself.
>Hmmm that quotation is referring to building blocks of instruction and of
>course block one is going to be in block ten. It has nothing to do with
>accepting the wrong thing as right or even a dialogue with the horse. It is
>simply breaking down a task into smaller pieces and training those pieces and
>then putting them together to get the task you want.
Um - no it isn't. "Don't worry, he'll teach you if you let him.
Turning loose means that when you reach for him he softens. That goes
for YOU too...It's hard to teach what I've been talking about all week
because the first thing you'll need to know is the last thing you'll
learn. But I can tell you this - when you get to square ten, all of
square one will be in it."
>I wrote:>Rewarding the horse for trying keeps him interested and willing.
>
>>>>Absolutely. So what does missing his tries do? Think.
>
>It coarsens the communication. It makes the horse a bit heavier in its
>response.
Correct. That it? No effect on his attitude for instance?
>I wrote:> It is a difference only in your thinking but it doesnt let you get
>>confused in what you are doing.
>
>>>>Partly - what I am talking about does indeed require considerable thought if
>the rider is not to be confused about it, thus confusing the horse.
>
>Not if you stay focused.
You have to understand something before you can focus on it. You are
focussing on 'getting what you want' because that is all you can see -
there are alternatives, ones that are even more rewarding: "The
feeling of staying together is what you're trying to establish. In
this instance you're going with him so he can stay with you".
>Don't reject something out of hand without understanding it first Bill
>- the biggest struggle is in the understanding.
>
>As you have amply demonstrated IMHO.
Insults only appear cheap. As my favourite preacher says 'I may not
have arrived, but at least I've left'.
Jackie
Jackie
>>Quite so - I said nothing to the contrary. A look is all it takes for
>>my mare to move a horse on or send him away mosttimes. She has rather
>>more trouble getting them to come to her when she wants - but she
>>rarely does unless she wants a scratch. Why do your alpha horses draw
>>subordinates close then?
>
>She does not usually draw them in.
QED. I want more than a horse - I want him close as he can get and
stuck like glue to every feel.
>>Something that most humans do not want - anything else?
>
>What don't most humans not want?
Most humans around here do not let their horses groom them.
>Well, I surely saw a structure based upon failure to appreciate the
>true nature of the animal in question.
That is a perception which I contest - a structure built on a model
you have never seen, maybe.
>>>Yes, the realtionship is based upon fear. This has been the equine
>>>model for a few millenia. It is coded into the genes.
>>
>>Quite so, as is the desire for near-ranking alliances - even Budiansky
>>worked out that much. So why does everyone here choose the one model
>>at the expense of the other?
>
>What other model?
A close co-operation and alliance not based on fear.
>Half a bingo!!! When the subordinate moves in proximety of the alpha
>they GET that "safety."
Not enough for what I want. A human alpha is far too lacking in equine
awareness, and far too demanding, to model his leadership style on a
horse.
>If Mark does not believe that herd status is important (to the horse
>and, by extension, to the human) then his knowledge of horses is quite
>deficient.
He doesn't say that - just that as a model for horse/human relations
it is limited by it's very nature. Consistency and awareness are far
more important than ideas of needing to maintain alpha status, far
more effective. I had horses doing whatever I wanted for 35 years
without ever considering the term 'alpha' or worrying about status.
>However I must say that I have received a number of favorable comments
>on Mr. Rashid from some folks that I respect highly. I fear that your
>interpretations of his teachings are as skewed and incorrect as your
>interpretations of the nature of the horse.
Well, he didn't seem to think so when I checked, and I found his
teaching to reinforce that of Tom's. Maybe you just don't understand
what I'm saying.
>>>Within the herd, a subtle "hint" from the alpha is percieved,
>>>generally, as a "loud and clear command."
>>
>>Sure, but that was not the question.
>
>Then what do you see the "question" as being?
The one I posed in the line before in this instance - is the alpha
horse relying on threat of escalation when he pins his ears. Answer -
yes.
>>And I say the best way to deal with a fearful nature is not a model
>>based on fear. The easiest, sure, not the most beneficial. Calm fear
>>will not take me where I want to go, only calm without fear.
>
>The nature of the prey animal makes the complete erasing of fear a
>most unlikely situation. Control is very possible. Calm is very
>possible. But erasure? Not likely.
Erasure is not a word I would use. Allay is more like it. Fear of
humans is a continuum between total panic and total confidence. IMO a
horse only having confidence I 'will not escalate to get compliance if
he does as I ask' is not enough - that is the equine model, and we ask
so many more thing of a horse, difficult, frightening things
sometimes. If he does not understand, or I miss his try, or he is
afraid to do it - that puts him in a place of conflict, unease, fear.
No, for total confidence he has to sure of more.
>>Sure, but I do not want to remain forever an insructor to my horse - I
>>want dialogue, and I want him to teach me too!
>
>This is a serious flaw in your plan.
I disagree, as have many masters. I want my horse to actively
participate, to show me things about him I could not find on my own -
like the astonishing extent of his willingness to draw closer to
unity. I heard when Tom taught it, but only my horse could show me.
Call that learning from the student if you prefer, but I agree with
those who have to humility to state that the horse is the greatest
teacher.
"Don't worry, he'll teach you if you let him." RH
Maybe you just never let a horse?
>With the horse you use a building block approach to learning. Start
>with the simple (walk, stop, turn left and right on direct rein, back
>a step) and then on to other things, up to and including the High
>School.
In agreement so far.
>You, as the instructor sets the "what."
Not necessarily - there are perameters, sure, but there is leeway. Any
authority you hold you can delegate, without losing it.
>>I get that attention because I am the Great
>>Alpha.
>>If that is what you want...... I prefer to get it because my horse
>>finds me rewarding to relate to. The more I give him, the more he
>>gives me back - far more than anything I could take from him.
>
>You should post an "anthropomorphization" warning before posting stuff
>like this.
You would say that, but I am in good company in Tom, Ray and Mark.
Heck a LEAF can get a horse's attention without being alpha, any
curious object or rewarding experience can!
Or as the cavalry instructor said 'Make a noise like a carrot - he'll
soon come to you'.
Jackie
AlaTmPnr
I wrote previously:> Status is always an issue even if it is background noise.
