I sometimes like to watch other training videos on You tube to learn some new things. And I came across one video that just blew my mind. I like to work with “problem horses” or “aggressive horses” so this video caught my attention. We don’t have the very beginning of the video.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmp53-C6A3o&list=PLB5F2DE9CC8F62533&index=13)
.
Here is my opinion of the video and what I seen and think is wrong. (I am still learning horse behavior and training so please correct me if Im wrong on something.) Besides her clothing choice such as the hat. Her she is not relaxed and shows as a threat from when she walks up to the horse.
.
In the beginning she did not give clear cues to the horse to back up and with not understanding the horse bit at her. AND once the horse backs up and stands quiet she keeps moving the lead and wont stand quiet.
.
From what we learn from Monty, nose to the ground means “can we renegotiate this contract. I am not a threat to you. I just want to eat.” But to her nose to the ground is a sign of I am going to tell you something and you will listen to me.
.
IS the reason he is starting to paw the ground is due to frustration and not understanding what she is asking of him?
.
What do you all see in the video that I may not have pointed out. Could I be miss understanding her?
.
If anyone else has a video we should talk about please post it also. thanks
← back
Horse Behavior and Training
Horse Trainers on youtube.
Rewards
Subscribe to Equus Online University and become a part of Monty's worldwide mission to leave the world a better place for horses and for people too.
Students automatically gain access to special rewards, such as exclusive discounts at the Monty Roberts Online Shop. Visit Monty Roberts Online Shop.
Hi Christena,
.
I think you are right. This woman works way different than Monty does.
The stomping with the feet is frustration and anger, I would say. At the end of the video it accurs more often, and the horse's ears are flat on the nack. I would say, that she even made this horse more aggressivly, although he seems to relax.
.
And the lowering of the head in this case has two meanings, I would say. First the horse seems to want to eat (the round pen is not the best with so much grass), but it does also mean that this horse tries to communicate to her that he's not totally happy with her rules, but that he would let her "be the chairwoman of the meeting", as Monty would say.
.
Anyone else having opinions on this?
.
Best wishes Jasmin
I think she does a mixt training Pat Parelli / Monty Roberts with a Pat Parelli halter.
Rudi
I think she is basically making him worse, she's not allowing him to lower his nose to the ground, and that's what is probably making him angrier.
Yes and also from what I seen was the way she holds the lead in such an aggressive manner. The way she walks and stands. When she side steps around the horse and he does not move his hind end is because every time he moves his back feet he gets hit with the lead rope or "flagged" as she called it.
.
I do not see a discussion of who will be the leader in the group but her telling the horse she is the appointed leader and he will just have to deal with that.
Well, I saw total confusion - Ears out to the side or back and pawing. Pawing can signify boredom and/or confusion. The trainer flags all the time. Does it mean backup? Does it mean lift my head up? Does it mean don't look at me? At first the trainer was pretty adamant about the horse looking at her so she was always pulling the head up and into her space when the horse looked off into the distance or tried to snatch some grass. Then later she was flagging the horse when he put his head into her space but not when he was looking off into the distance.
People just need to let horses be horses. If the horse was aggressive in the herd who better to put him in his place than another horse? Put him with a dominant mare and he won't have issues for long.
I would like to continue the discussion about Nevzorov in this thread (see also MUST SEE).
I have read the "Tractate on a School Mount". I must say that after an initial excitement I got more and more disappointed. The text is full of people called "idiots", Nevzorow beeing the only man on the world understanding the physiology of a horse. A lot of strange pseudoscientific information. An example discussed already before: thermography is given a far too important role. In the comment about doing more specific examinations about muscular function you realize that he does not know the matter.(I am a pediatric surgeon having treated thousands of children with muscular problems.)
I tried to find original scientific papers in the most important database of medicine (MEDLINE), I could not find anything. Maybe things are published in Russian. And I must say that I could not find anything from Heuschmann. Heuschmann actually has a very bad reputation because he has started to "correct" horses during his seminars in a inacceptable forceful way.
