Transcending the mechanicity of Conventional Horsemanship
It would be wrong to assume that mechanicity in horsemanship only emerged in modernity. Vaquero historian Ernest Morris, for instance, notices that there is historical evidence of vaqueros laying down horses and tying their legs to a beam in order to shoe them, even though such practices are not widespread and the context of this methodology is badly known. Also in Traditional dressage, there is the well-known advice of Federigo Grisone, who suggests tying a hedgehog under the tail of horses, which are extremely agressive in order to break that agression. It should be noted, however, that Grisone explicitly stated that he never needed to use such methods and only advised them based on the experience of others as an ultimate last resort. Notwithstanding the fact that Grisone stressed that he never applied such a mechanical, and indeed abusive, approach, he was heavily scrutinized by contemporary horse masters for even suggesting it.
Clearly, mechanicity has characterized the horsemanship of all times, but it has significantly increased in modern times. In fact, this is not surprising for a time particularly characterized by a process of industrialisation and mechanisation. The increased use of mechanical technology strongly influences how humans think and behave, also in terms of horsemanship. Moreover, the contexts of horsemanship changed over the course of modernity. As a result of the effects of industrialisation, horsemanship needed to function in a capitalistic world. Because the relative prices of horses decreased, they were increasingly considered as ordinary commodities.
Such developments encouraged more cost-efficient and time-efficient, and therefore more pragmatic methods. In America, this gave rise to the Texas Cowboy Method, that needed to serve a great diversity of men of fortune looking for a new life in the West, who were employed to quickly break large numbers of semi feral horses and to participate in the great cattle drives that were strongly pressured by time-efficiency. Also in Europe, particularly in the cavalries, the same trend towards pragmatism can be observed. Cavalries, which grew into heavily regulated state institutes by the 19th century, required to launch as much horses and cavalrists as possible with a limited budget. Even though cavalrists, particularly officers, would often look to further train their horses, these training opportunities were again limited by the constraints of the cavalry operations. In the case of cavalries, also the necessity to operate in tight and fast contingents, also lead to the adoption of formal cavalry manuals which proclaimed a uniform training method. In other words, the cavalry started to employ horses which fitted their uniform methodology, rather than develop a method that was adaptable to the horse. The search for time- and cost-efficiency has greatly driven the adoption of more pragmatic and therefore more mechanical methods in the modern horsemanship of as well the American as the European continent.
It would be wrong to think that the pragmatic mechanical trend in horsemanship went unnoticed. Particularly in Europe by the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, reconstructionists of dressage emerged on the scene, which resulted in two major lines of modern dressage. On the one hand, the French school emerged around the Ecole nationale d'Equitation in Saumur, whose dressage insights were mostly shaped by général l'Hotte and later by général Decarpentry. On the other hand, the German school, although lacking a central institution, emerged around the persons of Louis Seeger and Gustav Steinbrecht. However, it must be noted that these reconstructionists did not seek to fully reconstruct traditional dressage, but rather to pragmatically use some central tenets of traditional dressage to improve the equestrian practices. At the time, these practices were dominated by the cavalries, which had adopted heavily mechanized coursing methods. Therefore, both schools explicitly had to take the pragmatic constraints into consideration. Notwithstanding their inclusion of pragmatic trade-offs, both schools greatly succeeded in altering and progressing contemporary horsemanship practices. It is by their efforts that dressage, albeit a far more pragmatic version, was reinstated as the general training methodology for European Riding, particularly for the cavalries.
When the horse world was greatly reduced to sport practices after the Second World War, particularly in Europe, pragmatism and mechanicity were further stimulated. Sport practices have determined the Conventional Horsemanship that is often practised today in Europe. In the United States, the situation is a little more complex, because ranching persisted there, even though they were strongly affected by modern pragmatism in most places as well, and therefore both the Texas Cowboy Method and the traditional Vaquero Horsemanship continued. Basically, two trends can be discerned in the sport world and consequently Conventional Horsemanship. First, particular sports with an external purpose emerged, such as show jumping or barrel racing. These sport practices were often characterized by much more specialized goals than the 19th century horsemanship they developed from. Consequently, these forms of sport became increasingly more focused on the specific goal and started to focus less on the training of horses in a general sense. In other words, the needs of these sports became even more pragmatic and therefore often characterized by an increased degree of mechanicity.
The second trend was the development of sports that intended to perform techniques of general horse training in a competitive context, leading to sport dressage and the reining sport. Because horsemanship was mainly reduced to sport practices in Europe after the Second World War, sport dressage came do determine the nature of dressage, even though it was heavily influenced by the internal and external mechanisms working onto a sport. Next to inheriting the mechanical and particularly formal and uniform character of the preceding cavalry practices, because sport dressage needed to be judged rather than to serve a function in the field, it came to focus on external expressions rather than the internal qualities of the horse. This lead to a drift consolidating a formal structure, with formal rules which are formally validated and subjectively judged, which were focused on uniform expressions. The required expressions started to get on a drift because of the inherent artificiality of the formal rule system combined with the subjectivity of the judges, often riders of a previous generation with the tendency to validate especially what they saw as pivotal. Such a drift was further catalysed by the ambitions which often strongly influences practitioners of any sport. In horse sports, this stimulates a search for time-efficient methods to conform to rules, whether or not these rules were still related with underlying qualities or good horsemanship. Also economic pressures, which particularly became dominant within conventional horse sports from the eighties onwards, further drove and drive sport methods towards cost- and time-efficiency. The result of this process in sport dressage in particular, and to a lesser extent in sport reining, is that practitioners are driven to mimic expressions, rather than strife towards expressions which are rooted in underlying qualities, simply because mimicking is easier. Mimicked expressions could be established by a more straightforward mechanic methods, and often with the assistance of mechanical tools. This increase mechanisation became very apparent with the widespread introduction of mechanical gimmicks, sometimes even highly abusive pulley mechanics, in the eighties, and the widespread use of hyperflexion methods from the nineties onwards.
The role of internal sports need to be particularly focused upon, since they are often not only relevant to their own sport branch, but since their basic levels are often considered forms of general training, required for all forms of conventional horsemanship, even though that also these basic levels are determined by sport practice rather than a general notion of horsemanship. Particularly sport dressage determined the general training within English Riding practices and are nowadays often used even as the basic training for trail riding. In the United States, sport reining has not achieved the same status as conventional dressage, since there other general training methods, although often very pragmatic and rather mechanised, persisted. However, outside the United States, the basic levels of sport reining are often considered the general training for Western Riding in the same way sport dressage fulfils that function for Western Riding.
In conlusion, it is perfectly understandable why conventional horsemanship came to use rigid, formal, uniform and mechanical methods, which focus on form and expression or on specific physical performances. However, this is the result of an increasing trend for pragmatism in horsemanship, first to accommodate the pragmatic goals of 19th century horsemanship in cattle work or for cavalries, next to accommodate the specific or artificial goals of conventional sporting. But are these methods also good forms of horsemanship? This is very questionable indeed. Firstly, because horses are not mechanisms. They have a mental dimension, which therefore should be an integral and explicit part of any good method of horsemanship. Depending on the physical and rather mechanical effects of physical pressure, greatly limits our ways to direct and therefore to train our horses when compared to a learned communication. What is more, the effects of physical pressure often appear detrimental to the horsemanship and even potentially abusive to the horse. Finally, the assumption of simple mechanical chain reactions and the focus on external expression often do not lead to the best physical training of the horse. Secondly, the tendency towards uniformity denies the inherent variability, which characterizes any organism, between and within horses, and therefore can never result into a refined method of horsemanship.
Instead we should adopt an adaptive, variable and organic methodology that makes use of principles rather than rules and that focuses on establishing qualities rather than expressions. As already noted in 'What horsemanship' and further explained in the 'Horsemanship' section of this website, organic methods of horsemanship were abundant in traditional forms of horsemanship. Not so much because these traditions were more ethical or less pragmatic, or better less functional, but simply because their functionality for horses was more variable, driving these forms of horsemanship towards the ideal of a physical unity, while time-efficiency was less important and the economic contexts significantly different.