>>>I disagree - most of the exchanges people think are about status are
nothing of the kind to the horse.
For example?
I wrote previously:> Even in human marriage one partner will be in charge
depending on the situation.
>>>Never hear 'submit yourselves to one another in love?'
How about ever?
I wrote previously:>Why would you think that riding would be any different?
>>>Why would you.
I dont but you obviously do.
I wrote previously:>.... that horse will get more independent in its actions
and require less support but that support is always there.
>>>Support is fine - that is not the same as domination by monologue.
Say what???!!!
Jackie previously wrote:>Exactly so. But in addition to that Mark will show
people the tries that were there all along - but that they could not perceive.
>
I wrote in reply:>"Attempt to show" might be a better way of describing it.
You can not show a blindman a sunset and expect him to see the colors.
>>>For sure, yet I have never known him fail with a participant.
That is some claim. You have been at every clinic and have inquired and tested
folks to ensure they got it? Or are you assuming that because you think you
got it everyone else did too?
I wrote previously:>Hmmm I dont argue that we miss things with a horse as we
do. Communicating via pressure alone is a bit chancy for us as we are crude in
our usage of it. The nuances found in the herd are beyond most of us unless
trained to see them.
>>>Exactly so, that is why 'pressure alone' can still be improved upon, even if
not crude.
Helloooo if we are using only pressure what other method are you bringing to
the table?
>>>No way Hose - if you don't want a page number I'll have to quote, on
gatesourness for instance 'other times you'll purposely set it up to let the
horse go to the gate, and you'll go with him...The feeling of
staying together is what you're trying to establish. In this instance you're
going with him so he can stay with you.'
There is another way of looking at that. You purposely set it up and go with
him because you dont want to set up a resistance in the horse. When you let
the horse have its way then when it gets there you make the gate unattractive
by working the horse hard around the gate. Consistently setting up the
situation in this manner cures the gate sourness and the horse then looks to
the rider for guidance.
I wrote previously:>Hmmm that quotation is referring to building blocks of
instruction and of course block one is going to be in block ten. It has
nothing to do with
accepting the wrong thing as right or even a dialogue with the horse. It is
simply breaking down a task into smaller pieces and training those pieces and
then putting them together to get the task you want.
>>>Um - no it isn't.
Yes it is and its obvious.
>>>"Don't worry, he'll teach you if you let him. Turning loose means that when
you reach for him he softens. That goes
for YOU too...It's hard to teach what I've been talking about all week because
the first thing you'll need to know is the last thing you'll learn. But I can
tell you this - when you get to square ten, all of
square one will be in it."
Which why you should focus on what you want instead of trying to reach the
horse. You tend to confuse yourself as you have amply demonstrated. Building
block instruction is the simplest type of instruction and the easiest way to
learn ... you might try it.
>>>You have to understand something before you can focus on it. You are
focussing on 'getting what you want' because that is all you can see -
there are alternatives, ones that are even more rewarding: "The feeling of
staying together is what you're trying to establish. In this instance you're
going with him so he can stay with you".
No in this instance you are going with him because to do otherwise is going to
set up resistances and get you dumped on your keister. Discretion is the
better part of valour. There is more than one way to skin a cat .....etc.
>Insults only appear cheap. As my favourite preacher says 'I may not
have arrived, but at least I've left'.
Not yet.
Bill
Bill Kambic
<a curious combination of misunderstandings that I have deleted>
We have plowed this ground before. I see no purpose is replowing.
Jackie
>>>>I disagree - most of the exchanges people think are about status are
>nothing of the kind to the horse.
>
>For example?
Horse pins his ears when being cinched, kicks out going round in a
round pen, approaches a human without being invited, does not respond
to a request, ta-ra-ra. Put it this way - I can think of no
'unacceptable behaviour' that could only be status related, off the
top of my head.
>I wrote previously:> Even in human marriage one partner will be in charge
>depending on the situation.
>
>>>>Never hear 'submit yourselves to one another in love?'
>
>How about ever?
Huh?
>
>I wrote previously:>Why would you think that riding would be any different?
>
>>>>Why would you.
>
>I dont but you obviously do.
Than 'submit yourselves to one another' - I don't.
>
>I wrote previously:>.... that horse will get more independent in its actions
>and require less support but that support is always there.
>
>>>>Support is fine - that is not the same as domination by monologue.
>
>Say what???!!!
Support does not entail 'calling all the shots'.
>That is some claim. You have been at every clinic and have inquired and tested
>folks to ensure they got it? Or are you assuming that because you think you
>got it everyone else did too?
No, I am saying of the clinic I experienced, and all those I have
heard of, I have no knowledge of someone who did not learn to see
tries they could not see before. People don't weep if they don't 'get
it' in a very profound way - they were bursting into tears all over
the Cotswolds, even auditors in tea rooms having lunch.
>>>>Exactly so, that is why 'pressure alone' can still be improved upon, even if
>not crude.
>
>Helloooo if we are using only pressure what other method are you bringing to
>the table?
Acceptance of an offer for one. The point is to get the horse and
rider better 'in tune', following each other so closely that no
pressure is needed to get a response. I saw a transformation in a real
nervous novice with a green horse - I have never seen such joy, and
the thing that choked us all up on that one was the expression on the
face of the horse was EXACTLY the same! This stuff works fine for
anyone, if they are open to learn.
>There is another way of looking at that. You purposely set it up and go with
>him because you dont want to set up a resistance in the horse. When you let
>the horse have its way then when it gets there you make the gate unattractive
>by working the horse hard around the gate.
Sure, but you would find to your astonishment that part one is often
enough without part two. The rider goes with the horse, so the horse
softens to the rider, and suddenly the rider has all he needs - a
soft, responsive horse with no resistance.
>I wrote previously:>Hmmm that quotation is referring to building blocks of
>instruction and of course block one is going to be in block ten. It has
>nothing to do with
>accepting the wrong thing as right or even a dialogue with the horse. It is
>simply breaking down a task into smaller pieces and training those pieces and
>then putting them together to get the task you want.
>
>>>>Um - no it isn't.
>
>Yes it is and its obvious.
No, he was talking about RIDERS understanding, not horses'.