Rudi
Yes, but Heuschman is an equine surgeon and you are a pediatric surgeon. With respect,I would not trust you to operate on my horse. My impression Rudi, is that you have, for some reason, taken this matter personally. You mention that you could not find anything from Heuschman, goodness gracious man, phone him. I have found a great deal indeed, including videos of his operations and publications etc. If you so strongly disagree with someone, do what I do, give them a phone call, discuss your concerns with them. Or email them. One must be very careful to not simply dismiss "out of hand" or simply go off on a "tangent of criticism" simply because one disagrees or does not understand something.
To refer to MEDLINE, PUBMED, and/or PMC as a source is simply self serving. MEDLINE as my 2 close veterinarian friends tell me bares no direct correlation to "horse ailments".
Dr. Heuschman's forte is equine surgery, not "training" horses. I would not allow him to "train" my horses any more than I would allow Parelli to, for precisely the same reasons. However, I do know that Parelli believes in twitching horses (stallions) and in tying their legs up to immobilize them in some instances and Gerd does not....and so on and so on. One could argue and debate ad nauseum. As well, there are some of Monty's methods that I would not use as well, such as backing up a horse all of the time. This is one of the most submissive things to make a horse do, and it does (to degrees) diminish their spirit. I have personally seen this with hundreds of horses, thousands, if you include video footage.
One cannot argue with results, and I hasten to add, that one certainly could and should use some of Parelli's and Heuschmann's et al's methods. I just would not put one of my horses in their hands because of my love of my horses does not allow me to put them in the (however remote) position that they "just might" be subjected to harsh treatment.
To say that any one person has a "bad reputation" is highly subjective and unfair indeed simply because he (may have?) corrected a horse in an unacceptable way is too judgemental.
With respect to Nevzorov, and "Tractate on a School Mount": I too have read this book, and have discussed it with my friends in the Russian community here, so as not to unfairly judge and thereby unfairly condemn the grammar and adjective use. They tell me that the Russian language is so much more colourful and "passionate" and as well, you should be aware of the fact that when Nevzorov first submitted this to the publishers they redacted it so radically that he refused to use them. Why?...because he is a very passionate and headstrong person whom did not want any changes made to his work that would "soft sell" what he wanted to convey, in very plain harsh terms. He feels that people who disrespect horses are, as he puts it, "idiots" and indeed, they are. Even though he "speaks" very harshly and criticizes very strongly, people whom abuse horses, I think that, in part, the reason that most people find his grammar "shocking" is that it is diametric to the mollycoddling, politically correct crap that is out there today. People and society in general are way too focused on not "hurting anyone's feelings" and so obfuscate reality to the extent that the "truth" or intent of meaning is not made clear enough to be understood. The media is full of such. And so, horses suffer because of this soft peddling.
Well, thats it from me, I truly believe that any topic on the planet could be debated and argued forever. All have a right to an opinion and to state such. The danger lies in attempting to force and/or coerce another human being to one's way of thinking or doing something.
It seems Rudi, that you are heading in the direction of "ad hominem" argument here and with that, I am done.
Cheers,
Paul
Another thing to bear in mind here, Nevzorov is not a person to sugar coat the truth. He will, as I will, put things simply and bluntly, with little concern over offending someone. If it offends you, don't read it. I find that more tolerable than complaining about being offended by something and expecting change. The fact that someone has to raise hell over some simple thing that they feel offended by is driving the United States closer and closer massive civil problems every day.
Dear friends,
I don't think it is a problem of being offended. I like the direct and simple way how Nevzorow is listing the problems. What bothers me is that scientific proofs are mentioned that you can't find. By chance I looked up the scientific work of Heuschmann (I was one his fans) as well and again I could not find it. If I look for the names of the university professors of Zurich, I find them in MEDLINE. Let's have a look at Monty's book. It bases on the operant conditioning, you don't have to proof any more, and his personal experience. He is doing the contrary: he would like to add more scientific information.
Maybe I am not able to find the information, maybe I am wrong. But my concern still remains. We will see in the future how things will develop.
Rudi