Archive for It's About The Horse The Free Forum for those Doing Parelli - and a whole lot More! "Anything forced and misunderstood can never be beautiful." Xenophon (430-355 B.C.),          It's About The Horse Forum Index -> Beyond Parelli - Continuing Education Kathleen Post regarding "extreme" horses For anyone who is interested I have posted my thoughts on the Pat and Catwalk demo on the "Becoming Horsemen" forum.   http://becominghorsemen.myfastforum.org/ Kathleen Yes_But_Neigh Hi Kathleen, is this your forum? Yes_But_Neigh Edited to add: Nevermind. Great to find more forums Thanks cynthia peterson Thank you Kathleen. i did read it. I would suggest everybody to read it. A review of what you thought, as a ex Parelli high level student, as a student of Buck Brannaman, as a well respected NH Clincian yourself,---sure has a lot of backing. PasoBaby_CarolU Re: Post regarding "extreme" horses Kathleen wrote: For anyone who is interested I have posted my thoughts on the Pat and Catwalk demo on the "Becoming Horsemen" forum.   http://becominghorsemen.myfastforum.org/ Kathleen Kathleen, apparently not everyone is welcome to join Ann's forum, so I'll have to ask my questions here.   I read your comments and tend to agree with most of them.  Having done it myself, I really don't believe in laying a horse down or tying a leg up, unless there is absolutely no way around it.  I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.   I would though, do either if there was no choice.   There are times you just have to do what needs to be done, and can't take the time to 'do it right.'  In recent years I have forced a difficult horse in a trailer that HAD TO go to the vet NOW.   And I also trapped a mare between panels to milk her for a foal she was refusing to allow to be fed.  We had to force it twice and she then allowed herself to be milked, and we did save the foal.  And, I've also tied a leg up on a horse that kicks, on a trail ride, in order to stop bleeding in another leg.   I remember your post on the dangers of setting up backing away, and have to agree that it is very dangerous avoidance behavior to 'teach' a horse.   I'm afraid I have a rescue horse here that avoids backwards, frontwards, and sideways, and he's been laid down and forced to submit, and he still avoids when given the chance.   So, I'm going the 'take the time it takes' route and not pushing him into any situation he feels a need to avoid.   I'll have to see if this works and get back with you on it.  Any other suggestions would be welcome. Several years ago when I got Zar, she refused to be bitted.   It was not ear issues, but knowing how Paso Finos are typically bitted (from the front against the teeth with the mouth pushed open) I could see where a horse could have a problem with this.  In this case, I put her in tight cross ties and then SOFTLY put the bit in numerous times correctly and gently.   I think she really needed to be shown that there was a soft way that didn't hurt her teeth and no need to avoid it.   I did it until she quit bobbing her nose, and then took her off the ties, and rebitted her a few more times.  I've never had a problem since.  I had tried try MY trick with fruit rollups and Pat's trick with molasses, and have never gotten this horse to reach for a bit.  She is not food motivated and has firm mouth issues.   The Hold the Tongue exercise is what kept me from passing the old level 2, way back when.   Given a choice, she willingly puts her head in her training bridle (no bit). My point is that there are ways to 'force' an issue without traumatizing a horse.   I have to wonder how much of this is THE biggest problem with "clinics" and "demos"....trainers more/less forced to accomplish a given task within an hour, two, or four, that really should take days of steady positive and progressive work to get past.   An ear issue is a good example.  I've not known a horse that can't get past this, but it does take time and persistence.   Going back to your post, we can, in hind sight, all see the things that Pat did wrong with the horse.  I would like to ask you what you feel SHOULD have been done.  What would you or Buck do with that horse, given the same set of circumstances? Clarissa Yeh….it smacks of ‘need another success story’ to keep the empire alive. Perhaps Pat took on too much but I’d like to have seen the relationship get a bigger chance first. No-one can say for sure whether the horse really needed that treatment if they weren’t actually there & had first hand knowledge of the horse. I agree it was wrong technique, wrong place.   What a better story might consist of is if the horse was taken back to the P ranch & his progress tracked & recorded over a few weeks. That could also have served a double purpose of revealing a progressive but misunderstood apprentice who may have ‘befriended’ the horse & succeeded in bridling it soundly. Just imagine the movie rights to that tear jerker!! Also the success story needs to include handler/owner re-education too. As a jillaroo I had horses that were very hard to bridle due to mistreatment by previous riders/breakers. Eventually they were hobbled & earlugged & semi thrown by 3 men to get a bridle on. Often the bridle was left on during the whole mustering season ie the horse wore it permanently. If I ever succeeded in fixing such a problem the horse would be removed from my string & given to one the stockmen who usually undid my hard work in no time flat!   There is actually a specially designed bridle for ‘hard to bridle’ horses. On it’s nearside the cheek straps don’t have a normal buckle or ring where the browband connects. There is a clip that allows the whole bridle to open out. The horse is run up the crush & from above the thing is placed on the offside of the face & the bit is brought across into the mouth using the check strap as a handle. Then the remaining parts are drawn over the ears & joined using the clip on the nearside cheek. Then the reins are clipped on & the horse let out of the crush usually at the gallop. I think it was originally designed for use in wild horse racing competitions at rodeos. That’s where I first used it anyway. Sunny What I'd like to see is, where are all of these "past success stories" of Pat's "fixing" problem horses? I'm not talking about Majic or Casper, but the ones he was called in by some distraught owner to fix. Anyone have any examples?  From those I've talked to, there really aren't many horses that went on since "being saved" by Pat.  Think about it.  Just stories?...... whisperingwindfarms I agree with whomever it was that posted on Kathleen's forum - I still don't see what the big deal is about.  Is there footage out there that is more clear and lasts longer than the ones that have been posted here? Much ado about nothing until there's better, longer video to see.  We all must remember that just as there is the "Parelli Cult", there is the "Parelli Haters Cult".  I'm a member of neither. Kathleen PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: Kathleen, apparently not everyone is welcome to join Ann's forum, so I'll have to ask my questions here.   ........... I read your comments and tend to agree with most of them.  Having done it myself, I really don't believe in laying a horse down or tying a leg up, unless there is absolutely no way around it.  I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.   ..................... Going back to your post, we can, in hind sight, all see the things that Pat did wrong with the horse.  I would like to ask you what you feel SHOULD have been done.  What would you or Buck do with that horse, given the same set of circumstances? Carol, I don't know what you mean about people not being welcome on the other forum. I don't know what we are disagreeing about as I think I said laying down would be a last resort and I think that is what you are saying as well? I did explain what Buck or I would do in general. The details would of course arise "in the moment" with any particular horse. Basically the answer is, use the groundwork to get the horse to turn loose with his feet. Sounds simple enough. Knowing how to get it done does not start by attempting to deal with a "difficult" horses. I am not going to go into a detailed critique of what Pat did or didn't do without the opportunity to see the entire session. Kathleen PS Erin, It is not "my" forum. I simply contribute there. PasoBaby_CarolU Eva, I thought your post on Ann's Forum was very good.  It's nice to hear from someone who knows a little more of the owner and probably, the horse's past.  It certainly does put it all in a different light, and I think you are right, that the results speak for themselves:  the horse could be bridled safely - safer for the people AND the horse.   Are there better ways to do it?  Maybe, maybe not.   Chances are pretty good, considering the owner, that most of them have been tried before bringing the horse to the clinic. Kathleen Carol, Now I will say we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think "the ends justify the means" is a "natural" approach to horsemanship. So whether or not the horse can now be bridled (and if so for how long) is not the deciding factor for me. How the horse feels about being bridled is a more important issue, in my mind anyway. Kathleen PasoBaby_CarolU Yes, and from what I saw on the videos, and granted I wasn't there, the horse looks fine, and much better to be bridled safely and calmly then to suffer a huge fight each time. PasoBaby_CarolU Kathleen wrote: Carol, Now I will say we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think "the ends justify the means" is a "natural" approach to horsemanship. Kathleen BTW - I didn't say that, and please don't interpret my words that way.  