>
>>>>"Don't worry, he'll teach you if you let him. Turning loose means that when
>you reach for him he softens. That goes
>for YOU too...It's hard to teach what I've been talking about all week because
>the first thing you'll need to know is the last thing you'll learn. But I can
>tell you this - when you get to square ten, all of
>square one will be in it."
>
>Which why you should focus on what you want instead of trying to reach the
>horse.
I disagree. I favour the way Tom, Ray and Mark teach, which is a
combination of the two, but "It all comes from the relationship". If
the relationship is right, everything else will flow smooth as silk
(assuming the requisite knowledge and skill of course).
'Turning loose means that when you reach for him, he softens. That
goes for you too.' RH
>>>>You have to understand something before you can focus on it. You are
>focussing on 'getting what you want' because that is all you can see -
>there are alternatives, ones that are even more rewarding: "The feeling of
>staying together is what you're trying to establish. In this instance you're
>going with him so he can stay with you".
>
>No in this instance you are going with him because to do otherwise is going to
>set up resistances and get you dumped on your keister.
That is a rather extreme example, most riders can keep a horse from
the gate without getting dumped. What about all the other little
resistances, braces, pauses? None of them would be there if the horse
found it easier to stay with you, applied himself to that because he
wanted to.
And quit the insults, they are unecessary and purile.
Jackie
Jackie
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:13:44 GMT, JJ...@dial.pipex.com (Jackie) wrote:
>
><a curious combination of misunderstandings that I have deleted>
>
>We have plowed this ground before. I see no purpose is replowing.
Entirely as you wish.
Jackie
AlaTmPnr
J previously wrote:>Support is fine - that is not the same as domination by
monologue.
>
I wrote:>>Say what???!!!
>>>Support does not entail 'calling all the shots'.
Geez ..... you still dont get it. You are calling the shots .... you picked the
cow and what you want done with the cow. The horse complies ... what part of
that is OF mutual consent?
I wrote:>folks to ensure they got it? Or are you assuming that because you
think you
>got it everyone else did too?
>>>No, I am saying of the clinic I experienced, and all those I have heard of,
I have no knowledge of someone who did not learn to see tries they could not
see before. People don't weep if they don't 'get
it' in a very profound way - they were bursting into tears all over the
Cotswolds, even auditors in tea rooms having lunch.
Oh for heavens sake. I would prefer a more concrete form of example other than
being weepy in one's tea cup about a concept. I would love to see what your
brand of horsemanship looks like now. You have folks doing dressage tests sans
reins or out on hunts in just their saddles? Where is the proof that they got
it? People get weepy all the time ....ask Sir Monty about that ... it doesnt
mean they know what it means.
>>>>Exactly so, that is why 'pressure alone' can still be improved upon, even
if
>not crude.
>
>Helloooo if we are using only pressure what other method are you bringing to
>the table?
>>>Acceptance of an offer for one. The point is to get the horse and rider
better 'in tune', following each other so closely that no pressure is needed
to get a response. I saw a transformation in a real nervous novice with a green
horse - I have never seen such joy, and the thing that choked us all up on that
one was the expression on the face of the horse was EXACTLY the same! This
stuff works fine for anyone, if they are open to learn.
Simple things look complicated for the uninitiated.
I wrote:>There is another way of looking at that. You purposely set it up and
go with
him because you dont want to set up a resistance in the horse. When you let
the horse have its way then when it gets there you make the gate unattractive
by working the horse hard around the gate.
>>>Sure, but you would find to your astonishment that part one is often
enough without part two. The rider goes with the horse, so the horse softens to
the rider, and suddenly the rider has all he needs - a soft, responsive horse
with no resistance.
In your dreams. A truly gate sour horse that goes to the gate is going to be
no fun as it is going to bolt to get there and attempting to hold to ride
nicely is going to set up resistances ... methinks you havent ever been on a
truly gatesour horse. Going with the horse is a solution but ... you better be
able to ride.
I wrote:>I wrote previously:>Hmmm that quotation is referring to building
blocks of
>instruction and of course block one is going to be in block ten. It has
>nothing to do with
>accepting the wrong thing as right or even a dialogue with the horse. It is
>simply breaking down a task into smaller pieces and training those pieces and
>then putting them together to get the task you want.
>
>>>Um - no it isn't.
>
>Yes it is and its obvious.
>>>No, he was talking about RIDERS understanding, not horses'.
And there is a difference because?
>>>I disagree. I favour the way Tom, Ray and Mark teach, which is a combination
of the two, but "It all comes from the relationship". If the relationship is
right, everything else will flow smooth as silk
(assuming the requisite knowledge and skill of course).
You favor your interpretation of what you think they are teaching. If it works
for you then have a good time.
I wrote:>No in this instance you are going with him because to do otherwise is
going to set up resistances and get you dumped on your keister.
>>>That is a rather extreme example, most riders can keep a horse from
the gate without getting dumped.
Hmm then it isnt gate sour LOL it is middling sour and only evading by rushing
the gate.
>>>What about all the other little
resistances, braces, pauses? None of them would be there if the horse
found it easier to stay with you, applied himself to that because he
wanted to.
If he wanted to stay with you he wouldnt be gate sour in the first place. Gate
sour is taught by the rider.
>>>And quit the insults, they are unecessary and purile.
Quit talking down your nose.
Bill
Jorene Downs
Jackie <JJ...@dial.pipex.com> wrote ...
> "Jorene Downs" <Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
> >No, you still don't understand.
> You repeated your attitude and intent many times, and it was crystal
> clear that it was based on the 'alpha model' that you were supporting
> - however subtly and skillfully applied.
No, you obviously still didn't understand the subtle alpha model because you
kept quoting comments that referred to the rare exception, not the norm.
>>I'll make an assumption based on past experience and expect you will again
>>claim worlds of difference, and I can't possibly begin to understand what
>>can only be learned from Dorrance and other Jackie Approved Gurus.
<multiple references to learning from Dorrance and Rashid snipped>
You responded the way I expected.
Jorene Downs
Jackie <JJ...@dial.pipex.com> wrote
> "I like to work from where the horse is.."TD
"If you're not starting from where the horse is, you're making things far
more difficult and less likely to succeed."
