This message is from: Starfire Farm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jerrell friz wrote:
None of these trainers invented the wheel, although they talk like it.
Horsemanship, has been around since the beginning of man and horse. What is
natural horsemanship?
Over the course of the winter, I have been re-reading works on horse
training, or horsemanship (if you will) written by men who are
considered "masters" i.e., M. de la Guerniere (1688-1751), Gustav
Steinbrecht (1808-1885) and works about Francois Baucher (1796-1873) and
Nuno Oliviera. A couple of things have struck me, this time around. One
is that every one of these people have been adamant that the
rider/trainer must have an independent seat in order to be effective and
to not damage the horse's mouth by the rider leaning on the reins for
balance and support.
The other is that most emphasize working with the horse as he is, a
horse, and working with the nature of the horse. No forcing, with
patience, and taking the time to help the horse understand what the
rider/trainer is asking of it. This, in my opinion, is "natural
horsemanship."
I'm not saying that everything they did was correct or beneficial. In
fact, there was plenty of disagreement, at the time, with regard to
who's methods were correct. Baucher's methods raised, perhaps, the most
discussion and criticism (Steinbrecht cautions the reader over and over
again that Baucher's methods are wrong and dangerous - and tells the
reader why) yet, there are repeated familiar themes which we are still
discussing and teaching today. Steinbrecht even describes what might be
interpreted as a version of a "one rein halt" that could be used, only
by a very skilled rider, under extreme circumstances, with a fractious
young horse (in order to avoid being unseated).
I recently picked up a translation of James Fillis (1834-1913) who was a
student of Baucher, but who did not agree with all of Baucher's methods.
In one section of his book, he describes work with the horse done at
liberty (after teaching it to work around him and to come to him with
use of a lunge-line) which sounds very much like asking a horse to "hook
on" or "join up" or "face up" or whatever you want to call it.
As for Parelli, a lot of the original work, in my opinion, is based on
the exploitation (if you will) of the instincts of the horse that circus
performers use in their training methods. These methods have been around
for centuries. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. In the Parelli programs
I have seen of late, there has been much more emphasis on the human's
responsibility to learn about what the horse's behavoiral response to
the human's request means. This, in my opinion, is much better than what
I've seen in the past, which was people getting so involved in the
Parelli Process, and in acheiving the required skills in order to climb
the "Level Ladder", that they were leaving the horses out of the
equation. In my opinion, the marketing that goes along with the process
is responsible for the "I want to belong" syndrome that would foster the
"Level Ladder" goals, and not being with your horse in the moment.
On another hand, one could look at the Parelli system as a method to
"bring horsemanship to the masses." As it is currently, it is
de-mystifying (for some folks) the horse-human observation and
relationship skills that were attributed to horse whisperers.
Beth
http://www.starfirefarm.com
The FjordHorse List archives can be found at:
http://tinyurl.com/rcepw