Clearly, mechanicity has characterized the horsemanship of all times, but it has significantly increased in modern times. In fact, this is not surprising for a time particularly characterized by a process of industrialisation and mechanisation. The increased use of mechanical technology strongly influences how humans think and behave, also in terms of horsemanship. Moreover, the contexts of horsemanship changed over the course of modernity. As a result of the effects of industrialisation, horsemanship needed to function in a capitalistic world. Because the relative prices of horses decreased, they were increasingly considered as ordinary commodities.
Such developments encouraged more cost-efficient and time-efficient, and therefore more pragmatic methods. In America, this gave rise to the Texas Cowboy Method, that needed to serve a great diversity of men of fortune looking for a new life in the West, who were employed to quickly break large numbers of semi feral horses and to participate in the great cattle drives that were strongly pressured by time-efficiency. Also in Europe, particularly in the cavalries, the same trend towards pragmatism can be observed. Cavalries, which grew into heavily regulated state institutes by the 19th century, required to launch as much horses and cavalrists as possible with a limited budget. Even though cavalrists, particularly officers, would often look to further train their horses, these training opportunities were again limited by the constraints of the cavalry operations. In the case of cavalries, also the necessity to operate in tight and fast contingents, also lead to the adoption of formal cavalry manuals which proclaimed a uniform training method. In other words, the cavalry started to employ horses which fitted their uniform methodology, rather than develop a method that was adaptable to the horse. The search for time- and cost-efficiency has greatly driven the adoption of more pragmatic and therefore more mechanical methods in the modern horsemanship of as well the American as the European continent.
It would be wrong to think that the pragmatic mechanical trend in horsemanship went unnoticed. Particularly in Europe by the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, reconstructionists of dressage emerged on the scene, which resulted in two major lines of modern dressage. On the one hand, the French school emerged around the Ecole nationale d'Equitation in Saumur, whose dressage insights were mostly shaped by général l'Hotte and later by général Decarpentry. On the other hand, the German school, although lacking a central institution, emerged around the persons of Louis Seeger and Gustav Steinbrecht. However, it must be noted that these reconstructionists did not seek to fully reconstruct traditional dressage, but rather to pragmatically use some central tenets of traditional dressage to improve the equestrian practices. At the time, these practices were dominated by the cavalries, which had adopted heavily mechanized coursing methods. Therefore, both schools explicitly had to take the pragmatic constraints into consideration. Notwithstanding their inclusion of pragmatic trade-offs, both schools greatly succeeded in altering and progressing contemporary horsemanship practices. It is by their efforts that dressage, albeit a far more pragmatic version, was reinstated as the general training methodology for European Riding, particularly for the cavalries.
When the horse world was greatly reduced to sport practices after the Second World War, particularly in Europe, pragmatism and mechanicity were further stimulated. Sport practices have determined the Conventional Horsemanship that is often practised today in Europe. In the United States, the situation is a little more complex, because ranching persisted there, even though they were strongly affected by modern pragmatism in most places as well, and therefore both the Texas Cowboy Method and the traditional Vaquero Horsemanship continued. Basically, two trends can be discerned in the sport world and consequently Conventional Horsemanship. First, particular sports with an external purpose emerged, such as show jumping or barrel racing. These sport practices were often characterized by much more specialized goals than the 19th century horsemanship they developed from. Consequently, these forms of sport became increasingly more focused on the specific goal and started to focus less on the training of horses in a general sense. In other words, the needs of these sports became even more pragmatic and therefore often characterized by an increased degree of mechanicity.
The second trend was the development of sports that intended to perform techniques of general horse training in a competitive context, leading to sport dressage and the reining sport. Because horsemanship was mainly reduced to sport practices in Europe after the Second World War, sport dressage came do determine the nature of dressage, even though it was heavily influenced by the internal and external mechanisms working onto a sport. Next to inheriting the mechanical and particularly formal and uniform character of the preceding cavalry practices, because sport dressage needed to be judged rather than to serve a function in the field, it came to focus on external expressions rather than the internal qualities of the horse. This lead to a drift consolidating a formal structure, with formal rules which are formally validated and subjectively judged, which were focused on uniform expressions. The required expressions started to get on a drift because of the inherent artificiality of the formal rule system combined with the subjectivity of the judges, often riders of a previous generation with the tendency to validate especially what they saw as pivotal. Such a drift was further catalysed by the ambitions which often strongly influences practitioners of any sport. In horse sports, this stimulates a search for time-efficient methods to conform to rules, whether or not these rules were still related with underlying qualities or good horsemanship. Also economic pressures, which particularly became dominant within conventional horse sports from the eighties onwards, further drove and drive sport methods towards cost- and time-efficiency. The result of this process in sport dressage in particular, and to a lesser extent in sport reining, is that practitioners are driven to mimic expressions, rather than strife towards expressions which are rooted in underlying qualities, simply because mimicking is easier. Mimicked expressions could be established by a more straightforward mechanic methods, and often with the assistance of mechanical tools. This increase mechanisation became very apparent with the widespread introduction of mechanical gimmicks, sometimes even highly abusive pulley mechanics, in the eighties, and the widespread use of hyperflexion methods from the nineties onwards.
The role of internal sports need to be particularly focused upon, since they are often not only relevant to their own sport branch, but since their basic levels are often considered forms of general training, required for all forms of conventional horsemanship, even though that also these basic levels are determined by sport practice rather than a general notion of horsemanship. Particularly sport dressage determined the general training within English Riding practices and are nowadays often used even as the basic training for trail riding. In the United States, sport reining has not achieved the same status as conventional dressage, since there other general training methods, although often very pragmatic and rather mechanised, persisted. However, outside the United States, the basic levels of sport reining are often considered the general training for Western Riding in the same way sport dressage fulfils that function for Western Riding.
In conlusion, it is perfectly understandable why conventional horsemanship came to use rigid, formal, uniform and mechanical methods, which focus on form and expression or on specific physical performances. However, this is the result of an increasing trend for pragmatism in horsemanship, first to accommodate the pragmatic goals of 19th century horsemanship in cattle work or for cavalries, next to accommodate the specific or artificial goals of conventional sporting. But are these methods also good forms of horsemanship? This is very questionable indeed. Firstly, because horses are not mechanisms. They have a mental dimension, which therefore should be an integral and explicit part of any good method of horsemanship. Depending on the physical and rather mechanical effects of physical pressure, greatly limits our ways to direct and therefore to train our horses when compared to a learned communication. What is more, the effects of physical pressure often appear detrimental to the horsemanship and even potentially abusive to the horse. Finally, the assumption of simple mechanical chain reactions and the focus on external expression often do not lead to the best physical training of the horse. Secondly, the tendency towards uniformity denies the inherent variability, which characterizes any organism, between and within horses, and therefore can never result into a refined method of horsemanship.
Instead we should adopt an adaptive, variable and organic methodology that makes use of principles rather than rules and that focuses on establishing qualities rather than expressions. As already noted in 'What horsemanship' and further explained in the 'Horsemanship' section of this website, organic methods of horsemanship were abundant in traditional forms of horsemanship. Not so much because these traditions were more ethical or less pragmatic, or better less functional, but simply because their functionality for horses was more variable, driving these forms of horsemanship towards the ideal of a physical unity, while time-efficiency was less important and the economic contexts significantly different.
New needs of a diversified horse world
By the second half of the eighties, the horse world started to change by a process which can be termed as the 'democratization of the horse world'. More and more people began taking up horse riding, which subsequently started to diversify the horse world far beyond the scope of Conventional Horsemanship. An ever increasing amount of riders started to develop an interest for other applications with their horses. Next to the conventional sports, other disciplines emerged, from an increasing popularity of Western Riding in Europe to the origination of new sports as horse ball, working equitation, TREC, etc. Furthermore, applications spread outside of sport practices and the pure recreational use of horses, mostly in the form of trail riding, quickly became an important, if already not the dominant application for many riders. Also the envisioned relation that people hoped to develop with their horses started to shift, where people started to look for more mental connection and where emotionality started play an important role.