That's a paraphrase of what I've heard from the best horsemen I've known.
Concept sound familiar?
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>I want more than a horse - I want him close as he can get and
>stuck like glue to every feel.
A horse can be no more than a horse no matter how much you wish it to be not.
>Most humans around here do not let their horses groom them.
LOL...now I've heard everything. You want your horse to comb & brush your
hair, bathe you and whatever...... Whatever floats your boat......
>A close co-operation and alliance not based on fear.
Horse training should never be fear training.
>A human alpha is far too lacking in equine
>awareness, and far too demanding, to model his leadership style on a
>horse.
Now that's a statement from someone who doesn't open their eyes or at
least doesn't get out much.
re: Rashid
>He doesn't say that - just that as a model for horse/human relations
>it is limited by it's very nature.
Well then, that goes against your first statement.
>Consistency and awareness are far
>more important than ideas of needing to maintain alpha status, far
>more effective.
Be consistent, firm yet fair and treat the horse in kind and the horse
will accept the human and follow. Horse 101
>Maybe you just don't understand
>what I'm saying.
You want a horse who is more than a horse, one that will groom you who has
total awareness of all your wants, desires and needs without any
fear.....right? <SEG>
>Or as the cavalry instructor said 'Make a noise like a carrot - he'll
>soon come to you'.
And probably will eat you for a snack. <SEG>
Jorene Downs
AlaTmPnr <alat...@aol.com> wrote
[...]
> The horse is ignoring the handler because the horse doesnt understand. I
see
> this all the time with newbies .... they give a garbled signal and when
the
> horse doesnt respond they escalate the signal. I am not saying this is
what
> Jorene is using for an example but it is the most common.
While you're quite correct about the horse frequently not understanding the
human communication - particularly newbies or relatively unhandled horses -
that wasn't what I was referring to. "Horse doesn't understand" was a
different category I mentioned because it is far too common a problem in
communication, and the problem is caused by the human.
For clarification, I'll provide a quick (?) summary of where I'm coming from
on the "horse ignoring the handler" situation ...
There is a slight chance the horse simply didn't notice you approaching
because he was distracted by something else. It isn't often you can startle
a horse with your "sudden" presence, but it can happen.
The the horse who is apparently ignoring you is also sending other messages
if you'd take the time to look more closely. "Don't understand" is a
frequent message. "I don't wanna" would be present in the body position or
posture and you likely have a multitude of other issues to consider
regarding why. "Don't bug me, I don't feel good" is another possibility.
I've had mares appear to ignore me that actually sends me a message that the
mare is in early labor and while aware of my presence she is focused on what
is happening in her body. Those are just a few examples.
The hypothetical horse in my prior example was ignoring the handler by
saying "I have no reason to pay attention to you." Making a sound or
movement to say you want his attention is one way, used when the situation
indicates for some reason you should "insist" on that attention. Note that
"insisting" can be very subtle. You can also stand there and wait it out
until the horse says "Why are you still hanging around?" Another option is
to pretend to ignore the horse who is ignoring you and eventually that horse
will wonder why you're ignoring him ... and you've gained his attention.
Depends on the horse and the situation. Combinations of these options also
work, and it pays to be flexible according to what you're reading ongoing
from the horse. WHY the horse told you he had no reason to pay attention in
the first place can be a big factor. Regardless, if the human fails to gain
the horse's attention and develop open lines of 2-way communication you
won't get far. ;)
Another horse supposedly ignoring the human may be sending the message "I
don't want you here" and the human should be prepared to potentially deal
with that horse's escalation and insistence regarding your departure.
Depends on the horse and the situation, but if the horse becomes
particularly agitaged by your mere presence I'd be careful standing within
firing or biting range. ;)
There are a multitude of messages the horse could be sending by supposedly
ignoring the handler - some messages more common than others - and it only
makes sense to figure out what the horse is saying before determining what
your response should be. And it always pays to ask why the horse sent that
message in the first place ... odds are there was human error involved to
create that situation. ;)
A slightly different topic - I spent a lot of years in law enforcement and
still have contact with that world on a pretty regular basis. Use of terms
like "escalate" and "aggression" are common in my vocabulary, yet can very
easily be misinterpreted. Sometimes I'll use them describe something that is
clearly a nuance in my mind, yet isn't understood as such by others because
those terms don't sound remotely "soft" or subtle by civilian
interpretation. "Appear more aggressive" may mean nothing more than standing
a bit straighter and looking as if you're capable instead of timid.
"Escalate" may mean moving a shoulder fractionally forward. I'll try to
remember to avoid using those "harder" words to avoid confusion. No
guarantees I'll be able to overcome a 20+ year habit! ;-/
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
snip
>Horse pins his ears when being cinched, kicks out going round in a
>round pen, approaches a human without being invited, does not respond
>to a request, ta-ra-ra. Put it this way - I can think of no
>'unacceptable behaviour' that could only be status related, off the
>top of my head.
Huh?
Pinning ears while being cinched is a self-protective reaction by a
horse who's been roughly cinched or girthed. Not a status reaction at
all.
Kicking in the round pen can go either way.
Approaching human space without invitation *is* a status issue, unless
one is talking about a young horse who has not learned boundaries as
yet.
Much of the interpretation is going to depend on what the body
language of the horse says, here and now, and we can cuss and discuss
it on line until the horse dies of old age and it won't make one whit
of difference. Rashid himself makes the differentiation between
scared and spoiled horses, and if you read his books carefully what
you see is that there is no one answer; one has to see what the
situation is during the situation itself.
jrw
Jackie
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>> You repeated your attitude and intent many times, and it was crystal
>> clear that it was based on the 'alpha model' that you were supporting
>> - however subtly and skillfully applied.
>
>No, you obviously still didn't understand the subtle alpha model because you
>kept quoting comments that referred to the rare exception, not the norm.
Well believe that if it makes you feel better, but it is not the
truth. But the fact remains that however subtly and gently applied
the alpha model is applied, it is still detrimental to the
horsemanship I seek - it is detrimental to the mindset of the human,
and the attitude it produces alone is enough to keep you from where I
seek to go.
If there is lack of unity, as there is for every horseman who accepts
that he is imperfect, then it leads you towards 'pulling rank' to
resolve that - if it did not, there would be no point having an alpha
horse model in the first place - another would be far more
appropriate.