If the horse were 'damaged' by the method employed, it is not obvious by the results achieved.   I'm not sure IF the method employed was the best, I wasn't there and don't know what all has been tried before with the horse.  What I do see, is that the method was successful and the horse won't 'suffer' being bridled anymore.   That is really all anyone can say, not being there, not knowing the horse before  or after. coveredbridgefarm Erin wrote: Quote: We all must remember that just as there is the "Parelli Cult", there is the "Parelli Haters Cult".   This is becoming readily apparent. Really, really good point. Larry learningthedance coveredbridgefarm wrote: Erin wrote: Quote: We all must remember that just as there is the "Parelli Cult", there is the "Parelli Haters Cult".   This is becoming readily apparent. Really, really good point. Larry Yes, I agree completely. karmikacres coveredbridgefarm wrote: Erin wrote: Quote: We all must remember that just as there is the "Parelli Cult", there is the "Parelli Haters Cult".   This is becoming readily apparent. Really, really good point. Larry Don't forget the burned by Parelli cult. Mike coveredbridgefarm karmikacres wrote: coveredbridgefarm wrote: Erin wrote: Quote: We all must remember that just as there is the "Parelli Cult", there is the "Parelli Haters Cult".   This is becoming readily apparent. Really, really good point. Larry Don't forget the burned by Parelli cult. Mike That is a good point too. Is that a cult unto itself or is it a subcult of the PHC?   Larry Kathleen PasoBaby_CarolU wrote:   ...  that the results speak for themselves ... Carol, Once again we are having "definition" problems. I don't see a huge difference between "the results speak for themselves" and "the ends justify the means." How do you know the horse 'Won't "suffer" being bridled anymore'? As you said, none of us were there. And really you (and some others) are dragging this off in a direction that I never intended. Why does it have to be "pro" or "con" Pat? Why can't it be about the horse? This is in large part why I avoid posting on most internet boards. This is where my comments on the demo began. Kathleen PasoBaby_CarolU Kathleen, there is 'after' video of the horse being bridled and having his ears handled.  The horse is not suffering - or fighting, or being fought with.  Those are the results.   The results show that the method worked.    I did not say it was the only method that would work, but in this case, with this horse, it apparently worked.  So, the results DO speak to the method used.   That is a lot different then the "ends justifies the means," which could have a horse thrown, hobbled, beaten down, and a bridle on it.   How many battles has this horse fought before?  The end (being bridled) apparently justified the means (fighting with the horse).   But, you still haven't answered my question.   What is the 'correct' thing to do with such a horse?  What would you or Buck have done differently?   This is a learning environment.   Thousands of people have picked apart this video and Pat.  I'd like to see someone give a better approach for 'fixing' this horse. Kathleen Carol, First, I have seen the "after" video and my opinion as to "how the horse looks" is different than yours. Second, I think the "ends justifies the means" subject is an important and interesting one and will post about that when I get a chance over on Becoming Horsemen. Finally, I have answered your question, you just don't like my answer because it is not what you are looking for. As always I wish you and your horses the best!!! Kathleen whisperingwindfarms karmikacres wrote: coveredbridgefarm wrote: Erin wrote: Quote: We all must remember that just as there is the "Parelli Cult", there is the "Parelli Haters Cult".   This is becoming readily apparent. Really, really good point. Larry Don't forget the burned by Parelli cult. Mike Ouch!  I might be a member of that one!  Darn it!  OK so is there a Cult for those who have been burned by Parelli but are so happy doing what we're doing that we no longer give a rat's behind about Pat or Linda? alexwein whisperingwindfarms wrote: so happy doing what we're doing that we [don't] give a rat's behind about Pat or Linda? Now THIS cult I could belong to. PasoBaby_CarolU Kathleen wrote: Carol, First, I have seen the "after" video and my opinion as to "how the horse looks" is different than yours.  What do you see that I don't?   Quote: Finally, I have answered your question, you just don't like my answer because it is not what you are looking for. As always I wish you and your horses the best!!! Kathleen I must be daft.  I just read your post again, looking for this.   I saw you ask many questions, some were answered by Eve in her post following yours.  I saw you ask about trying Buck's snaffling bit method.  I would imagine that is where Pat started, asking respectfully?   I have watched both Pat's bridling method and Buck's, and see no difference.   So, if and when asking doesn't work - and hasn't worked long enough to become a dangerous behavior - what do you suggest?   You ask if taking away a leg or using a twitch is appropriate.  You don't answer those questions. PasoBaby_CarolU BTW - I don't feel burned by Parelli...but then I am happy with the clinics, courses, and equipment I purchased and use a lot.  What I never did though was buy any long courses, apprenticeships, saddles, saddle pads or the Cradle Bridle.   I'm thinking maybe I'm jaded by hearing too many salesmen already.   Even when I was in the Savvy Club, I was there for the discounts and never felt a true club "member."   Too many good clinicians and teachers to blindly follow one, regardless of how 'good' they sound. jackspark I am also a member of the unsinged cult.  Lack of funds kept me pretty safe on that score.  I never felt like I was a real member having never been to the source or taken any courses.   I just really liked getting the supplemental material each month.   Like with anything else life moves along and nothing remains the same........... livin the good life now cheerios PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: Kathleen, there is 'after' video of the horse being bridled and having his ears handled.  The horse is not suffering - or fighting, or being fought with.  Those are the results.   The results show that the method worked.    I did not say it was the only method that would work, but in this case, with this horse, it apparently worked.  So, the results DO speak to the method used.   That is a lot different then the "ends justifies the means," which could have a horse thrown, hobbled, beaten down, and a bridle on it.   How many battles has this horse fought before?  The end (being bridled) apparently justified the means (fighting with the horse).   But does the horse like being bridled? Does he enjoy it? Does he look forward to being bridled? From what I've seen and horses I've worked with, fighting with the horse and the "get it done" method can produce very compliant horses that will tolerate and put up with a lot. Personally, I'm pretty sure I don't want a horse who is just putting up with me because he's given up and learned it's easier than fighting with me. Pat's method did work, in that now a bridle can be put on and off of the horse. For Pat, in this demo, I think it was all about the bridle. Kathleen mentioned in one post (correct me if I'm misquoting!) taking the horse back through basic ground work before even getting to the bridle. I imagine (and from some of the clips I saw) that the horse had other holes in his foundation and other "problem" areas, although they might not have been as extreme as the bridling issues. If it were my horse, I think I would have started over from square one, and build up a solid foundation and relationship, instead of making it about the bridle. whisperingwindfarms cheerios wrote: If it were my horse, I think I would have started over from square one, and build up a solid foundation and relationship, instead of making it about the bridle. That's the most pertinent response to the video that I have seen anywhere. jackspark How many times have we heard:  "It's not about the.........." Niek i guess something Leslie Desmond said during a demonstration here.. is profound A young colt. First time out in an enverioment with over 200 horses (police stables of Brussels) he ofcourse freaked.. She first got "strict" with the owners (in the most polite but clear way ive come across) she walked the colt around for about 20 mins, introduced him to the arena with feel. Explained some concepts.. And ended the demo, she had about 40 minutes left.. Al she said was she couldnt care less about what everyone in the arena thought (she estimated maybe 5 people were able to enjoy the demo out of the about 100 watching) about the demo, and wether or not it was "interesting"  (ergo spectacular to watch), all that mathered was that the horse whent back to the stables thinking : wow that was great edit to say : this was probably the best demo i saw... That left the biggest impression of me. jackspark Wow, it is about the horse........sometimes! ElaineW Thanks for the post Niek,, i have been thinking of checking into Leslie's dvd's.. Sounds like she's worth watching! PasoBaby_CarolU cheerios wrote: But does the horse like being bridled? Does he enjoy it? Does he look forward to being bridled? Mary, if I used this criteria, I am quite sure I'd never bridle a horse.  