Notwithstanding these significant developments, the institutionalized conventional world of horsemanship reacted conservative, often ignoring the diversification and new demands of the democratized horse world. Rather, they kept prioritizing the sport practices and their associated methodology in an almost dogmatic sense, even up to this day. The inevitable contrast was an apparent and growing gap between the diversified needs of an increasingly broadening section of the horse world and the attitude and methods of conventional horsemanship. Many riders did not only sought different methods than those specifically designed for conventional sporting, even though sport dressage for instance kept claiming the status of a general training, what is more, these riders were increasingly confronted by severe problems with their horses and found little or no relief in the conventional methodology for solving them. Consequently, more and more people started to look for - or were convinced by - alternative methods that seemed to take their problems and their desires more seriously.
The search for alternative methods was strongly invigorated by the criticism that was formulated onto Conventional Horsemanship. Particularly its mechanical character started to become heavily criticized from the 2000's onwards. Many people came to resent the use of mechanical gimmicks, the use of heavy hands and bits, and the application of hyperflexion methods. More specific criticisms were also formulated in relation to specific disciplines. External sports such as jumping or barrel racing were criticized for the too limited, even detrimental, general training of horses. Sport reining was criticized for its focus on spectacular rather than functional manoeuvres, the the physical strain this imposed on horses. Sport dressage was criticized for its focus on expressions, which even seemed to transgress rather than to build underlying qualities such as physical relaxation or collection.
Notwithstanding these significant developments, the institutionalized conventional world of horsemanship reacted conservative, often ignoring the diversification and new demands of the democratized horse world. Rather, they kept prioritizing the sport practices and their associated methodology in an almost dogmatic sense, even up to this day. The inevitable contrast was an apparent and growing gap between the diversified needs of an increasingly broadening section of the horse world and the attitude and methods of conventional horsemanship. Many riders did not only sought different methods than those specifically designed for conventional sporting, even though sport dressage for instance kept claiming the status of a general training, what is more, these riders were increasingly confronted by severe problems with their horses and found little or no relief in the conventional methodology for solving them. Consequently, more and more people started to look for - or were convinced by - alternative methods that seemed to take their problems and their desires more seriously.
The search for alternative methods was strongly invigorated by the criticism that was formulated onto Conventional Horsemanship. Particularly its mechanical character started to become heavily criticized from the 2000's onwards. Many people came to resent the use of mechanical gimmicks, the use of heavy hands and bits, and the application of hyperflexion methods. More specific criticisms were also formulated in relation to specific disciplines. External sports such as jumping or barrel racing were criticized for the too limited, even detrimental, general training of horses. Sport reining was criticized for its focus on spectacular rather than functional manoeuvres, the the physical strain this imposed on horses. Sport dressage was criticized for its focus on expressions, which even seemed to transgress rather than to build underlying qualities such as physical relaxation or collection.
Natural Horsemanship: inspired by tradition, limited by adaptation
The increased ineptitude of conventional methods to accommodate a diversifying horse world, the problems people were experiencing with their horses, and the criticism on conventional practices, generated a fertile climate for alternative horsemanship methods. The most dominant amongst these alternatives was Natural Horsemanship, a term invented by Pat Parelli in the eighties and consolidated by his book Natural Horse-man-ship in 1991. The term Natural Horsemanship quickly grew in popularity, and many other clinicians who were active in the United States associated themselves or became associated with it. Although in the United States and later in Australia, the concept of clinics and the term Natural Horsemanship quickly became well-established during the eighties and the nineties, and many clinicians rose to fame during this period next to Pat Parelli, such as Monty Roberts, John Lyons, Clinton Anderson, Craig Cameron or Dr. Robert Miller (just to name a few). In Europe, however, Natural Horsemanship practices remained more an under stream, mostly ignored by the institutionalized horse world, which was strongly tied to a few names such as Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling, who came to strongly differentiate himself from Natural Horsemanship, Monty Roberts and Pat Parelli. In this period, some European horsemen started to imply some of the insights of Natural Horsemanship to variable degrees, which would lead to local or regional variants of Natural Horsemanship programs by the 2000's. Except for the UK, where Monty Roberts became a household name already in the late 90's, Natural Horsemanship entered the mainstream from ca. 2005 onwards, with the Parelli programme as its most succesfull representative.
It is not a coincidence that Natural Horsemanship appeared in times of a strong mechnicity in Conventional Horsemanship, now clearly symbolized by the mechanical gimmicks that were widely used, and in times when the horse world was democratizing, opening itself up to a larger amount of people. However, the methods of Natural Horsemanship were nothing new, although some of its trainers and advocates represented their programs as a revolutionary innovation in horsemanship. Most of them relied on traditional vaquero methods, and were often directly or indirectly inspired by the Dorrance brothers or Ray Hunt, both buckaroos who are often mistakenly counted amongst the Natural Horsemen. The Natural Horsemen of the eighties adapted the insights of these buckaroos in particular and of vaquero horsemanship in general as an alternative to Conventional Horsemanship. Especially the traditional methods that accommodated the criticism and remedied the problems generated by the Conventional horse world became central within Natural Horsemanship, while other, often more physical, elements of vaquero training were mostly overlooked - often to the great frustration of traditional buckaroos, I might add.
A particular characteristic of Natural Horsemanship was and is therefore that it is particularly active on aspects which are heavily criticized in Conventional horsemanship. The Natural Horsemanship methods attacked the mechanicity of modern practices and typically focused on the mental dimension of horses and stressed the importance of a learned communication between horse and man. A third characteristic, was the more intensive use of groundwork as a far more efficient way of training horses. From the nineties onwards, Natural Horsemanship became associated with other aspects of horse keeping as well, mostly inspired by likewise criticisms on the mechanicity and artificiality of the conventional horse world. It started to include alternative views on hoof care, housing, feeding, and even medical treatment. Although such views were more than often not shared by the original Natural Horsemanship trainers, it was a new generation of students or enthusiasts, whom the founders of Natural Horsemanship had inspired, that now took over the movement. Although Natural Horsemanship was initially envisioned as a training system, these successors transformed it into a kind of modern horse culture and movement, that became ever more invigorated to criticize conventional practices on all levels.
The more variable Natural Horsemanship Movement was born, with Natural Horsemanship as a sort of container term for a wide variety of alternative methods to deal with horses. The common denominator became the image of the 'natural horse', which was often perceived as the ultimate legitimation for the alternative practices, whether this involved training, housing, hoof care or medical treatment. Consequently, new trends were launched in the Natural Horsemanship Movement which resembled the natural image of the horse more closely. Such trends were the radical denouncement of bits or the heavy promotion of treeless saddles or even bareback riding. Even a central tenet of many first Natural Horsemanship methods, the operant conditioning through aversive stimuli, which was explicitly or implicitly the basis of the learned communication, became misrepresented as forceful and therefore 'unnatural'. On those grounds, many Natural Horsemanship methods were criticized by others. These alternative Natural Horsemanship methods - although such programs did not always claimed to be natural - either focused on operant conditioning through positive reinforcement, such as the clicker method, or claimed to communicate with horses by a body language which horses naturally understood or through mimicking an assumed 'horse language'.
This trend towards radicalisation and generalisation based on the 'natural' image of the horse, awakened serious concerns. Also initial enthusiasts or even some Natural Horsemanship trainers themselves became weary of these developments. Important amongst those were scientists who pointed to some severe misconceptions of Natural Horsemanship. Firstly, they stressed that horses need to learn to communicate with humans and that such a learning process needs to involve operant conditioning, either by aversive or positive reinforcement. Even programs that explicitly claim to simply apply the natural language of horses, perhaps best demonstrated by the Equus language of Monty Roberts, or those that even denounce the use of operant conditioning, such as the Hempfling program, actually apply operant conditioning by aversive reinforcement in a particular way. They simply represent it differently, or have a poor understanding of what conditioning as a learning method precisely entails, in the process, often running the risk of confusing and misleading their students. Furthermore, scientists warn for the simple transposition of social behaviour to human-horse interactions. Horses do not consider humans as part of their herd nor do they simply replicate social behaviour or dominance hierarchies when interacting with humans. Such claims, often made by Natural Horsemen and even more strongly assumed by many of their followers, often lead to ineffective, sometimes even detrimental or dangerous, training of horses.
