By: Ron Anderson
I was reading. Yep. Sitting in the lazy boy studying important stuff. My partner questions that particular endeavour because she notices the outcome is generally less than favourable.
Apparently, reading in the lazy boy results in either, A) a big old-man idea (this has been described in previous dissertations), or B) a complete non-productive waste of time and/or semi-trance-like condition where I am checking my eyelids for cracks that may allow in light. That particular condition can last for hours.
However, in this case, none of the above happened. Well … maybe the man-idea part, but just a little.
The stuff I was studying was headlines in a well-respected equine publication. (cue editor to ask if it was Horses All. Affirmative). The headline proclaimed the results of a “trainers’ challenge.” This required some study. I needed to understand the whats, whys, and how-comes of a trainers’ challenge.
It seems that a number of these horse “evangelists” (I don’t want to overuse the whisper word) get in a competition to see who can do the most with an unbroken horse in the least amount of time. Now I am confused. (Note: that, in itself, is not unusual).
The real issue is that years ago when the gentle-logic method of interacting with horses became popular, time was not a factor.
I have the greatest respect for the methodology employed by the various proponents of equine development. Fact is, I have employed a similar philosophy since first encountering the stories of the famed Ray Hunt and subsequently being involved in one of his clinics.
That dates my history for over two decades. In that time of experimentation, practical experience, and communication with other professionals, I have always thought it was about the horse. I thought the horse would dictate how fast it would accept our thoughts and comply with our wishes.
Now, maybe you see my confusion. Over the past decade, the approach to the horse has been on a more thoughtful plane. I applaud that.
What does concern me is the development of training systems that appear more like cults than horsemanship. Questions appear in my mind (there’s a lot of spare room) about the direction we’re being lead. Here are some questions that get me pondering.
Question 1: If communicating with the horse is about the animal’s ability to comprehend, can we do that in a timed environment? Add in the stress of competition for the handler, put them both in a public environment where stress levels really go over the top, and then what have you got?
Question 2: If the communication between horse and human is the most important situation for developing a trusting and trustworthy horse, why are we trying to identify the winning trainer in a contrived, contest situation? Doesn’t the horse then become a vehicle to success for the trainer?
These are just the tip of my iceberg of questions.
I admire the professionals that are educating horse owners on proper methods of communicating with horses. However, reality demands more than admiration.
Can the average horse owner with limited exposure to animal behaviour be effective with the knowledge offered? If such a large amount of training can be done in three or four hours, why is training charged on a monthly basis? How many hours does it take to train a horse?
As well, I become alarmed when the ethics and promotion start to mask the original purpose.
For example, if you have approved “disciples,” a 1-800 number, and more propaganda than a door-to-door religious representative, are you still looking out for the betterment of the horse? Or, is this just a form of equine multi-level marketing designed to create income for the trainer? Does the message and method get diluted by the disciples? Do the disciples have a firm base in the equine industry? Is “cult” too strong a word?
Consider that a rant! I’m only asking the questions. I don’t know all the answers. The trainers’ challenge is a conundrum.
I think it’s just another people and horse competition. Accept it for what it is – just don’t raise it to mystic proportions of holy horsemanship.
Horse communication is based on trust and understanding. It’s a partnership. It requires time. The individual horse will decide the time needed.
Is it hypocritical to base a competition on the basic tenets of improved horse and human communication? When we create a competition involving horses that have limited exposure to humans and set time constraints on their training, are we giving the horse the best deal? Or, are we trying to promote the human part of the partnership without due regard for the horse?
I always have an opinion. It’s not always right. I respect that you will do your own thinking. Enjoy the ride!
Horses All columnist Ron Anderson is a popular show and sale announcer, as well as a skilled competitor and trainer. He owns and runs Sylvancrest Stock Farm with his wife Marilyn.