I have some that like to play, go on trail rides, even work...but none that "enjoy" the bridle.  I've even tested some horses, giving them a choice of headgear.  I've never had one CHOOSE the bit, while they'll willingly put their head in a jaquima, and the LBE's the Parelli halter or hackamore.   Quote: If it were my horse, I think I would have started over from square one, and build up a solid foundation and relationship, instead of making it about the bridle. If the horse were given to me, I'd probably do the same thing.  However, if the horse is as described, an experienced and trained LB horse who has decided it's "You and whose Army is going to get that bridle on me?"  I wouldn't be starting over (although most LB horses will 'fall' for the molasses or fruit roll up bit).   This horse is not a colt being started where the correct choice is always to do it the right way...of course.   This is an older horse with an ingrained and successful bad behavior.   I don't agree with tieing a leg up and forcing a horse JUST because it's a demonstration with a time frame, and I'm not defending that.   But, I do think, with many smart horses, if you started over every time the horse refused to do something, he'd soon have you trained to play only the Friendly Game.   I've seen more then one of these... ...had a client ask me "How do you make them trot two miles?"  I told her "27 laps of my round coral is 1 mile. So 34 laps."  She says, but how do you keep them trotting?"  And my answer was, "It isn't their choice."   If I left my horses up their choice, they'd never leave the haystack. jackspark Amen Sister!  If I gave mine the choice they would never get off the couch PasoBaby_CarolU You know, this whole thing has gotten SOOO ridiculous.  I think I've read 40 people's different versions (plus a video!) of how THEY (or their GURU) would have done this differently, or if THEY tied up a leg or used a twitch it would have been for the RIGHT reasons and gotten the RIGHT results.  On and on for days now. The truth is that NONE of us were there, NONE of us know this horse or his history, and NONE of us were faced with 'fixing him.'    He wasn't there because there weren't any holes in his foundation, and he wasn't labeled "extreme" by accomplished horsemen because everyone knows how to deal with his issues.   I don't think hindsight is 100% when it includes blindsight.  The truth is NONE of us know for sure. One thing I do know, is that I have seen a lot WORSE and I've seen a lot less handled WORSE and horses ruined.  I've rescued horses that were ruined.   Even Catwalk...a lot worse could have been done and he could have been ruined permanently. And what about the ethics of "fixing" a horse during a 3 day clinic.....isn't that WHY most horses are there?   The perfect horses don't need to go to clinics or trainers. Chablis PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: You know, this whole thing has gotten SOOO ridiculous.  I think I've read 40 people's different versions (plus a video!) of how THEY (or their GURU) would have done this differently, or if THEY tied up a leg or used a twitch it would have been for the RIGHT reasons and gotten the RIGHT results.  On and on for days now. The truth is that NONE of us were there, NONE of us know this horse or his history, and NONE of us were faced with 'fixing him.'    He wasn't there because there weren't any holes in his foundation, and he wasn't labeled "extreme" by accomplished horsemen because everyone knows how to deal with his issues.   I don't think hindsight is 100% when it includes blindsight.  The truth is NONE of us know for sure. One thing I do know, is that I have seen a lot WORSE and I've seen a lot less handled WORSE and horses ruined.  I've rescued horses that were ruined.   Even Catwalk...a lot worse could have been done and he could have been ruined permanently. And what about the ethics of "fixing" a horse during a 3 day clinic.....isn't that WHY most horses are there?   The perfect horses don't need to go to clinics or trainers. Here. Here. Great post Carol.   Blue Flame deleted - seeking permission from poster on another forum to quote. AlythLong I was always taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right!!  Just because there are many bad things happening out there - as well as the PNH Stonleigh episode - that doesn't make the PNH episode right.   Perhaps just less wrong than some things, such as rollkur?  Pat was very voiciferous about that - and there are many more people voiciferous about his "mistake".  Whatever, it does not encourage anyone to embrace the Parelli methods!!!! PasoBaby_CarolU I certainly agree with that Alyth.   I can see many people leaving Parelli, and I'm sure a lot more will never try Parelli because of that video (and the video of Linda with snap).  Maybe not even the videos, but the reactions to them.   I think people are drawn to NH for a more gentle method to horse training, so it is a BIG turn off to see any violence used, and we all define violence differently, based on our life experience.  I've watched both Craig Cameron and Clint Anderson hit a horse so many times, I finally couldn't handle it anymore and left...and that is a let less violation of a horse then taking a leg away.  I've seen tying a leg up turn into a horrible fight and that is what turned me off of Vaquero or Buckaroo training when I first looked into them. I've seen ear twitches make a horse head shy for weeks of 'undoing' the damage done.   I will say though that I've seen many a horse nose twitched or the under lip twitch, including several of mine, and none seem worse for it, or were injured by it - and it didn't change our relationship.   I am a big proponent of SAFETY, and sometimes you have to do what is safest for the handler and the horse. thelmanelle The clinics, to me, have always been a help for the rider...not the horse.  That being said. my hands were full with Flint, but I learned so much about safety in the clinics.  A big help. I agree the video doesn't show much...  except it looks like a lot of time and heat. Jesse was twitched before age 3.  He is still head shy at 16 years of age about his ears.  It leaves a long time issue.   I have to be so gentle about his ears.  He trust me on anything else.  Ears are not something he can easily give up. As far as the bridle goes, I do use it .  Yes, for dressage lessons.  Yes, for 50 or more horses at a field trial and yes, for teamsters on the wagon or farm implements.  I like that they stop, but I need to be sure I have a stop if I really need it when a horse is running wild open.   At the 4th of July event with the Belgians, I had a cowboy trying to at like we were the stagecoach to rob.  I quickly had to get my head straight and let him know in a crowd that was very unsafe and not a good idea. You can't trust other riders to be smart, sometimes. coveredbridgefarm Carol wrote: Quote: You know, this whole thing has gotten SOOO ridiculous.  I think I've read 40 people's different versions (plus a video!) of how THEY (or their GURU) would have done this differently, or if THEY tied up a leg or used a twitch it would have been for the RIGHT reasons and gotten the RIGHT results.  On and on for days now. Most people don't seem to be this upset over BP and the Gulf oil spill. I wonder what would happen if a video of one of those gurus shows up showing them doing something similar. Would the outrage(and the defense) be the same? I'm thinking that a lot of those opinions are nothing more than preconceived opinions just waiting for an opportunity(excuse) to be expressed and actually have almost nothing to do with the actual event. The PR problem that PNH will have to deal with is much more easily defined than the actual issue. Btw, I have never heard or read a clear definition of what an "extreme" horse is except that it is a horse that presents some level of danger to one or more humans and/or to itself. How can you have a meaningful debate over something that cannot be defined better than that? Only humans go to war first and try to figure out why later. Sonya wrote: Quote: He is still head shy at 156 years of age about his ears On the other hand, Sonya, it hasn't affected his longevity.     Larry Jack Quote: Most people don't seem to be this upset over BP and the Gulf oil spill. Larry, I too have been comparing the oil spill to the things done in the Parelli demo in England. Seem's to me that cruelty comes in all shapes and sizes, depending on the viewer. Jack PasoBaby_CarolU coveredbridgefarm wrote: Btw, I have never heard or read a clear definition of what an "extreme" horse is except that it is a horse that presents some level of danger to one or more humans and/or to itself. How can you have a meaningful debate over something that cannot be defined better than that? Larry Interesting.  Remember loosing Rik over the definition of "dangerous" and defining a horse such.   