Next to the inherent dangers of the 'natural horse' image, more substantiated programs are often criticized for ignoring, or at the very least strongly underestimating, the importance of physical training. Natural Horsemanship practitioners stress the importance of the mental dimension of horses and of on establishing communication with horses, but often assume that horses merely need to be directed when ridden. Although they do not denounce the value of physical training, they often claim that such training is only required for the physical performance of horses and exclude it from the most elementary training on te ground or under the saddle. Consequently, many programs ignore the significant influence of a rider on the body and the locomotion of horses. Such misconceptions have lead many practitioners to believe it is perfectly acceptable to denounce bits and bridles, because direction can as easily be provided by bitless headgear. However, they overlook that the bit is a tool for flexing the horse, not merely to direct him, and that correct flexions are quintessential to the straightness and balance of horses when they are ridden.
Certainly, there are Natural Horsemanship programs with barely any specific attention for the physical training of horses. Most programs, however, or at least their authors, often kept relying on more conventional methodology for the physical training. In many cases, the quality and refinement of the physical training may vary greatly, and in virtually all these programs, the role of physical training is secondary or even marginal. For example, Clinton Anderson, Josh Lyons or Stacey Westfall rely on reining practices as the basis for physical training. Another example is the Parelli program, which tries to include physical training in a more methodological manner. Therefore, It includes the idea of a 'soft feel' from vaquero horsemanship and attempts to incorporate dressage concepts as shoulder-in, heavily relying on the conventional FN methodology that actually seems to be contradictory to many tenets of the standard program. Notwithstanding the commendable efforts of the Parelli program to include physical training, this training is mainly confined to later levels in the separate 'finesse' section and often criticized for its questionable quality. To better the quality of the dressage instruction, the Parellis have developed a separate program with Walter Zettl, but this is not part of the basic program. In any case, even though the Parelli program is one of the few to make genuine efforts to expand its horizon, it is noticeable that even in this program the physical training retains a rather secondary treatment.
Nonetheless, physical training should not be discarded in favour for the mental training of horses. Although the mental will precede the physical, both are strongly interwoven. Although groundwork allows a horseman to focus on the mental separately, as most horses know how to move perfectly without a rider, this changes greatly from the very moment you step onto a horse. A rider has a heavy impact on the back of the horse, greatly influences the weight distribution and therefore balance of the horse, and strongly enhances the effects of the natural crookedness of the horse. These influences cannot be disregarded even in the most basic phases of the horse's training.
Notwithstanding, the valid criticisms on Natural Horsemanship, it must be noted that it played an important role in changing the horse world of the last decades. It succeeded in breaking the monopoly of the conventional and institutionalized horse world, which still - and I cannot help adding 'arrogantly' - ignores Natural Horsemanship's vast impact, as it still ignores the magnitude of the diversification that has taken place. Natural Horsemanship did not only raise critical awareness about many of the mechanical, often detrimental or even abusive, practices of Conventional Horsemanship, it provided an interesting and effective methodology to deal with horses on the mental level, and even more importantly, to establish a learned communication between horse and man. In short, Natural Horsemanship has certainly made a valuable contribution. Now, it finds itself at a cross road. Is it going to refine and enrich itself by following its original path in looking to traditional horsemanship for inspiration and relying on science for its understanding? Or is it going to lead itself astray on the flotilla named 'natural horse' drifting on a sea of popular sentiment?
It is not a coincidence that Natural Horsemanship appeared in times of a strong mechnicity in Conventional Horsemanship, now clearly symbolized by the mechanical gimmicks that were widely used, and in times when the horse world was democratizing, opening itself up to a larger amount of people. However, the methods of Natural Horsemanship were nothing new, although some of its trainers and advocates represented their programs as a revolutionary innovation in horsemanship. Most of them relied on traditional vaquero methods, and were often directly or indirectly inspired by the Dorrance brothers or Ray Hunt, both buckaroos who are often mistakenly counted amongst the Natural Horsemen. The Natural Horsemen of the eighties adapted the insights of these buckaroos in particular and of vaquero horsemanship in general as an alternative to Conventional Horsemanship. Especially the traditional methods that accommodated the criticism and remedied the problems generated by the Conventional horse world became central within Natural Horsemanship, while other, often more physical, elements of vaquero training were mostly overlooked - often to the great frustration of traditional buckaroos, I might add.
A particular characteristic of Natural Horsemanship was and is therefore that it is particularly active on aspects which are heavily criticized in Conventional horsemanship. The Natural Horsemanship methods attacked the mechanicity of modern practices and typically focused on the mental dimension of horses and stressed the importance of a learned communication between horse and man. A third characteristic, was the more intensive use of groundwork as a far more efficient way of training horses. From the nineties onwards, Natural Horsemanship became associated with other aspects of horse keeping as well, mostly inspired by likewise criticisms on the mechanicity and artificiality of the conventional horse world. It started to include alternative views on hoof care, housing, feeding, and even medical treatment. Although such views were more than often not shared by the original Natural Horsemanship trainers, it was a new generation of students or enthusiasts, whom the founders of Natural Horsemanship had inspired, that now took over the movement. Although Natural Horsemanship was initially envisioned as a training system, these successors transformed it into a kind of modern horse culture and movement, that became ever more invigorated to criticize conventional practices on all levels.
The more variable Natural Horsemanship Movement was born, with Natural Horsemanship as a sort of container term for a wide variety of alternative methods to deal with horses. The common denominator became the image of the 'natural horse', which was often perceived as the ultimate legitimation for the alternative practices, whether this involved training, housing, hoof care or medical treatment. Consequently, new trends were launched in the Natural Horsemanship Movement which resembled the natural image of the horse more closely. Such trends were the radical denouncement of bits or the heavy promotion of treeless saddles or even bareback riding. Even a central tenet of many first Natural Horsemanship methods, the operant conditioning through aversive stimuli, which was explicitly or implicitly the basis of the learned communication, became misrepresented as forceful and therefore 'unnatural'. On those grounds, many Natural Horsemanship methods were criticized by others. These alternative Natural Horsemanship methods - although such programs did not always claimed to be natural - either focused on operant conditioning through positive reinforcement, such as the clicker method, or claimed to communicate with horses by a body language which horses naturally understood or through mimicking an assumed 'horse language'.
This trend towards radicalisation and generalisation based on the 'natural' image of the horse, awakened serious concerns. Also initial enthusiasts or even some Natural Horsemanship trainers themselves became weary of these developments. Important amongst those were scientists who pointed to some severe misconceptions of Natural Horsemanship. Firstly, they stressed that horses need to learn to communicate with humans and that such a learning process needs to involve operant conditioning, either by aversive or positive reinforcement. Even programs that explicitly claim to simply apply the natural language of horses, perhaps best demonstrated by the Equus language of Monty Roberts, or those that even denounce the use of operant conditioning, such as the Hempfling program, actually apply operant conditioning by aversive reinforcement in a particular way. They simply represent it differently, or have a poor understanding of what conditioning as a learning method precisely entails, in the process, often running the risk of confusing and misleading their students. Furthermore, scientists warn for the simple transposition of social behaviour to human-horse interactions. Horses do not consider humans as part of their herd nor do they simply replicate social behaviour or dominance hierarchies when interacting with humans. Such claims, often made by Natural Horsemen and even more strongly assumed by many of their followers, often lead to ineffective, sometimes even detrimental or dangerous, training of horses.