If it gets you where you want to go, fine, stick with it. But you
can't twist the leadership model I am working towards to match your
model - it does not. It allows the horse far more leeway, gives him
the benefit of the doubt, even submits to his initiative sometimes -
because it is based on the acceptance of the horse as a creature who
is trying to co-operate *because he is hard-wired to*, not solely
because he is overtly convinced of your higher status.
>You responded the way I expected.
As did you precisely the way I expected. I don't challenge what you
say because it is you - I have agreed with plenty of points from
others in this thread. I challenge what you say because it is based in
a very different attitude to the one I describe, and attitude is all
in my model.
Jackie
Jackie
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
>Jackie <JJ...@dial.pipex.com> wrote
>
>> "I like to work from where the horse is.."TD
>
>"If you're not starting from where the horse is, you're making things far
>more difficult and less likely to succeed."
>
>That's a paraphrase of what I've heard from the best horsemen I've known.
Great. However only the interpretation and application of that phrase
will reveal the difference between all the horsemen who use it - it is
a very broad brushstroke.
Jackie
Jackie
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
Nice justification and post-rationalisation Jorene.
You see, when you think about it you find that what you originally
wrote:
> This "ignoring the human" is typically related to the
>established human-horse hierarchy since the horse is far less likely to be
>inclined to pay any attention to the messages from a "lower in the herd"
>status human.
......is not actually true at all. There are many reasons for a horse
to ignore a cue, and it is not *typically* related to the alpha status
issue at all, nor is the 'why' of it best understood and addressed
that way - though many do so.
*Seldom* might have been a more appropriate choice of word - that
might help people think a bit more before pulling rank and reacting
with aggression, even your special 'non-aggressive' aggression.
Jackie
Jackie
>>>>Support does not entail 'calling all the shots'.
>
> You are calling the shots .... you picked the
>cow and what you want done with the cow. The horse complies ... what part of
>that is OF mutual consent?
I was talking about horse training and riding, not a specific
application, like cow-cutting. That is a different ballgame from pure
equitation because there is a job to do, and the horse can easily hook
into that focus - same as x-country jumping. In that instance you set
a horse up for a combination fence - but once you get there it is far
more beneficial to let the horse get on with it's job and take a
supportive role -a rider can easily mess it up for a horse trying to
dictate everything, the horse needs to follow his own focus on the
fence, the job in hand, the cow.
I understand that the best cutting horses can indeed 'do the job'
without constant direction - same as the best x-country horses. My
friend said of her Badminton horse 'You'd have to physically prevent
him jumping once he was on the track' - all she had to do was give him
the support he needed, and keep out of his way - infinately preferable
to having to 'call the shots' to get over every fence.
But it is in the dressage phase that the problems of lack of unity
often emerge - where the focus is only on each other.
>Oh for heavens sake. I would prefer a more concrete form of example other than
>being weepy in one's tea cup about a concept.
Of course you would - you are probably very wary of intimacy and
emotion, but that is where this stuff leads.
> I would love to see what your
>brand of horsemanship looks like now. You have folks doing dressage tests sans
>reins or out on hunts in just their saddles? Where is the proof that they got
>it?
In the change in the horse. Wherever a horse is, wherever a rider is,
they get softer, lighter, more in tune with each other, more able to
pick up the subtle nuance and follow the lightest feel - outside of a
trained response. A bridle-less horse is just obedient - there are
many different ways to get there, that proves little.
The horses show deeper relaxation and calm, they offer transitions to
a 'thought' or a breath or an imperceptable shift. This is something
many 'good trainers' can acheive - but the difference is this is not
trained over a long period, it is gained in an instant by the horses
and rider themselves, via increased mutual awareness, more unity.
The tears come when people who are seeking this find more than they
ever dreamed, right under their noses, and find that the horse wants
the very same thing far more than they imagined he could.
>>>>Acceptance of an offer for one. The point is to get the horse and rider
>better 'in tune', following each other so closely that no pressure is needed
>to get a response. I saw a transformation in a real nervous novice with a green
>horse - I have never seen such joy, and the thing that choked us all up on that
>one was the expression on the face of the horse was EXACTLY the same! This
>stuff works fine for anyone, if they are open to learn.
>
>Simple things look complicated for the uninitiated.
Nothing complicated about it - it is simple as anything, but profound.
This is not macho stuff, you may not like it at all, some prefer to be
'Vlad the Overcomer'. It is not just about getting more, it is about
getting more with far less, operating from an ever-deeper place.
>>>>Sure, but you would find to your astonishment that part one is often
>enough without part two. The rider goes with the horse, so the horse softens to
>the rider, and suddenly the rider has all he needs - a soft, responsive horse
>with no resistance.
>
>In your dreams.
Well, my dreams came true last month - though the horse of course had
no such gross problems.
> A truly gate sour horse that goes to the gate is going to be
>no fun as it is going to bolt to get there and attempting to hold to ride
>nicely is going to set up resistances ... methinks you havent ever been on a
>truly gatesour horse.
I've certainly never had a problem that way, no - most times I find it
takes two to fight, and problem horses are nothing of the kind. When
my horse was at the international trainers, and they were battling
with him over plough, and still never getting him to 'submit to their
higher rank', I never had a major confrontation when I rode. It's the
confrontational nature of so much horsemanship that causes so many
problems - horses don't want to fight, and some will simply not
cow-tow to overt domination. But they had no alternative strategy - so
they were doomed to fail.
>>>>No, he was talking about RIDERS understanding, not horses'.
>
>And there is a difference because?
Horses are innately willing to form a relationship of mutual awareness
and softness and respect. Riders are often not - they want to be the
boss all the time. As Ray said:
"The horse is a thinking, feeling, decision making animal...but the
human always acts superior. He thinks he's smarter; he always wants to
have things his way and right now. He wants to be boss. If trouble
comes up, he turns it into a contest with the horse. What I'm talking
about developing with the horse is not dominating by fear, but more
like dancing with a partner.. the kind of dancing where his body and
your body become one"
That is profound and intimate - and it may be too deep for the more
macho to bear.