I guess I would call a horse "extreme" (who came up with that word choice anyway? Was it used by Parelli's or the owner, or on the Internet?) if the horse couldn't be 'fixed' by traditional trainers and traditional methods.   That definition DOES change depending on who is handling the horse, since what one person considers extreme is merely a challenge to someone else.   That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it, since people learn by the discussion, in this case 40 other methods for retraining a bridle sour horse.   I think I prefer the word "challenge" since it implies you have to THINK about how to fix the horse, it's not something that is easily done by the average horse owner. coveredbridgefarm Jack wrote: Quote: Most people don't seem to be this upset over BP and the Gulf oil spill. Larry, I too have been comparing the oil spill to the things done in the Parelli demo in England. Seem's to me that cruelty comes in all shapes and sizes, depending on the viewer. Jack It's all depends on a person's perspective, doesn't it Jack? In both cases, we can probably get a better grip on the PR implications than we can on what caused the original problem and the methods used to correct it. Carol wrote: Quote: I think I prefer the word "challenge" since it implies you have to THINK about how to fix the horse, it's not something that is easily done by the average horse owner "Challenge" suggests each condition lies on a straightline spectrum to me. That may actually be the case but the term "extreme" has always carried a different connotation for me. If the horse is declared "extreme", then something like the "laying down" procedure becomes the horse's last chance. It's like extreme horses are off the chart and do not fall anywhere on the straightline spectrum. They fall into a separate category and they require "extreme" measures which a lot of people feel are very unnatural and which can only be performed by a very small number of elite natural horsemen. No wonder people are confused. I think I need a definition of what an "extreme" horse is in terms of what is happening in the horse's mind rather than just a term referring to the relative ability of humans to deal with such horses. Then, maybe I could figure out which side I am on. Larry alexwein PasoBaby_CarolU wrote:  I've watched both Craig Cameron and Clint Anderson hit a horse so many times, I finally couldn't handle it anymore and left...and that is a let less violation of a horse then taking a leg away. I don't agree this is less of a violation.  Having its leg taken away is something that is done in an, should I use the word, 'extreme' situation.  An out of the ordinary situation--trying to fix something that goes deep with the horse.  I'm not saying it's right to do, but that it's something done in order to fix an out of the ordinary issue.   Clinton Anderson hits the horse as a matter of course.  I've seen him whacking a horse even when the horse is doing exactly what he wants it to. There is ZERO chance for the horse to have any initiative or time to think. It's ongoing and teaches the horse a pattern of interaction and response that gets wired in.   I'm not saying that a single incident of taking horse's leg away can't do long-lasting damage if not done in the right way--I'm sure it can.  But what CA does is systemic and patterned and in a way, relentless.  What I saw was a horse having no time to think, to do the right thing, having its dignity taken away repeatedly, in a sustained and ongoing way. To me, this is no less a violation and may in fact constitute something more damaging. Blue Flame coveredbridgefarm wrote: I think I need a definition of what an "extreme" horse is in terms of what is happening in the horse's mind rather than just a term referring to the relative ability of humans to deal with such horses. Then, maybe I could figure out which side I am on. Larry How about - A pattern of behaviour that is dangerous (to either horse or human) that is deeply engrained enough that changing that pattern requires procedures or techniques outside of the conventional consensus of learning and training. Such procedures and techniques may include advanced skill levels, specialised equipment, high levels of emotional and physical stress being placed upon the horse, restricting movement and mobility or a combination of all of these. I think an extreme behaviour or pattern is quantified by the measures necessary to change that behaviour or pattern. Hence, if the measures necessary to cause the change are considered extreme, then so is the behaviour or pattern. The questions then become 1. What is considered an extreme measure. 2. Was the measure, technique, procedure or method really necessary to effect the required change. There will be many cases where, given time, less extreme measures could have been used - but the key point here is "given time". I can fully understand a clinician using a faster more extreme measure instead of a gentler more time consuming one. For example, it may be that the horse is unlikely to get the time needed with someone with the appropriate skill set. Maybe it lives in a remote location devoid of qualified horsemen and the clinician is only there for a day or two. Maybe the owner could learn enough to apply a gentler technique but maybe it is either unlikely or may mean the horse suffers stress for up to several years before waiting for the human to become competent enough. Maybe the number of "ifs" add up to a significant chance of the horse being put to sleep. Maybe the logistics just means that several different people will handle the horse and they can't all be brought to the same skill level, so the horse will be better off if it learns to cope with less skilled handling - just as many learner riding school horses have learned to be forgiving of less skilled humans. This reminds me of Pete Ramey talking about 1 of his 2 cardinal rules of hoof trimming and I think it can be paraphrased quite nicely into the topic of extreme, dangerous etc. horses. Pete's Rule 1. of trimming - You should never hurt a horse with your trim. He should feel the same or better after your trim as before. Explanation of the rule (which is the more relevent part to this topic is) - "This is beyond being nice - If I could hurt a horse really bad for 2 days and then he had a lifetime of soundness afterwards, I'd be all about it - that would be a good trade in my eyes". (Of course, Pete doesn't do that because he believes that compensative movement caused by pain would make matters worse - not better - but the concept is what I'm illustrating) For an extreme horse it could read - "If I could really upset or traumatise a horse for a few hours or less but it meant that that horse had a peaceful existence for the remainder of it's days - maybe that would be a good trade." Sometimes it is beyond being nice - sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind - and sometimes it IS cruel to be kind. PasoBaby_CarolU Blue Flame wrote: Sometimes it is beyond being nice - sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind - and sometimes it IS cruel to be kind. "Ends justify the means"??? I see where you are heading, but I don't think the method can be used to define the behavior.   I know cowboys who lay down EVERY horse they "break" regardless of if it is 'needed' or not, and farriers who 'train' horses routinely by taking a leg away and letting the horse figure out it will survive. I'm not saying that either 'treatment" isn't necessary on rare occasions when good Foundation training has failed, but I do see 'regular' guys do these 'cures' because...who knows?   Maybe the definition I gave above is correct, extreme is when GOOD FOUNDATION training has failed.   Many an owner can muck up a horse, weather through good intentions or ignorance.   It doesn't take a genius to fix these horses, you just start over.   But there are horses that good horsemen have worked with and failed.   That all the "tried and true" methods haven't succeeded with.   In my mind, these would be the outliers.  Those that are real training challenges.   I still don't like the word Extreme, because there are extremely sensitive, reactive, active, lazy, dominant, fearful, etc. behaviors demonstrated by certain horses.   Each of these horses have to be handled differently, but a good 'natural horsemen' should be able to handle each accordingly.   I think we are talking about horses that don't fit into a neat 'horsenality' package, that there is no easy way to read and act accordingly. Peeperpuppy Life was simplier with Grandpa.  He simply said what he meant.  If he ever said a horse was serious.... or bad-serious those were the horses that I consider extreme.  Someone (or several someone's) had to go to the hospital because of this horse or someone went into the ground. People like the word extreme because of the mental images it creates.   To me a horse is extreme when he's willing to even harm himself, maybe even mortally to avoid the thing humans think he needs done. One thing people have fooled themselves into is that thru Natural horsemanship we don't force.  That's the biggest lie you can ever tell yourself.  Horses would graze free & be fine but humans enter their world & we want to ride & play ground games etc...  The truth lies in the fact that we can strive to make this a good deal for the horse or we can just make the horse.  