Next to the inherent dangers of the 'natural horse' image, more substantiated programs are often criticized for ignoring, or at the very least strongly underestimating, the importance of physical training. Natural Horsemanship practitioners stress the importance of the mental dimension of horses and of on establishing communication with horses, but often assume that horses merely need to be directed when ridden. Although they do not denounce the value of physical training, they often claim that such training is only required for the physical performance of horses and exclude it from the most elementary training on te ground or under the saddle. Consequently, many programs ignore the significant influence of a rider on the body and the locomotion of horses. Such misconceptions have lead many practitioners to believe it is perfectly acceptable to denounce bits and bridles, because direction can as easily be provided by bitless headgear. However, they overlook that the bit is a tool for flexing the horse, not merely to direct him, and that correct flexions are quintessential to the straightness and balance of horses when they are ridden.
Certainly, there are Natural Horsemanship programs with barely any specific attention for the physical training of horses. Most programs, however, or at least their authors, often kept relying on more conventional methodology for the physical training. In many cases, the quality and refinement of the physical training may vary greatly, and in virtually all these programs, the role of physical training is secondary or even marginal. For example, Clinton Anderson, Josh Lyons or Stacey Westfall rely on reining practices as the basis for physical training. Another example is the Parelli program, which tries to include physical training in a more methodological manner. Therefore, It includes the idea of a 'soft feel' from vaquero horsemanship and attempts to incorporate dressage concepts as shoulder-in, heavily relying on the conventional FN methodology that actually seems to be contradictory to many tenets of the standard program. Notwithstanding the commendable efforts of the Parelli program to include physical training, this training is mainly confined to later levels in the separate 'finesse' section and often criticized for its questionable quality. To better the quality of the dressage instruction, the Parellis have developed a separate program with Walter Zettl, but this is not part of the basic program. In any case, even though the Parelli program is one of the few to make genuine efforts to expand its horizon, it is noticeable that even in this program the physical training retains a rather secondary treatment.
Nonetheless, physical training should not be discarded in favour for the mental training of horses. Although the mental will precede the physical, both are strongly interwoven. Although groundwork allows a horseman to focus on the mental separately, as most horses know how to move perfectly without a rider, this changes greatly from the very moment you step onto a horse. A rider has a heavy impact on the back of the horse, greatly influences the weight distribution and therefore balance of the horse, and strongly enhances the effects of the natural crookedness of the horse. These influences cannot be disregarded even in the most basic phases of the horse's training.
Notwithstanding, the valid criticisms on Natural Horsemanship, it must be noted that it played an important role in changing the horse world of the last decades. It succeeded in breaking the monopoly of the conventional and institutionalized horse world, which still - and I cannot help adding 'arrogantly' - ignores Natural Horsemanship's vast impact, as it still ignores the magnitude of the diversification that has taken place. Natural Horsemanship did not only raise critical awareness about many of the mechanical, often detrimental or even abusive, practices of Conventional Horsemanship, it provided an interesting and effective methodology to deal with horses on the mental level, and even more importantly, to establish a learned communication between horse and man. In short, Natural Horsemanship has certainly made a valuable contribution. Now, it finds itself at a cross road. Is it going to refine and enrich itself by following its original path in looking to traditional horsemanship for inspiration and relying on science for its understanding? Or is it going to lead itself astray on the flotilla named 'natural horse' drifting on a sea of popular sentiment?
A caleidoscope of alternatives
Hybrid programs
Natural horsemanship clearly broke the monopoly of Conventional Horsemanship and in its wake a diversity of alternative methods emerged in the 2000's. In a first phase, this often involved people who sought to bridge the gap between Conventional Horsemanship and Natural Horsemanship by forming hybrid programs, incorporating elements of both worlds. A process that occurred in both directions. In Western Riding, particularly in reining and cutting, such hybridization often came from Natural Horsemen themselves, who were often involved in these sport practices as well. Josh Lyons and Clinton Anderson, for example, are well-known reiners , or Pat Parelli is a successful cutter. Later, others, like Stacey Westfall, acknowledged the success of Natural Horsemanship and incorporated it in their reining activities.
In Europe, the hybridisation occurred in a different way. Pure Natural Horsemanship trainers, either devising an own program or adopting one of the standard programs, often denounced Conventional Horsemanship, and kept mostly focused on the tenets of Natural Horsemanship. The hybridization came mostly from people with a conventional background who took up elements of Natural Horsemanship and tried to combine them with their conventional practices. A notable example is the Freestyle Academy of Emiel Voest, one of the most successful endeavours of combining the two worlds. In hybridization, these programs seek to transcend the polarization between conventional and natural, and hope to overcome the criticisms on each of them by applying the strengths of the other. Generally, these programs use the insights and techniques of Natural Horsemanship to train horses mentally and to establish connection and communication between horse and man, but apply conventional, particularly dressage, insights to train the horse physically. Consequently, one can often observe that the groundwork is strongly inspired by Natural Horsemanship methods, while the riding looks more conventional.
Although such programs may seem to transcend the apparent contradiction between Conventional and Natural, they are often faced with insurmountable contradictions between both perspectives. A most apparent contradiction is the loose freestyle rein used in Natural Horsemanship against the concept of Anlehnung utilized in dressage. The answer of hybrid programs is ambivalent. Some programs, we could say 'eclectic' programs, practice both styles next to each other, simply ignoring the apparent contradiction. Other programs, we could say 'combinative' programs, make 'silent' choices, choosing one particular way as the most important or even exclusive way. In the case of rein manipulation, the first will include both styles of rein manipulation, the latter will often prefer the Anlehnung, because of its importance for the physical training of flexion. Although these new programs have made great contributions to transcending the gap between Natural and Conventional, even to the extent of inspiring Natural Horsemen to develop such hybrid programs of their own, they are limited by what each of the two worlds has to offer and consequently have difficulties in overcoming the apparent contradictions between both worlds.
Specialized Programs
Next to the hybrid programs, specialized programs also emerged as a response on the criticism formulated on both Conventional and Natural Horsemanship. These programs are mostly concerned with the physical aspects of training a horse and therefore not intended to provide a holistic form of horse training nor to be mutually exclusive with either Conventional or Natural Horsemanship. However, most of these programs originated from an explicit criticism on conventional horsemanship for focusing on either mere physical expression or for ignoring a decent general physical education in favour of specific movements or manoeuvres. Particularly Conventional Dressage is attacked for its mechanicity and for the fact that it focuses more on performing fixated expressions, rather than using the demonstrated exercises to build underlying physical qualities. However, although less explicit, also Natural Horsemanship falls under the criticism of these specialized programs, as it often neglects the role of physical training in general or at least in the earliest training phases of the horse.
A increasingly popular trend in these specialized programs is Straightness Training, which uses the insights from dressage not for performance, but to learn horses to physically relax and to remedy the natural crookedness of the horse. Straightness Training mostly originated in the Netherlands as Rechtrichten, but is now spreading throughout Europe as well. The type of dressage applied in these programs may significantly differ. Antoine de Bodt, the initiator of the concept of Straightness Training mostly relied on the 'old schools' of modern dressage, particularly on the strongly related Dutch and German cavalry methods. Perhaps the most popular straightness programs are those who have come to rely on the Traditional Dressage teachings of the Academic Art of Riding, started by Marijke de Jong, but which quickly gained a lot of following in the Netherlands and Belgium.
Also scientist and veterinarians have made efforts to redirect conventional dressage back to its initial purpose of establishing physical qualities, resulting in programs which can be designated as Biomechanical Programs. These trends, however, differ from Straightness Training since they are more bound to the current dressage practices and the FN Richtlinien. A first notable example is the thorough research of Dr. Nancy Nicholson of Miami University in her Biomechanical Riding and Dressage: a rider's atlas. Although with some inspiration from other dressage traditions, Nicholson mostly bases her advice on the tenets of the FN RIchtlinien. Even more closely tied to the FN Richtlinien, is the program of veterinarian Gerd Heuschmann from Germany, who strongly criticized many sport practices, and stimulates a more sensible practice of the modern German method for dressage founded on scientific biomechanical insights. These more scientifically substantiated programs offer a deeper insight in the bio-mechanics of the horse, but are also much more limited in terms of methodology, only depending on the common practices of Conventional Dressage, and therefore ignoring the vast potential of alternatives which are more likely to offer more efficient and variable methods to accommodate the biomechanical insights.