>You favor your interpretation of what you think they are teaching. If it works
>for you ......
It does...and for my horse. If you don't want it, don't seek it - but
don't decieve yourself that it does not work for those who do.
>If he wanted to stay with you he wouldnt be gate sour in the first place. Gate
>sour is taught by the rider.
For sure - an incompetant rider hell bent on pulling rank IMO. That's
why the 'antidote' can be exactly the opposite.
Jackie
Jackie
Reynolds-Ward) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:26:10 GMT, JJ...@dial.pipex.com (Jackie) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>Horse pins his ears when being cinched, kicks out going round in a
>>round pen, approaches a human without being invited, does not respond
>>to a request, ta-ra-ra. Put it this way - I can think of no
>>'unacceptable behaviour' that could only be status related, off the
>>top of my head.
>
>Huh?
Read it again - you are agreeing with me. I said most of the things
people considered status related incidences were not, and Bill asked
for examples. I started to list a few, and then realised there was
nothing at all I could think of that was an indication of a solely
status related problem - everything is just as likely to be something
else, moreso.
Jackie
AlaTmPnr
>While you're quite correct about the horse frequently not understanding the
human communication - particularly newbies or relatively unhandled horses -
that wasn't what I was referring to. "Horse doesn't understand" was a
different category I mentioned because it is far too common a problem in
communication, and the problem is caused by the human.
Which was why I mentioned it. c);-)
<Much snippage of some good stuff>
>The hypothetical horse in my prior example was ignoring the handler by
saying "I have no reason to pay attention to you." Making a sound or
movement to say you want his attention is one way, used when the situation
indicates for some reason you should "insist" on that attention. Note that
"insisting" can be very subtle. You can also stand there and wait it out
until the horse says "Why are you still hanging around?" Another option is
to pretend to ignore the horse who is ignoring you and eventually that horse
will wonder why you're ignoring him ... and you've gained his attention.
Depends on the horse and the situation. Combinations of these options also
work, and it pays to be flexible according to what you're reading ongoing
from the horse. WHY the horse told you he had no reason to pay attention in
the first place can be a big factor. Regardless, if the human fails to gain
the horse's attention and develop open lines of 2-way communication you
won't get far. ;)
Hmmm I went to work one of my horses that had been left for a week of no
training. He is in a bad situation and I am not in a position to rectify it
right now. He is stall bound with limited turn out. He get 2 hours of turn
out daily and then he gets worked fairly rigorously an hour more. The problems
arise when either due to the weather or my infirmities he doesnt get worked.
He tries that "I dont wanna" attitude and as yesterday will openly challenge.
He isnt physical(touching) but it is a display ... snakey headed, pawing and
kicking. It doent take much to discourage ... usually nothing more than moving
into him and he quickly gives in and turns and leaves. All of this is initial
and free longe. Ten minutes of letting him blow, snort and fart and he is back
to listening. I only do this if he has had more than 3 days off.
>Another horse supposedly ignoring the human may be sending the message "I
don't want you here" and the human should be prepared to potentially deal
with that horse's escalation and insistence regarding your departure.
Depends on the horse and the situation, but if the horse becomes
particularly agitaged by your mere presence I'd be careful standing within
firing or biting range. ;)
I had a friend find this out the hard way a couple of years back. I had told
him that when that horse "displayed" that it wasnt bluffing but he ignored me.
He got a nice trip to the emergency room.
Bill
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
snip
>Read it again - you are agreeing with me. I said most of the things
>people considered status related incidences were not, and Bill asked
>for examples. I started to list a few, and then realised there was
>nothing at all I could think of that was an indication of a solely
>status related problem - everything is just as likely to be something
>else, moreso.
Nope. You didn't get it.
I listed some behaviors which *can* be status-related, with the
exception of foals who haven't been taught behavior by the herd.
Invading a human space without invitation *is* a status behavior.
Kicking at a human in the round pen *is* a status behavior.
Certain self-protective behaviors are more likely to be engaged by
high-status horses than by low-status horses.
Furthermore, you left out the context; behaviors *can* be
status-related but the handler has to be able to read the horse to
know whether that particular action is driven by fear or by a
status-driven rebellion. Such things mean you have to be there, or
know that the person relating the situtation is knowledgable.
So no, I disagree with you. You're trying to create universals when
in reality interpretation depends upon the context.
jrw
Kris Carroll
> *Seldom* might have been a more appropriate choice of word - that
> might help people think a bit more before pulling rank and reacting
> with aggression, even your special 'non-aggressive' aggression.
There is a dangerous error in your simplistic misreading of rank and
aggression when a human makes his presence known to the horse. Instinct is
the first principle that comes into play - is this interloper a danger to
flee from? No matter how old the horse or how intensive the training,
evolutionary and instinctual reactions, and self interest come first.
Safety guidelines dictates that the human involved establish immediate
communication with the confidence of leadership. What you chose to do is
your own business but if you don't teach kids or beginners that basic
you're putting their lives in danger. And incidentally teaching the horse
poor *ground manners*.
Kris C.
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>But the fact remains that however subtly and gently applied
>the alpha model is applied, it is still detrimental to the
>horsemanship I seek - it is detrimental to the mindset of the human,
>and the attitude it produces alone is enough to keep you from where I
>seek to go.
So you've been at it for how many years and still rely on good ol' Horse
101 as evidenced by your posts? KISS
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:48:39 -0700, "Jorene Downs"
><Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Jackie <JJ...@dial.pipex.com> wrote
>>
>>> "I like to work from where the horse is.."TD
>>
>>"If you're not starting from where the horse is, you're making things far
>>more difficult and less likely to succeed."
>>
>>That's a paraphrase of what I've heard from the best horsemen I've known.
>
>Great. However only the interpretation and application of that phrase
>will reveal the difference between all the horsemen who use it - it is
>a very broad brushstroke.
KISS - you can't make one rule for all horses. They are individuals, so
broad is general and the basis for working with horses. Then one can
refine to the individual horses, the individual situation according to the
skills & knowledge of the person.
Be consistent, firm yet fair and treat the horse in kind. Horse 101
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
>On 26 Oct 1999 23:58:53 GMT, alat...@aol.com (AlaTmPnr) wrote:
>
>>>>>Support does not entail 'calling all the shots'.