Personally I prefer a horse who calls to me, beckeoning me to come scratch, treat, brush or yes... even ride because I've made effort to make it a good deal for him/her.   Grandpa has taken a leg away from a horse however it was that or a potential broken neck or cracked head.  And once the horse saw he wasn't going to be pushed... pushed... pushed he earned his leg back & eventually he could be trusted not to bolt into the wall... to me THAT is extreme behavior.  Take the leg or risk the horse's life.  To this moment, I agree with Grandpa.  I'd never be able to live with myself in his shoes had that magnificant horse damaged himself beyond redemption.   Lot of horses don't like their humans.  And there's your starting point.  The rest is crap if you don't figure out how to sweeten the deal for the horse that he's even willing to try. Blue Flame PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: Blue Flame wrote: Sometimes it is beyond being nice - sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind - and sometimes it IS cruel to be kind. "Ends justify the means"??? Ouch!, that's a term I dislike but . . . yes I guess that is what I'm saying . . . qualified of course with sometimes I see where you are heading, but I don't think the method can be used to define the behavior.   I know cowboys who lay down EVERY horse they "break" regardless of if it is 'needed' or not, and farriers who 'train' horses routinely by taking a leg away and letting the horse figure out it will survive. Again, I did qualify that point by saying the method necessary. - which of course brought up the subjective question of what the minimum or gentlest necessary method is. In clinic and client settings, depending on the resources of the owner, the gentlest possible might not be the gentlest probable. I'm not saying that either 'treatment" isn't necessary on rare occasions when good Foundation training has failed, but I do see 'regular' guys do these 'cures' because...who knows? I've made that mistake once - overkill. The mare was rearing and pulling on me and I sent a huge phase 4 wave down the rope at her just as she was up and pulling. Her hind feet slipped forward and she landed on her butt. She took about two weeks to forgive me and soften again instead of standing there with her nose turned up at me. On the plus side, the rearing was nipped in the bud for her very young and inexperienced owner with few resources to draw upon - no-one else had been willing to help her. I didn't need to get into it with this mare because we didn't need to go where we were going - but one day her owner might have needed to lead her somewhere. I take some consolation (some might say justification) in that I did what I could to help ensure that a young girl wasn't struck by a rearing mare and that a mare didn't get loose after injuring it's owner and blindly charge off across the landscape with a big rope trailing behind her. I am more comfortable with what I did to that mare nowadays than I was in the past Maybe the definition I gave above is correct, extreme is when GOOD FOUNDATION training has failed.   Many an owner can muck up a horse, weather through good intentions or ignorance.   It doesn't take a genius to fix these horses, you just start over.   But there are horses that good horsemen have worked with and failed.   That all the "tried and true" methods haven't succeeded with.   In my mind, these would be the outliers.  Those that are real training challenges.   Duke was a sweet Clydie gelding with dangerous (to himself and anyone around him) behaviours that Chip Johnson worked with over a few weeks. Chip, who was specialising in problem/difficult/dangerous horses at the time, succeeded except for one last issue. Duke could just not handle Chip reaching over his ears/poll without reacting involuntarily. Duke was getting an orthobionomy treatment and I was leaning on the fence talking to the therapist (one of Chip's students at the time) when Chip walked by about 15 feet away and Amy (therapist) felt the horse tighten. 1st conclusion - maybe Duke was wary of men, but I am a man and he wasn't bothered by my presence. 2nd conclusion - Duke was wary of big men - Chip is over 6'and I'm 5'9or10". But then who is to say a human even was the problem, maybe Duke had been upset by a big male horse . . . It was chance circumstance that a therapist was able to detect a change in the horse under those circumstances that led to a subsequent breakthrough. Often we will never know why a horse does something and can only deal with what he does without knowing the underlying issue. I still don't like the word Extreme, because there are extremely sensitive, reactive, active, lazy, dominant, fearful, etc. behaviors demonstrated by certain horses.   Each of these horses have to be handled differently, but a good 'natural horsemen' should be able to handle each accordingly.   I think we are talking about horses that don't fit into a neat 'horsenality' package, that there is no easy way to read and act accordingly. This is precisely the reason my 16yo daughter Miki hires herself out as a horse hand part time even though she is still a high school - to get exposure to as many different horses as possible. It is working out quite well too, getting paid for playing with different horses and her learning has already started accelerating. I sometimes think of horses in terms of self preservation. A horse might consider it more important to preserve his safety at the expense of his dignity while another his dignity at the expense of his safety. One might be called RB, spooky or reactive where the other might be called LB or dominant. Both can be dangerous and both are still driven by self preservation. AlythLong My goodness!!!  thank goodness that I have had most of my horses since birth (or very soon thereafter!) and have no "extreme" problems!!  It goes to show that early handling/education is SOOOO important!!  Blue Flame saw me with my original PNH horse that I have had since a weanling and learned PNH with....a RBI that is so forgiving!!!  And my young Arabians, although more RB have no major problems at all!!!  I really don't know if I could handle an "extreme" horse!!!  All I can say is give me a horse with brains and a person with an open mind!!! Alyth PasoBaby_CarolU Great posts Blue and Peeper.  A lot to add to the discussion.  I agree totally Alyth.  So much easier to start with a blank slate, then deal with issues. coveredbridgefarm It's great to see that some really good thinkers are delving into this issue. Blue Flame wrote: Quote: How about - A pattern of behaviour that is dangerous (to either horse or human) that is deeply engrained enough that changing that pattern requires procedures or techniques outside of the conventional consensus of learning and training. What I am looking for is a description independent of the human factor. I realize that the condition is always(almost always?--never say always) caused by humans and it will have to be dealt with by humans. But, I'm looking for a psychological description of extreme horses separate from human involvement just for the purpose of starting a debate about this issue on some common understanding. Even with such a definition, I would expect a difference of opinion over the best way to deal with it, but if these horses can be diagnosed with a specific psychological condition or a specific state of mind, then we would have a starting point that does not currently exist, imo. I was a psychology major(among others) so I am fairly aware of the subjective limitations of a psychological diagnosis. However, they are not without value either. They offer some semblance of standardization which does not exist in any debate of this topic that I have seen so far.  Establish an agreed-upon diagnosis first, then let the debate begin rather than letting the debate begin before an agreement over a diagnosis is even attempted. I have debated lots of topics but I don't think I have ever debated a topic where the key term was so poorly defined as "extreme" horses. I think this may partly account for the tone of the debate.   I'm still thinking it's all about the way a horse's mind deals with pressure. There seems to be a certain amount of pressure each horse can handle before it blows up, with "blows up" being defined as that point at which the horse is oblivious to danger to himself. There could be a scale to clarify the level of pressure at which the horse is inclined to "blow up". Carol wrote: Quote: I'm not saying that either 'treatment" isn't necessary on rare occasions when good Foundation training has failed, but I do see 'regular' guys do these 'cures' because...who knows? Perhaps we could discuss that as well. If laying a horse down or taking a leg away are procedures that only elite horsemen can do, then when a regular horseman performs that procedure, he may think he has entered elite status. In that case, the means does not justify the ends as far as the welfare of the horse is concerned, imo.   Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: Grandpa has taken a leg away from a horse however it was that or a potential broken neck or cracked head Did he ever lay a horse down? Larry thelmanelle coveredbridgefarm wrote: Sonya wrote: Quote: He is still head shy at 156 years of age about his ears On the other hand, Sonya, it hasn't affected his longevity.     