A last type of specialized programs came to focus not so much on the training of the horse, but rather on the training of the Rider, claiming that an incorrect seat, resulting in an incorrect use of the aids, are Ride Technical Programs. One of the most known programs, in fact appearing at the same time as Natural Horsemanship but only recently gaining a great deal of support, is Centred Riding, developed by the now deceased Sally Swift.
Although these types of programs are valuable to fill in the gaps left behind between Conventional and Natural Horsemanship, often claiming to be adaptable to every kind of horsemanship, their specialized nature generates some problems as well. First, the risk of a likewise specialisation drift as had happened in Conventional Horsemanship is very real. People come to focus on the specialized, often physical goals of the program, but loose track of other elements necessary for horse training as well. Second, the question arises whether you can simply separate different aspects from its general methodology. In fact, the Straightness Training of Marijke de Jong explicitly links the program to the general methodology of Traditional Dressage, but many other specialized programs suggest that their insights or techniques are complementary with many other forms of horsemanship. More than often this is not true. For instance, the biomechancial programs still heavily rely on the FN methodology, incorporating an idea of Anlehnung which is not found in many other forms of horsemanship. Therefore, applying such specialized programs implies that some fundamental assumptions from a more general method, which is not always clearly expressed, are also taken over and these assumptions may conflict with other forms of horsemanship, troubling the complementarity of these specialized programs with more general approaches to horsemanship.
In conclusion, specialized programs have complemented on the Natural Horsemanship Movement in paying attention not only to decent mental training for the horse, but also stressing the importance of physical training. However, such specialized methods should not be separated from general methods of training, because of the risk of reductionism.
Scientific Horsemanship
Very recently, also a new alternative started to emerge, which is can be termed Scientific Horsemanship. The use of scientific studies to enhance insights in horsemanship has already a long tradition and was in fact already connected with Natural Horsemanship from its earliest beginnings. The behavioural studies of Dr. Robert Miller in the eighties have strongly influenced and legitimated many Natural Horsemanship programs, not in the least the Parelli program. Still a strong advocate for Natural Horsemanship nowadays, Robert Miller, together with other Natural Horsemen, is one of the founders of Lighthands Horsemanship.
However, as behavioural studies greatly advanced in the 90's and 2000's, the initial observations of Robert Miller were increasingly questioned and often considered too observational and therefore too poorly substantiated by more rigid empirical proof. Particularly the book of Paul McGreevy, Equine Behaviour. A guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists, first published in 2004, summarizing the knowledge mostly gained in the preceding decade, stimulated a new line of thinking about horse's natural behaviour and how it could relate to horse training. Although behavioural scientist, in line with Robert Miller, still stress the importance of operant conditioning as the basis for communication and still accept his more substantiated studies on foal imprinting, his ideas concerning the transferability of natural horse behaviour to horse-human interactions were heavily criticized.
The transferability of natural behaviour has frequently been claimed by a lot of Natural Horsemen, often in far more generalized ways, based on personal experience and interpretation. Scientist therefore came to question many of the assumptions made by Natural Horsemen with regard to confidence, dominance behaviour and horse language. For example, the assumption that horses have an inborn ability to understand the body language of humans, as suggested by Hempfling, or that humans could mimick a horse language, as claimed by Roberts, were empirically rejected. Also the ability of humans to apply natural behaviour, such as dominance traits, onto the horse to learn proper behaviour has been strongly challenged. The emerging trend within Natural Horsemanship to legitimate its methods by the image of the 'natural horse', meaning that everything in horsemanship should be directly related to natural behaviour, even leading to the rejection of learning by operant conditioning, greatly concerns scientist. It should be noted that they do not so much reject the methodology of Natural Horsemanship, which is often proved effective and even preferable in many studies, but they stress that most of these methods do not directly relate to natural behaviour, but always involve processes of habituation, classical or operant conditioning. Therefore, scientist warn against the misrepresentation of these methods, which may give rise to their wrong application by students, rather than against the methods themselves.
The misconception may arise that behavioural scientist are particularly critical about Natural Horsemansip. However, the reason for a particular focus on Natural Horsemanship resides with its intention to influence mental state of the horse and to work with communication. Conventional methods, on the other hand, often do not explicitly deal with the mental state of the horse, and often lack any explanatory model for the so-called communication they establish. Scientist could therefore not test any of these assumptions, simply because they did not exist. However, this does not mean that scientist were not critical about conventional methods, rather to the contrary. Scientist stress the importance of a conscious and well-understood learning process in horse training and heavily criticize Conventional Horsemanship for lacking any distinct notion or even methodology to establish communication through operant conditioning. This lead notable behavioural scientist Andrew Mclean even to redesign the formal structure of sport dressage, with a far greater stress on communication which is not based on sheer physical pressure (see link). The urgency of a learned communication as an alternative to the constantly upheld rein tensions was further invigorated by a massive amount of studies. These studies indicated 1) the extreme high rein tensions applied in Conventional Horsemanship, 2) the physical damage such tensions could provoke through the bit onto the mouth, 3) the detrimental and even abusive effects such tensions have on animal behaviour.
Notwithstanding the amazing progress of science in the past years, most practitioners of both Conventional and Natural Horsemanship appeared unaffected. Apparently, the insights did not reach common horse owners and institutions or instructors appeared to be highly selective in their representation of scientific studies, sometimes even going as far as flagrantly misrepresenting it. This lead some scientist to take matters in their own hands. Some scientist restricted themselves to enter the public debate by popular publication or lectures. Other scientist began to promote horsemanship practices themselves. The Dutch professor Machteld van Dierendonck founded the Equus Research & Therapy, mostly to spread scientific insights in the public, although she also helped promoting the Paardenstudiecentrum in Belgium, which appears to provide horsemanship classes as well. Other scientist take it a step further, closely associating themselves with experienced horsemen, to not only stimulate the spread of scientific knowledge and awareness, but to promote scientifically substantiated forms of horsemanship. For example, Dr. Stephen Peeters found a substantiated methodology of the traditional vaquero horsemanship of Martin Black to launch the concept of Evidence-based Horsemanship. Some scientists sought to go even a step further, suggesting that science in itself can provide new methods for horsemanship. For instance, Andrew McLean, one of the most important behavioural scientist of the past decades, founded the Australian Equine Behaviour Centre with the specific intent to train horses and provide clinics. Another, perhaps even more elaborate, example is the International Association of Animal Behaviour Consultants, mostly founded in the United States but clearly having larger ambitions than that.
The reluctance of the horsemanship world to take account of the amazing insights that science has procured in the past decades, clearly launched a new alternative in the horse world, which I term 'scientific horsemanship'. However, some concerns also rise as to this new form of horsemanship. First, one can question the neutrality of scientist evaluating methods of horsemanship, when they are themselves founders of a new methodology of horsemanship. Even if the scientists in question retain an honesty in their scientific work, keep on criticizing their own methodology as well, still the perception of scientist as a committed party in the horse world, rather than objective evaluators, can seriously harm the credibility of science and therefore significantly reduce the impact science should have on the horse world.
Second, scientist become inclined to rightfully stress what science has been able to prove, but sometimes loose the nuance of accurately representing what this knowledge precisely implies, how this knowledge is logically extrapolated and, most importantly, what science has not yet proved. For instance, science has beyond any reasonable doubt demonstrated that horses mainly learn through operant conditioning and that it is wrong to assume a direct transferability of natural behaviour into horse-human interactions. However, such insights may not lead to behavioural reductionism, where only the neurological process of conditioning seems to be at work, which is for instance suggested by the International Association of Animal Behaviour Consultants. After all, conditioning and behaviour are not bipolar oppositions, but quite often intermixed. Furthermore, the underlying mental processes guiding behaviour, the adaptation of natural behaviour in horse-human interactions and the influence on behaviour, natural or not, on the conditioned learning process are still poorly understood.