>>
>> You are calling the shots .... you picked the
>>cow and what you want done with the cow. The horse complies ... what part of
>>that is OF mutual consent?
>
>I was talking about horse training and riding, not a specific
>application, like cow-cutting.
You want to turn right at a trot. The horse complies . . . what part of
that is of mutual consent? And when the horse walks instead of trot or
turns left instead of right - do you correct it? What part of that is of
mutual consent?
>In the change in the horse. Wherever a horse is, wherever a rider is,
>they get softer, lighter, more in tune with each other, more able to
>pick up the subtle nuance and follow the lightest feel - outside of a
>trained response.
The lightest feel is a trained response for a finished horse. Horse 501
Oh, yeah...I forgot - you read horse's minds and they read yours......
>As Ray said:
>
>"The horse is a thinking, feeling, decision making animal...but the
>human always acts superior. He thinks he's smarter; he always wants to
>have things his way and right now. He wants to be boss. If trouble
>comes up, he turns it into a contest with the horse. What I'm talking
>about developing with the horse is not dominating by fear, but more
>like dancing with a partner.. the kind of dancing where his body and
>your body become one"
Good trainers and riders never use fear training. His point sounds like it
is geared toward those who consistantly have difficulties with horses and
tend to use force out of frustration of not understanding Horse 101.
Jackie
Reynolds-Ward) wrote:
>Nope. You didn't get it.
If you say so, I can't check, I've deleted it. If so we must be a
pair, 'cos you're not getting my point either.
>I listed some behaviors which *can* be status-related,
So you were saying they (whatever they were) could equally not be? If
so, we are in agreement on those.
>Invading a human space without invitation *is* a status behavior.
>Kicking at a human in the round pen *is* a status behavior.
And by that *you* mean what - that the horse views the human as lower
status? If so we are in disagreement.
A polite approach is not a declaration of perceived higher status,
merely of lack of fear, or training to the contrary.
A kick back in a round pen is often defensive - mostly caused by
excess pressure or aggression from the human.
>Certain self-protective behaviors are more likely to be engaged by
>high-status horses than by low-status horses.
For sure, but there is no particular behaviour which is solely
indicative of a horse who believes a human is lower in the hierarchy -
which was the point I made.
>Furthermore, you left out the context; behaviors *can* be
>status-related
The context of the behaviour doesn't matter - when the point was that
there is no behaviour which *must* be about horse/human hierarchy (the
context of this discussion).
>So no, I disagree with you. You're trying to create universals
You seem to be the only one doing that by insisting two particular
behaviours are always about status to the horse. My point, again,
(sigh) is that there is NO behaviour about which you can make such a
universal rule.
If you can think of one, I will happily accept it, but those given so
far are often not about status.
Jackie
Bill Kambic
Kilberg) wrote:
>In article <381701f6...@news.dial.pipex.com>, JJ...@dial.pipex.com
>(Jackie) wrote:
>
>>On 26 Oct 1999 23:58:53 GMT, alat...@aol.com (AlaTmPnr) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Support does not entail 'calling all the shots'.
>>>
>>> You are calling the shots .... you picked the
>>>cow and what you want done with the cow. The horse complies ... what part of
>>>that is OF mutual consent?
>>
>>I was talking about horse training and riding, not a specific
>>application, like cow-cutting.
>
>You want to turn right at a trot. The horse complies . . . what part of
>that is of mutual consent? And when the horse walks instead of trot or
>turns left instead of right - do you correct it? What part of that is of
>mutual consent?
I just got back from surveying the newly refurbished trail up to the
top of the mountain behind the house. It climbs about 900 feet and
has some "Man From Snowy River Class 7" hills (that scale runs from
Class 1 "Illinois Prarie" to the Class 10 "Like In The Movie" slopes).
This horse would definitely preferred to stay at the bottom (as
opposed to hauling my 200+ pound butt up to the top). Guess what? We
"partnered" all the way up!!!!! Why? "Because Mr. Kambic WANTED it
that way!" The desire of the horse amounted to precisely zero in the
calculus of that ride.
To attempt to split equestrian hairs (that this "mystical
Jackie/TD/MRash" approach is somehow limited when a job is at hand but
works full force in a more abstract discipline) is ludicrous. As TvG
likes to point out, "riding is riding." And while there might be
instances where this little observation might not be 100% correct, it
is right a WHOLE lot more than it is wrong. A guess a corelary would
be "training is training." And teaching is teaching. And leaning is
learning. And the horse is always learing even if you are not
teaching.
AlaTmPnr
>Nothing complicated about it - it is simple as anything, but profound. This
is not macho stuff, you may not like it at all, some prefer to be 'Vlad the
Overcomer'.
Hahaha you just cant help yourself can you? You have to snipe and back into an
insult. Nothing I have pominted to warranted this inference. That must be
some ski slope you are looking down.
>It is not just about getting more, it is about getting more with far less,
operating from an ever-deeper place.
Sorry I understand less is more. But regardless of that unless mental
telepathy is involved, and we have kept away from that (this trip), you cant
have the partnership in the manner you describe. One of you has to be in
charge either you or the horse. If it is you then you are riding and if it is
the horse then you are being packed around.
Bill
AlaTmPnr
I wrote:>Oh for heavens sake. I would prefer a more concrete form of example
other than being weepy in one's tea cup about a concept.
>>Of course you would - you are probably very wary of intimacy and emotion, but
that is where this stuff leads.
No it doesnt. Only if you are supremely frustrated in your training of your
horse and of a sudden you realize you've been the idiot and have consistently
overfaced the horse and it brings tears of shame to you when you realize what a
putz you have been to the horse. That I have seen, but to burst into tears
simply over a concept is a bit melodramatic.
I wrote:> I would love to see what your
brand of horsemanship looks like now. You have folks doing dressage tests sans
reins or out on hunts in just their saddles? Where is the proof that they got
it?
>>In the change in the horse. Wherever a horse is, wherever a rider is, they
get softer, lighter, more in tune with each other, more able to pick up the
subtle nuance and follow the lightest feel - outside of a trained response.
Oh? So noticeable difference would be in the offing uh?