Larry I know I came back to read and thought om   156 years!   He's 16. Corrected.   Mandy'sMarty I would propose that the "extreme" horse, as apparently defined within the context of being dangerous to itself and to humans, is an unnatural creature. I believe that the horse, as a consummate prey animal living within the herd structure, is hard-wired to not present such "extreme" behavior. Horses are creatures that seek out synchronicity and harmony within their immediate environment. This trait has served the species well enough to enable it to survive and flourish for millions of years. It would then appear that such "extreme' horse behavior would have its roots in human involvement and interaction, particularly when the true nature of the horse is obstructed and not allowed expression. Peeperpuppy coveredbridgefarm wrote: Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: Grandpa has taken a leg away from a horse however it was that or a potential broken neck or cracked head Did he ever lay a horse down? Larry Yes in one of 3 ways.  The most preferable was a matter of trust.  This was done quietly, the horse had the choice to walk away or to lay down for him.  No ropes.  No fuss.  You'd find him lovingly stroking the horse & he or she could get up & do whatever.  This was very much like a horses do amongst one another. The 2nd was perhaps the worst.  A horse who was damaged by some boob who lay a horse down to conquer it & the horse was locked in this state of mind where he's crossed over yet his body doesn't know it.  This was a broken soul.  Sometimes you could recover a horse by taking him back there & helping him run off chemicals in the body so that he knows he's still alive.  It sounds weird & new age or whatever but I've seen it & know it's real. The 3rd is that rare horse who is really extreme & has become so dangerous to work.  I've seen Grandpa go in on big draft horses who helped him to rope the light horse & acomplish the lay down with the least amount of danger & struggle to all parties including the horse that was in trouble.  By the time Grandpa was called this was often the last option prior to death. It's fine enough to discuss these things but I've been present, on the ground, in the same arena where a horse has broken his own neck & there was nothing any of us could do except end his suffering.  I've also seen a horse impale himself on a post flipping himself over backward, another get his legs tangled in the fence & had to be put down... 2 broken legs.  All of these horrible things happened because some boob turned normal horses into extreme horses.  The person in the arena during the accidents didn't push the horses. PasoBaby_CarolU I have to agree with Marty, but for different reasons.  In the wild, the extremes are 'culled' by nature.  Horses that are too reactive, self destructive, even too curious, don't live to reproduce.   I would even go farther to say that humans have bred the extreme horses, often ignoring what kind of life they condemn the horse to if their breeding experiment fails. Peeperpuppy Carol I agree with you.  Humans don't often stop & think beyond the superficial.  We've got a 'thing' about extremes & in the end it's destruction. jackspark PasoBaby_CarolU wrote: I have to agree with Marty, but for different reasons.  In the wild, the extremes are 'culled' by nature.  Horses that are too reactive, self destructive, even too curious, don't live to reproduce.   I would even go farther to say that humans have bred the extreme horses, often ignoring what kind of life they condemn the horse to if their breeding experiment fails. YES!  I bred one of those in the beginning before I knew what I REALLY wanted and honestly thought about genetics.  Since then I did a lot of thinking and asking before I bred again.  The second time I got exactly what I bred for........... genetics is amazing!  Extremes don't make it on my farm either. coveredbridgefarm Ok, so if a truly extreme horse is one which nature did not have the opportunity to weed out or one that man, through selective breeding actually created, that supports my suspicion that these horses are entitities unto themselves and therefore can be defined, not in terms of the perceived relative abilities of horsemen, but in terms of how their minds actually work. I see at least 3 separate entities to discuss: 1) The dangerous horse itself with abnormal or unusual mental and/or psychological activities 2) The procedures such as the laying down procedure which allegedly deals with these horses 3) The natural horsemen whose skill is relied upon to deal with these horses Why does every discussion of the topic of extreme  horses seem to always gravitate toward #3? How can #3 be meaningfully discussed without a meaningful understanding of #1 and #2? Larry PasoBaby_CarolU Larry, I think you are trying to nail this thing down, but like an eel, it refuses to stay in one place long enough for any kind of definition.   I more/less agree with No. 1, but not so with No. 2 and 3. First, I don't think laying down a horse or taking a leg away is a cure for MANY extreme horses.  In fact I think it can make things worse for MANY horses.  I also think there are darn few horsemen with the experience, knowledge and skills to know when it is right and when it would make things worse.   Secondly I don't think many Natural Horsemen can deal with ALL these horses, nor do I think ONLY Natural Horseman can deal with them.   The easiest example is Allure, who is not IMO "extreme" but is certainly an extreme LBE who is too extreme for many natural horsemen, but not at all extreme for the warmblood dressage farm which bred and originally trained him.  I think that we humans have different comfort levels for what we consider extreme. coveredbridgefarm Carol wrote: Quote: Larry, I think you are trying to nail this thing down, but like an eel, it refuses to stay in one place long enough for any kind of definition.   I more/less agree with No. 1, but not so with No. 2 and 3. Very appropriate analogy. I was thinking idealistically there. That there might exist a horseman or two who really can read the horse's mind so well that he/she will always make the best use of the appropriate procedure for the benefit of the horse and will never use it unnecessarily. I guess the above paragraph is a tipoff that I also think like you, that these procedures may be used more often than necessary. I heard one clinician say that he has used the laying down procedure on over 1000 horses. I have a hard time believing that they were all necessary. Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: Yes in one of 3 ways.  The most preferable was a matter of trust.  This was done quietly, the horse had the choice to walk away or to lay down for him.  No ropes.  No fuss.  You'd find him lovingly stroking the horse & he or she could get up & do whatever.  This was very much like a horses do amongst one another. The 2nd was perhaps the worst.  A horse who was damaged by some boob who lay a horse down to conquer it & the horse was locked in this state of mind where he's crossed over yet his body doesn't know it.  This was a broken soul.  Sometimes you could recover a horse by taking him back there & helping him run off chemicals in the body so that he knows he's still alive.  It sounds weird & new age or whatever but I've seen it & know it's real. The 3rd is that rare horse who is really extreme & has become so dangerous to work.  I've seen Grandpa go in on big draft horses who helped him to rope the light horse & acomplish the lay down with the least amount of danger & struggle to all parties including the horse that was in trouble.  By the time Grandpa was called this was often the last option prior to death. It's interesting that you break it down into 3 groups. Imo, this is a significant addition to the discussion. The first is a matter of trust, the second one is a matter of recovery, and the last one is what most people talk about when these procedures are mentioned. I guess the big difference in the three is intent? Larry alexwein Peeperpuppy, I want a grandpa just like yours.  Or I wish I had one back when I had grandpas. An interesting thread.  Reminds me of many heated discussions about ethics I used to have in graduate school.  There were those who sought to have things clearly defined, which in itself was a good process to keep clarifying the issues involved. But the ultimate goal of having ethics systematized is impossible, because life is messy and situations are unique and individual. I see this same point of tension in this thread. Trying to define an 'extreme' horse and running up against the relative nature of definitions.  Relative to the people and the horse involved.   Maybe 'extreme' is the word we use when we are in a situation or in this case a horse that exceeds our capacity to handle it the way we 'normally' would.  Which is, after all, the definition of the word 'extreme'! How the term gets applied would depend on the horse's behavior and responses, as well as the experience and methods used by the people involved. I doubt you are going to find a definition that applies to all situations. Definitely worthwhile to explore the question, however, because a lot of fruitful observation and thought is the result! It has got many of us thinking about the whole question of laying a horse down (love that grandpa there!), if it is ever something that should be used, etc.  