Third, scientists are often specialists. It is noticeable that 'scientific horsemanship' often solely relies on behavioural scientist, where the specialized programs of biomechanical riding (which could also be called scientific horsemanship) relies on functional morphologists. Both seem to be very unaware of each other. For instance, the suggestions made about dressage by Andrew McLean indicate great concern for a conditioned communication, but virtually completely overlook the physical qualities of training. In scientific horsemanship in general, often the importance of physical training is ignored, therefore also overlooking the communicative needs for physical training, as well as the influence of physical problems onto the behaviour of horses. Scientific Horsemanship therefore seems to lack a holistic approach which includes both mental and physical dimensions of the horse.
Fourth, the objective of equine sciences is not to construct methods of horsemanship, but to inform, explain and check them. What science does extraordinarily well is telling us, with a profound degree of certainty, what a method precisely does and explaining why that method precisely has these mental or physical effects. In doing so, it checks the methods and it checks the explanations and the claimed effects that horse trainers and instructors, often by an unsubstantiated claim of authority, are always very willing to make. In short, science has an invaluable role in explaining horse methods, but it is not equipped to forge methods. Certainly, science may give important advice to remedy serious problems that often occur in horse training and can direct our search for more optimal methods, but that is still something different from creating a practical and holistic method of horsemanship. Such a methodology will always rely on existing practices which the scientist is able to check and therefore accept or reject. It is therefore important that scientists, willing to endorse particular methods, explicit where these methods come from. In that perspective, science has a crucial role to play in evaluating, and therefore explaining and checking horse methodology. This should lead to scientifically substantiated forms of horsemanship, rather than a separate scientific horsemanship.
Natural horsemanship clearly broke the monopoly of Conventional Horsemanship and in its wake a diversity of alternative methods emerged in the 2000's. In a first phase, this often involved people who sought to bridge the gap between Conventional Horsemanship and Natural Horsemanship by forming hybrid programs, incorporating elements of both worlds. A process that occurred in both directions. In Western Riding, particularly in reining and cutting, such hybridization often came from Natural Horsemen themselves, who were often involved in these sport practices as well. Josh Lyons and Clinton Anderson, for example, are well-known reiners , or Pat Parelli is a successful cutter. Later, others, like Stacey Westfall, acknowledged the success of Natural Horsemanship and incorporated it in their reining activities.
In Europe, the hybridisation occurred in a different way. Pure Natural Horsemanship trainers, either devising an own program or adopting one of the standard programs, often denounced Conventional Horsemanship, and kept mostly focused on the tenets of Natural Horsemanship. The hybridization came mostly from people with a conventional background who took up elements of Natural Horsemanship and tried to combine them with their conventional practices. A notable example is the Freestyle Academy of Emiel Voest, one of the most successful endeavours of combining the two worlds. In hybridization, these programs seek to transcend the polarization between conventional and natural, and hope to overcome the criticisms on each of them by applying the strengths of the other. Generally, these programs use the insights and techniques of Natural Horsemanship to train horses mentally and to establish connection and communication between horse and man, but apply conventional, particularly dressage, insights to train the horse physically. Consequently, one can often observe that the groundwork is strongly inspired by Natural Horsemanship methods, while the riding looks more conventional.
Although such programs may seem to transcend the apparent contradiction between Conventional and Natural, they are often faced with insurmountable contradictions between both perspectives. A most apparent contradiction is the loose freestyle rein used in Natural Horsemanship against the concept of Anlehnung utilized in dressage. The answer of hybrid programs is ambivalent. Some programs, we could say 'eclectic' programs, practice both styles next to each other, simply ignoring the apparent contradiction. Other programs, we could say 'combinative' programs, make 'silent' choices, choosing one particular way as the most important or even exclusive way. In the case of rein manipulation, the first will include both styles of rein manipulation, the latter will often prefer the Anlehnung, because of its importance for the physical training of flexion. Although these new programs have made great contributions to transcending the gap between Natural and Conventional, even to the extent of inspiring Natural Horsemen to develop such hybrid programs of their own, they are limited by what each of the two worlds has to offer and consequently have difficulties in overcoming the apparent contradictions between both worlds.
Specialized Programs
Next to the hybrid programs, specialized programs also emerged as a response on the criticism formulated on both Conventional and Natural Horsemanship. These programs are mostly concerned with the physical aspects of training a horse and therefore not intended to provide a holistic form of horse training nor to be mutually exclusive with either Conventional or Natural Horsemanship. However, most of these programs originated from an explicit criticism on conventional horsemanship for focusing on either mere physical expression or for ignoring a decent general physical education in favour of specific movements or manoeuvres. Particularly Conventional Dressage is attacked for its mechanicity and for the fact that it focuses more on performing fixated expressions, rather than using the demonstrated exercises to build underlying physical qualities. However, although less explicit, also Natural Horsemanship falls under the criticism of these specialized programs, as it often neglects the role of physical training in general or at least in the earliest training phases of the horse.
A increasingly popular trend in these specialized programs is Straightness Training, which uses the insights from dressage not for performance, but to learn horses to physically relax and to remedy the natural crookedness of the horse. Straightness Training mostly originated in the Netherlands as Rechtrichten, but is now spreading throughout Europe as well. The type of dressage applied in these programs may significantly differ. Antoine de Bodt, the initiator of the concept of Straightness Training mostly relied on the 'old schools' of modern dressage, particularly on the strongly related Dutch and German cavalry methods. Perhaps the most popular straightness programs are those who have come to rely on the Traditional Dressage teachings of the Academic Art of Riding, started by Marijke de Jong, but which quickly gained a lot of following in the Netherlands and Belgium.
Also scientist and veterinarians have made efforts to redirect conventional dressage back to its initial purpose of establishing physical qualities, resulting in programs which can be designated as Biomechanical Programs. These trends, however, differ from Straightness Training since they are more bound to the current dressage practices and the FN Richtlinien. A first notable example is the thorough research of Dr. Nancy Nicholson of Miami University in her Biomechanical Riding and Dressage: a rider's atlas. Although with some inspiration from other dressage traditions, Nicholson mostly bases her advice on the tenets of the FN RIchtlinien. Even more closely tied to the FN Richtlinien, is the program of veterinarian Gerd Heuschmann from Germany, who strongly criticized many sport practices, and stimulates a more sensible practice of the modern German method for dressage founded on scientific biomechanical insights. These more scientifically substantiated programs offer a deeper insight in the bio-mechanics of the horse, but are also much more limited in terms of methodology, only depending on the common practices of Conventional Dressage, and therefore ignoring the vast potential of alternatives which are more likely to offer more efficient and variable methods to accommodate the biomechanical insights.
A last type of specialized programs came to focus not so much on the training of the horse, but rather on the training of the Rider, claiming that an incorrect seat, resulting in an incorrect use of the aids, are Ride Technical Programs. One of the most known programs, in fact appearing at the same time as Natural Horsemanship but only recently gaining a great deal of support, is Centred Riding, developed by the now deceased Sally Swift.
Although these types of programs are valuable to fill in the gaps left behind between Conventional and Natural Horsemanship, often claiming to be adaptable to every kind of horsemanship, their specialized nature generates some problems as well. First, the risk of a likewise specialisation drift as had happened in Conventional Horsemanship is very real. People come to focus on the specialized, often physical goals of the program, but loose track of other elements necessary for horse training as well. Second, the question arises whether you can simply separate different aspects from its general methodology. In fact, the Straightness Training of Marijke de Jong explicitly links the program to the general methodology of Traditional Dressage, but many other specialized programs suggest that their insights or techniques are complementary with many other forms of horsemanship. More than often this is not true. For instance, the biomechancial programs still heavily rely on the FN methodology, incorporating an idea of Anlehnung which is not found in many other forms of horsemanship. Therefore, applying such specialized programs implies that some fundamental assumptions from a more general method, which is not always clearly expressed, are also taken over and these assumptions may conflict with other forms of horsemanship, troubling the complementarity of these specialized programs with more general approaches to horsemanship.
