Stormy May wrote about different levels on horse-human relationships.
I want to write down my "groups and charasteristics". After this, I will probably hear roulette spinning sounds in my head every time I meet new horse people. Maybe I'll even work out different sounds on different groups ;)
"traditional"
riding school
whips
spurs
bits
stronger bits
do-as-I-say-or-else!
horses are for riding
"natural horsemanship"
dominance
silenced, machine-like horses
pretty words - ugly actions (Ms Parelli-style)
strong judgement on "others"
horses are for riding
"Oneness, Kinship"
Horses "no" is respected, whenever possible (excl. veterinary treatments for example, which are of course made as easy as possible for the horse!)
Horses living conditions are carefully build to be as natural as possible. Friends, space, freedom to choose in whatever possible.
Horses are not meant to be ridden, but can be, if they truly and honestly wish to take a person on their back.
All punishing is forbidden, all force is avoided, all restraints are kept in minimal (meaning that when being with horse, the horse can at any time stop and/or leave.)
*****
I have got 3 cats, 1 dog and 1 horse. They all are equally my pets, and serve the same purpose. They have no duties or responsibilities in our life, I on the other hand do. I want to make sure they have a good life, on their scale. My "salary" is to see them happy, and it makes me happy.
Feel free to comment if you have anything to add to these groups.
Images from January 2024
2 kuukautta sitten
John Lyons comes under the "Natural Horsemanship" category, but I've met some of his horses, and they are very cheerful and outgoing. John Lyons' aim with a horse is to get it where you can lead it with no tack, across a crowded parking lot, surrounded by mares in heat. Lyons uses dominance to achieve this, but he does not use any kind of contact punishment. (Although you could call driving the horse forward a kind of punishment.)
VastaaPoistaMost of us are, from time to time, in situations with our horses where we could find ourselves in the aforementioned "parking lot" scenario - e.g. on being unloaded at the vet's. For our horse's sake, as well as for the safety of passing traffic, we might well want to be able to "control" a horse in that situation, even a horse with whom we had not painstakingly developed a relationship with over many moons.
I, personally, am not at this time pursuing the John Lyons path to parking lot perfection. However, I have to sympathize with anyone who thinks it's a good idea.
Also - take, for example, our local rescue barn. They take in horses and foals who need to become adoptable sooner rather than later (so that the barn can continue to rescue other horses). They are very picky about who is allowed to adopt the horses, and the adoptees all go to good "situations," but there is no way on earth that they're all going to Oneness/Kinship homes. Of course that would be ideal, but it's better that they go to kind Natural Horsemanship homes than nowhere. Prior to adoption, those who work with the horses have to get them "halter-trained," "broke," ..... you know the litany.
I've said it before - the horses at the Rescue are all confident, cheerful, kind, and friendly - even those who started out otherwise. The difference is not the training method but that the horses know, when they arrive at the Rescue, that their wellbeing is paramount and that they are there to be served rather than to serve.
Rather than categorize the humans' approach in terms of training, etc., I think the difference lies in this: Does this particular human think of this particular horse as an end-in-itself rather than as a means-to-an-end? A person might have varying ambitions involving riding or training, but if they have the intention to keep and cherish the horse even if it fails to help them succeed in those areas, then I think that person "passes the test."
I love your roulette sound effects!
VastaaPoista