Also points to the fact that there is likely no horseman out there who can handle all the variations of extremity a horse might display!  Maybe Pat just ran into a horse that pushed all his buttons and/or exceeded his own limitations as a horseman. But there might be another kind of horse that might exceed another person's abilities or personality. I don't know. Would someone like Tom or Bill Dorrance be able to help every single horse?  Ray Hunt?  As revered as these folks are, I doubt it. I've seen horses get laid down before.  I can't say it was necessary, and I can't say I cared much for the result.  But I also can't say it was me in there, having to make that decision! I'm guessing there are times when it is done well, with the right intent, and times it's abuse and kills the soul of the horse. Ultimately, I DO think it is about intent.  I think horses read intent and it goes right to their core.  I also think that applies to humans, but that's the topic of another thread. I think if you are someone who is a genuine leader, who really knows his/her stuff, who does something with love and the genuine intent of helping the horse and what is best for it, you can do just about anything and the horse would respond in a good way. Not sure this is helpful to the discussion, but it was good for me to process, anyway!   Blue Flame coveredbridgefarm wrote: I see at least 3 separate entities to discuss: 1) The dangerous horse itself with abnormal or unusual mental and/or psychological activities 2) The procedures such as the laying down procedure which allegedly deals with these horses 3) The natural horsemen whose skill is relied upon to deal with these horses Why does every discussion of the topic of extreme  horses seem to always gravitate toward #3? How can #3 be meaningfully discussed without a meaningful understanding of #1 and #2? Larry Ok, so here's Andrew Mclean's principle dealing with 2): Quote: Control the horse's legs An American ethologist, by the name of Dr Temple Grandin, showed a few years ago that ‘holding therapy' works with horses. She observed American cowboys putting wild mustangs in crates with only their heads protruding and then filling the crate full of wheat via an overhead silo. Then they were subjected to bags etc swinging toward their faces. The horses were unable to express their fear responses because their legs were immobilised. When horses emerged from this contraption they were far quieter and easier to control; their flight response was dulled for some time afterwards. For many years Australian breakers and horse whisperers have been hog-tying horse's legs and throwing them to the ground or hobbling them. All of these techniques temporarily subdue the flight response, although they are mostly misinterpreted as producing ‘respect' and ‘submission'. What is actually happening is that fearful stimuli are disconnected from the flight response. However doing these sorts of things are nowadays mostly seen as ethically unsound practises. That little bit deals with technique and describes them as holding practices - essentially disconnecting the physical movement from the stimulus. It is worth reading the whole article to gain a deeper perspective on the physical expression and the mental apparatus involved in all of this. Especially the last part which talks about what he has termed "Conflict Behaviours" which encompasses behaviours which may not appear to be fear based, but which can arise from long term reqular flight responses. I think this aspect speaks to 1) of the points you raised and perhaps shows that the condition could be caused in a herd situation without human involvement. In that case, the "bully" horse that caused it might have been messed up by a previous generation, creating a cycle of disfunction. Then, add genetics to it (tendency to produce certain brain chemical through to how a mare treats her foal) and you could argue a case for hereditary causes. It starts with this paragraph: Quote: Conflict behaviour When animals experience the flight response regularly over a long time, they develop higher levels of certain stress chemicals such as cortisol. In behaviour studies, cortisol is a fairly reliable indicator of stress and over a long term has damaging effects on an animal's physiology. Long term tension can also result in conflict behaviours that include separation anxiety, aggression, and even self-mutilation . . . . How many people would recognise aggression as something that has arisen from long term regular fear based flight responses? I think we've touched on this before in a past discussion . . . Really, the whole article and indeed all of his 8 principles are worth reading - even if only to remind us of what we already know but have forgotten. Here's the links: Fear Principle 8 Training Principles Peeperpuppy coveredbridgefarm wrote: Carol wrote: Quote: Larry, I think you are trying to nail this thing down, but like an eel, it refuses to stay in one place long enough for any kind of definition.   I more/less agree with No. 1, but not so with No. 2 and 3. Very appropriate analogy. I was thinking idealistically there. That there might exist a horseman or two who really can read the horse's mind so well that he/she will always make the best use of the appropriate procedure for the benefit of the horse and will never use it unnecessarily. I guess the above paragraph is a tipoff that I also think like you, that these procedures may be used more often than necessary. I heard one clinician say that he has used the laying down procedure on over 1000 horses. I have a hard time believing that they were all necessary. Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: Yes in one of 3 ways.  The most preferable was a matter of trust.  This was done quietly, the horse had the choice to walk away or to lay down for him.  No ropes.  No fuss.  You'd find him lovingly stroking the horse & he or she could get up & do whatever.  This was very much like a horses do amongst one another. The 2nd was perhaps the worst.  A horse who was damaged by some boob who lay a horse down to conquer it & the horse was locked in this state of mind where he's crossed over yet his body doesn't know it.  This was a broken soul.  Sometimes you could recover a horse by taking him back there & helping him run off chemicals in the body so that he knows he's still alive.  It sounds weird & new age or whatever but I've seen it & know it's real. The 3rd is that rare horse who is really extreme & has become so dangerous to work.  I've seen Grandpa go in on big draft horses who helped him to rope the light horse & acomplish the lay down with the least amount of danger & struggle to all parties including the horse that was in trouble.  By the time Grandpa was called this was often the last option prior to death. It's interesting that you break it down into 3 groups. Imo, this is a significant addition to the discussion. The first is a matter of trust, the second one is a matter of recovery, and the last one is what most people talk about when these procedures are mentioned. I guess the big difference in the three is intent? Larry There were some horses that had battled their way through trust in such a way that taking it a step further was natural.  Grandpa & I had a mare named Molly.  She'd been a bit spoiled & a bit mistreated by 2 different owners.  Grandpa & I lay her down one day.  It just seemed a natural extension of what we'd been doing.  She'd come so far & trusted us far more than every before.  We sort of made a slight, soft suggestion & she had the choice to lay down or not.  She did.  There was no taking a leg away or anything.  I did the same thing with my Lippi filly.  I had her front hoof in my hand, I put a little pressure on her withers & she just followed the suggestion of the feel.  What a special moment.  But to be clear either of these mares could walk away.  No one was holding them, no force, no make, just an idea & the horses went with it.  It was beautiful & Grandpa was talking in a whisper & saying, "Sister, that's what you want.  See how soft she looks in the eye."  He stroked her face and her withers.  He told her how proud of her he was & how special she was.   With my Lippi, it's the first I'd done without Grandpa.  It was HUGE... HUGE for this girl as it'd taken me a year to get the idea that we didn't need to die.  Man she hated us. The recovery type just rips your guts out.  It's awful.  Grandpa was clear that you had to have your head in the right place & you had to be able to accept if the horse just gives up the rest of the way.  But if he/she doesn't & they can burn off the stuff inside them that needs freed by this & the ability to discover they can run & they survived... there is hope.  There was a hard & fast rule to the type of people he'd permit around for that.  The people with a hard attitude about 'stupid horses' weren't allowed.  Everyone has to be in it for the horse. And that last one is hard because it's ugly.  It's not hearts & flowers but it's a miracle just the same when you come out the other side.  Even better is if you can really bring the horse out to the good on the other end.  The intent of the person doing this is very different.  