In conclusion, specialized programs have complemented on the Natural Horsemanship Movement in paying attention not only to decent mental training for the horse, but also stressing the importance of physical training. However, such specialized methods should not be separated from general methods of training, because of the risk of reductionism.
Scientific Horsemanship
Very recently, also a new alternative started to emerge, which is can be termed Scientific Horsemanship. The use of scientific studies to enhance insights in horsemanship has already a long tradition and was in fact already connected with Natural Horsemanship from its earliest beginnings. The behavioural studies of Dr. Robert Miller in the eighties have strongly influenced and legitimated many Natural Horsemanship programs, not in the least the Parelli program. Still a strong advocate for Natural Horsemanship nowadays, Robert Miller, together with other Natural Horsemen, is one of the founders of Lighthands Horsemanship.
However, as behavioural studies greatly advanced in the 90's and 2000's, the initial observations of Robert Miller were increasingly questioned and often considered too observational and therefore too poorly substantiated by more rigid empirical proof. Particularly the book of Paul McGreevy, Equine Behaviour. A guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists, first published in 2004, summarizing the knowledge mostly gained in the preceding decade, stimulated a new line of thinking about horse's natural behaviour and how it could relate to horse training. Although behavioural scientist, in line with Robert Miller, still stress the importance of operant conditioning as the basis for communication and still accept his more substantiated studies on foal imprinting, his ideas concerning the transferability of natural horse behaviour to horse-human interactions were heavily criticized.
The transferability of natural behaviour has frequently been claimed by a lot of Natural Horsemen, often in far more generalized ways, based on personal experience and interpretation. Scientist therefore came to question many of the assumptions made by Natural Horsemen with regard to confidence, dominance behaviour and horse language. For example, the assumption that horses have an inborn ability to understand the body language of humans, as suggested by Hempfling, or that humans could mimick a horse language, as claimed by Roberts, were empirically rejected. Also the ability of humans to apply natural behaviour, such as dominance traits, onto the horse to learn proper behaviour has been strongly challenged. The emerging trend within Natural Horsemanship to legitimate its methods by the image of the 'natural horse', meaning that everything in horsemanship should be directly related to natural behaviour, even leading to the rejection of learning by operant conditioning, greatly concerns scientist. It should be noted that they do not so much reject the methodology of Natural Horsemanship, which is often proved effective and even preferable in many studies, but they stress that most of these methods do not directly relate to natural behaviour, but always involve processes of habituation, classical or operant conditioning. Therefore, scientist warn against the misrepresentation of these methods, which may give rise to their wrong application by students, rather than against the methods themselves.
The misconception may arise that behavioural scientist are particularly critical about Natural Horsemansip. However, the reason for a particular focus on Natural Horsemanship resides with its intention to influence mental state of the horse and to work with communication. Conventional methods, on the other hand, often do not explicitly deal with the mental state of the horse, and often lack any explanatory model for the so-called communication they establish. Scientist could therefore not test any of these assumptions, simply because they did not exist. However, this does not mean that scientist were not critical about conventional methods, rather to the contrary. Scientist stress the importance of a conscious and well-understood learning process in horse training and heavily criticize Conventional Horsemanship for lacking any distinct notion or even methodology to establish communication through operant conditioning. This lead notable behavioural scientist Andrew Mclean even to redesign the formal structure of sport dressage, with a far greater stress on communication which is not based on sheer physical pressure (see link). The urgency of a learned communication as an alternative to the constantly upheld rein tensions was further invigorated by a massive amount of studies. These studies indicated 1) the extreme high rein tensions applied in Conventional Horsemanship, 2) the physical damage such tensions could provoke through the bit onto the mouth, 3) the detrimental and even abusive effects such tensions have on animal behaviour.
Notwithstanding the amazing progress of science in the past years, most practitioners of both Conventional and Natural Horsemanship appeared unaffected. Apparently, the insights did not reach common horse owners and institutions or instructors appeared to be highly selective in their representation of scientific studies, sometimes even going as far as flagrantly misrepresenting it. This lead some scientist to take matters in their own hands. Some scientist restricted themselves to enter the public debate by popular publication or lectures. Other scientist began to promote horsemanship practices themselves. The Dutch professor Machteld van Dierendonck founded the Equus Research & Therapy, mostly to spread scientific insights in the public, although she also helped promoting the Paardenstudiecentrum in Belgium, which appears to provide horsemanship classes as well. Other scientist take it a step further, closely associating themselves with experienced horsemen, to not only stimulate the spread of scientific knowledge and awareness, but to promote scientifically substantiated forms of horsemanship. For example, Dr. Stephen Peeters found a substantiated methodology of the traditional vaquero horsemanship of Martin Black to launch the concept of Evidence-based Horsemanship. Some scientists sought to go even a step further, suggesting that science in itself can provide new methods for horsemanship. For instance, Andrew McLean, one of the most important behavioural scientist of the past decades, founded the Australian Equine Behaviour Centre with the specific intent to train horses and provide clinics. Another, perhaps even more elaborate, example is the International Association of Animal Behaviour Consultants, mostly founded in the United States but clearly having larger ambitions than that.
The reluctance of the horsemanship world to take account of the amazing insights that science has procured in the past decades, clearly launched a new alternative in the horse world, which I term 'scientific horsemanship'. However, some concerns also rise as to this new form of horsemanship. First, one can question the neutrality of scientist evaluating methods of horsemanship, when they are themselves founders of a new methodology of horsemanship. Even if the scientists in question retain an honesty in their scientific work, keep on criticizing their own methodology as well, still the perception of scientist as a committed party in the horse world, rather than objective evaluators, can seriously harm the credibility of science and therefore significantly reduce the impact science should have on the horse world.
Second, scientist become inclined to rightfully stress what science has been able to prove, but sometimes loose the nuance of accurately representing what this knowledge precisely implies, how this knowledge is logically extrapolated and, most importantly, what science has not yet proved. For instance, science has beyond any reasonable doubt demonstrated that horses mainly learn through operant conditioning and that it is wrong to assume a direct transferability of natural behaviour into horse-human interactions. However, such insights may not lead to behavioural reductionism, where only the neurological process of conditioning seems to be at work, which is for instance suggested by the International Association of Animal Behaviour Consultants. After all, conditioning and behaviour are not bipolar oppositions, but quite often intermixed. Furthermore, the underlying mental processes guiding behaviour, the adaptation of natural behaviour in horse-human interactions and the influence on behaviour, natural or not, on the conditioned learning process are still poorly understood.
Third, scientists are often specialists. It is noticeable that 'scientific horsemanship' often solely relies on behavioural scientist, where the specialized programs of biomechanical riding (which could also be called scientific horsemanship) relies on functional morphologists. Both seem to be very unaware of each other. For instance, the suggestions made about dressage by Andrew McLean indicate great concern for a conditioned communication, but virtually completely overlook the physical qualities of training. In scientific horsemanship in general, often the importance of physical training is ignored, therefore also overlooking the communicative needs for physical training, as well as the influence of physical problems onto the behaviour of horses. Scientific Horsemanship therefore seems to lack a holistic approach which includes both mental and physical dimensions of the horse.
Fourth, the objective of equine sciences is not to construct methods of horsemanship, but to inform, explain and check them. What science does extraordinarily well is telling us, with a profound degree of certainty, what a method precisely does and explaining why that method precisely has these mental or physical effects. In doing so, it checks the methods and it checks the explanations and the claimed effects that horse trainers and instructors, often by an unsubstantiated claim of authority, are always very willing to make. In short, science has an invaluable role in explaining horse methods, but it is not equipped to forge methods. Certainly, science may give important advice to remedy serious problems that often occur in horse training and can direct our search for more optimal methods, but that is still something different from creating a practical and holistic method of horsemanship. Such a methodology will always rely on existing practices which the scientist is able to check and therefore accept or reject. It is therefore important that scientists, willing to endorse particular methods, explicit where these methods come from. In that perspective, science has a crucial role to play in evaluating, and therefore explaining and checking horse methodology. This should lead to scientifically substantiated forms of horsemanship, rather than a separate scientific horsemanship.