> I don't particularly like "join up" (which includes chasing a horse
around a
> pen); what's the sense in that? To me, it doesn't "teach" a horse
> anything, but he realizes that if he stands near you he won't have to
be run
> to death. What kind of training is that?
>
I agree. I started with the Monty Roberts system (called Intelligent
Horsemanship over here. Ofeig did not like the 'join up'. It upset
her.) Luckily the RA (recommended Associate) was doing it first time
and she came to me for comfort. When I did it she called to her pasture
mate. She stopped following me around the pasture for a while. It seems
illogical that I should send her away for doing nothing wrong. She was
confused and that's the worst thing you can do to a horse.
There was a lot about that system that didn't make sense and I didn't
feel my questions were answered sufficiently. The reward for the horse
is to leave it alone. No food rewards. Scratching is ok but if the
horse doesn't like it how can it be a reward? So not touching the horse
is the reward. I could't se how this leads to a horse that wants to be
with me and ridden by me. It also didn't allow for me to be creative or
to make my own observations.
I also felt that the process of starting horses was much too fast. From
join up to first rider was a very short time.It produces a horse that
can be ridden by a very experienced rider. There are plenty of horses
like that. I wanted a horse that could be ridden by my grandaughter.
That's what Pat Parelli say's. I see horses like that and I know it is
possible but it takes time (because the little steps take time). That's
a commodity that many people are unwilling to invest. More fool them as
they are going to spend more time micromanaging all those flaws they
have created.
Well that's got that one off my chest.
Sorry all of you for my rant.
Sue UK