>> A bridle-less horse is just obedient -
No ..... you dont have a clue here ... a bridless horse is not JUST obedient he
is willing. If you see only an obedient horse then I pity your brand
horsemanship.
>> there are many different ways to get there, that proves little.
There are many ways to get anywhere. Some are straight, some are out of your
way, some are unsafe and some just never get there. You might want to examine
your route plans.
Bill
Jane H. Kilberg
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:01:21 -0500, jkil...@mcia.com (Jane H.
>Kilberg) wrote:
>
>>In article <381701f6...@news.dial.pipex.com>, JJ...@dial.pipex.com
>>(Jackie) wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Oct 1999 23:58:53 GMT, alat...@aol.com (AlaTmPnr) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Support does not entail 'calling all the shots'.
>>>>
>>>> You are calling the shots .... you picked the
>>>>cow and what you want done with the cow. The horse complies ... what
part of
>>>>that is OF mutual consent?
>>>
>>>I was talking about horse training and riding, not a specific
>>>application, like cow-cutting.
>>
>>You want to turn right at a trot. The horse complies . . . what part of
>>that is of mutual consent? And when the horse walks instead of trot or
>>turns left instead of right - do you correct it? What part of that is of
>>mutual consent?
>
>I just got back from surveying the newly refurbished trail up to the
>top of the mountain behind the house. It climbs about 900 feet and
>has some "Man From Snowy River Class 7" hills (that scale runs from
>Class 1 "Illinois Prarie" to the Class 10 "Like In The Movie" slopes).
>This horse would definitely preferred to stay at the bottom (as
>opposed to hauling my 200+ pound butt up to the top). Guess what? We
>"partnered" all the way up!!!!! Why? "Because Mr. Kambic WANTED it
>that way!" The desire of the horse amounted to precisely zero in the
>calculus of that ride.
Dang straight! I seriously doubt Mr. Dobbin had a conversation with you.
In all probability it would go like this:
Mr. Kambic: "Mr. Dobbin, I wish to climb 900 feet on your back. Do I have
your consent."
Mr. Dobbin: "Why, yes, most certainly Mr. Kambic. You have my consent to
climb all you wish, but I'm staying here!"
Mr. Kambic: "I understand your desires to stay at the bottom, Mr. Dobbin.
However, you are going to carry me up that 900 foot trail."
Mr. Dobbin: "Well, okay - I'll do what you want even if I care not to do
that climb. After all, you're the boss hoss."
>To attempt to split equestrian hairs (that this "mystical
>Jackie/TD/MRash" approach is somehow limited when a job is at hand but
>works full force in a more abstract discipline) is ludicrous. As TvG
>likes to point out, "riding is riding." And while there might be
>instances where this little observation might not be 100% correct, it
>is right a WHOLE lot more than it is wrong. A guess a corelary would
>be "training is training." And teaching is teaching. And leaning is
>learning. And the horse is always learing even if you are not
>teaching.
Like your philsophy....it's KISS in a nutshell. <SEG>
Jane H. Kilberg
(Jackie) wrote:
(snipped parts)
>My point, again,
>(sigh) is that there is NO behaviour about which you can make such a
>universal rule.
Yup, there is one - KISS
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
snip
>>Invading a human space without invitation *is* a status behavior.
>>Kicking at a human in the round pen *is* a status behavior.
>And by that *you* mean what - that the horse views the human as lower
>status? If so we are in disagreement.
At last you get it.
>A polite approach is not a declaration of perceived higher status,
>merely of lack of fear, or training to the contrary.
A polite approach is NOT "invading human space without invitation."
It's a REQUEST--and an acknowledgment that the human has higher
status.
Barging into human space, pushing humans out of the way, mowing humans
over is *clearly* a status statement--ie, humans are subordinate to
the horse. Go back and read your Rashid, especially _Considering the
Horse_, page 94. "Every horse that I've ever seen that had bad
manners lacked one of two things: training or respect."
A horse who doesn't respect the handler views the handler as lower
status. Period. I don't think you understand this concept at all.
>A kick back in a round pen is often defensive - mostly caused by
>excess pressure or aggression from the human.
I'd argue with the "often defensive" notion. My experience has been
that the kick back in a round pen happens when I return pressure from
a horse testing my status. Case in point: the Bucky Spot mare. She
wanted to cut off one end of the round pen. I put pressure on her to
move over. She squealed and kicked when I put enough pressure on her
to keep her on the rail. It wasn't a defensive move on her part, as
she would then try to move in in another spot. Clearly testing the
waters. She would drop the challenge, only to resume it if she saw
half a chance to try it again. She was clearly what Rashid would call
a "spoiled" horse and she would also try other spoiled horse behaviors
such as rubbing her head on my body without invitation, rush for food,
etc, etc, etc.
>>Certain self-protective behaviors are more likely to be engaged by
>>high-status horses than by low-status horses.
>For sure, but there is no particular behaviour which is solely
>indicative of a horse who believes a human is lower in the hierarchy -
>which was the point I made.
Mmm, yes I can think of at least one. A horse who starts rubbing his
head on a human without invitation. I only see such activity from a
horse who considers a human to be lower status than him, and I notice
that in such horses discouragement of this behavior often results in
better overall behavior from the trained horse.
>>Furthermore, you left out the context; behaviors *can* be
>>status-related
>The context of the behaviour doesn't matter - when the point was that
>there is no behaviour which *must* be about horse/human hierarchy (the
>context of this discussion).
You are very wrong. Context of the behavior is everything; it
determines whether you are dealing with a scared horse, an untrained
horse, or a spoiled horse. I don't give a squat about the context of
the thread; what I care about is that the horse's behavior must be
seen in the context where it exists.
>>So no, I disagree with you. You're trying to create universals
>You seem to be the only one doing that by insisting two particular
>behaviours are always about status to the horse. My point, again,
>(sigh) is that there is NO behaviour about which you can make such a
>universal rule.
And you are--as ever--quibbling about semantic defintions which
apparently make sense only to you and a handful of guru groupies
incapable of thinking for themselves.
jrw
Kris Carroll
liver nicked by a well placed kick. The time before that was a shoulder
dislocation. No respect = no manners = people get hurt.
Do you parent by the buddy system too? ROTFL
Kris C