The first there is NO force... it's a suggestion... it's a slight feel the horse can follow.  The 2nd doesn't require much becasue that horse isn't really there mentally.  It's so shut down it's half dead inside.  And the last is generally a fire breathing dragon on some level.  I guess you could say the sayings for these categories are something like: - I can do that - I'm not aware I'm alive - I won't, I don't, can't make me, ain't gonna I'd worry about anyone doing 1,000 of these.  My Grandpa died in his upper 80's.  His Pa, Ma, & 8 living brothers & sisters (as well as all the adopted kids they took in & raised) trained horses & mules for everything.  I can't remember (I might have it in my notes somewhere) but I think he said maybe a couple of dozen horses in his lifetime.  He'd say often to me, "I sure do wish my Pa was here.  He'd do this better."     If Grandpa wasn't the horseman his Pa was, i'd have loved to see Great Grandpa Billy-Bob. Blue Flame Reading further between the lines under Conflict Behaviours (referred to in my previous post), it appears that long term regular opposition reflex and even conflicting aids could potentially lead to  extreme behaviour. So it opens up the human causes to include something as benign sounding as low skill levels of horsemanship without any necessity for the human to be cruel or agressive or to use punishment. Quote: Opposing responses predispose the horse to high levels of flight response. Opposing responses to aids involve reactions such as slowing from the leg aids, accelerating from the rein aids, turning left from the right rein or right from the left rein (as in falling-in or falling-out) or leg-yielding into the leg rather than away from the leg. In horse training however, the greatest amount of tension arises from the blocking effects of rein and leg at the same time. Only a small amount of horses show no clinical signs of tension under these circumstances. Peeperpuppy, I wish your Grandpa had written a book (maybe you might like to write one about him) - he sounds like a very special man. coveredbridgefarm Blue Flame wrote: Quote: Peeperpuppy, I wish your Grandpa had written a book (maybe you might like to write one about him) - he sounds like a very special man. I definitely agree. He sounds like he fits the image I had in mind for my "ideal" horseman. Quote: Reading further between the lines under Conflict Behaviours (referred to in my previous post), it appears that long term regular opposition reflex and even conflicting aids could potentially lead to  extreme behaviour. So it opens up the human causes to include something as benign sounding as low skill levels of horsemanship without any necessity for the human to be cruel or agressive or to use punishment. This is a very good point and it offers up the possibility that there is more than one way to create an "extreme" horse.  You can create an "extreme" horse by a sudden violation of their basic survival skills and you may also be able to unknowingly create one with a low level, long range oppositional reflex irritation. I think the latter might help provide an explanation for an attack(picking her up by his teeth and shaking her for a few minutes) by a friend's personally hand raised 5 yr old QH stallion that easily could have killed her about 6 years ago.   Quote: I think this aspect speaks to 1) of the points you raised and perhaps shows that the condition could be caused in a herd situation without human involvement. In that case, the "bully" horse that caused it might have been messed up by a previous generation, creating a cycle of disfunction. Then, add genetics to it (tendency to produce certain brain chemical through to how a mare treats her foal) and you could argue a case for hereditary causes And therefore there is the possibility that extreme horses are not all created by man. Quote: How many people would recognise aggression as something that has arisen from long term regular fear based flight responses? My guess is that people who insist on only relating extreme horse behavior in terms of the horseman involved would probably never recognize that.   Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: - I can do that - I'm not aware I'm alive - I won't, I don't, can't make me, ain't gonna I have done the first one, I have watched someone do the last one, and I think I may have known a horse or two who might have been candidates for the second one. Doesn't the breaking down of this procedure into distinctive methods and causations aid in arriving at a clearer understanding of these procedures for extreme horses? And doesn't it make even it clearer how futile most discussions of these procedures have been? Or is it just me who thinks that? Alex wrote: Quote: I doubt you are going to find a definition that applies to all situations. Definitely worthwhile to explore the question, however, because a lot of fruitful observation and thought is the result! It has got many of us thinking about the whole question of laying a horse down (love that grandpa there!), if it is ever something that should be used, etc.  Also points to the fact that there is likely no horseman out there who can handle all the variations of extremity a horse might display!  Maybe Pat just ran into a horse that pushed all his buttons and/or exceeded his own limitations as a horseman I'm not yet convinced that his limitations were exceeded. He may have been just fine with his procedure(PR ramifications are another issue). I am wondering how the need to deal with this horse's bridling issue compares with a horse that "needs'" to be laid down. Are these two procedures equally severe and equally intense to the horse? I tend to think not. The laying down procedure can simulate the last thing that happens just before death. I'm thinking that the procedure Pat Parelli used with Catwalk probably did not create a death image for the horse. I could be wrong. I just have to wonder, if people are upset at what Pat did to Catwalk, what in the world would they have thought if they had watched another clinician I know take about 3 hours to lay down a very difficult horse? Just as there appears to be a difference in the reasons for using these procedures on a horse, and a difference in the causations of the condition, so too might there be a difference in intensity among the treatments themselves. I'm thinking there are many more variables at work here than just horse and human.   Quote: I don't know. Would someone like Tom or Bill Dorrance be able to help every single horse?  Ray Hunt?  As revered as these folks are, I doubt it. I doubt it too. I'm basing that on an opportunity I had to listen to Ray Hunt talk about the 5 horses that he had accidentally killed. He painfully recalled the death of each one. He seemed to be admitting that he had applied too much pressure to each one. I'm not aware that any of them involved the laying down procedure or anything similar to that but the deaths did occur during training. Of course, 5 deaths out of the many thousands of horses he worked with is a very small percentage and it does speak to his level of expertise that there weren't more. The fact that he publicly acknowledged it speaks to his honesty as well. Larry Clarissa Blue Flame wrote Quote: I think this aspect speaks to 1) of the points you raised and perhaps shows that the condition could be caused in a herd situation without human involvement. In that case, the "bully" horse that caused it might have been messed up by a previous generation, creating a cycle of disfunction. Then, add genetics to it (tendency to produce certain brain chemical through to how a mare treats her foal) and you could argue a case for hereditary causes. Thinking about ‘hereditary aggression ‘. As a jillaroo I worked on many cattle stations. A thing common to most properties was that they bred their own stockhorses. The stallion was usually a failed TB & the broodmares were the older, broken down or failed stockhorses. So each batch of new breakers were a combo of genetics which had the capacity to succeed or fail depending on whose string they ended up in. As the years went by the stallions were changed but rarely were the mares changed except to add the new ones removed from the working strings each season. Also there was a habit of breaking in a young filly then bushing her to the broodmare paddock to for 2yrs ‘mature’! No thought about whether she might produce foals  suitable for working requirements. Some stations were renowned for having good horses while others were notorious for having a majority of buckjumpers or vicious horses. Some properties had an abundance of head shy or ear shy horses or horses that always stumbled or were generally hard to catch. Interesting,….. that! coveredbridgefarm We should not be surprised that a discussion of this topic appears fruitless and confusing at times. Almost any discussion involving the mind is an elusive experience. We could discuss something as commonly familiar as human depression and be equally frustrated in pinning it down with perfect clarity. Carol's "slippery eel" analogy is appropriate here. As Alex said: Quote: An interesting thread.  Reminds me of many heated discussions about ethics I used to have in graduate school.  There were those who sought to have things clearly defined, which in itself was a good process to keep clarifying the issues involved. But the ultimate goal of having ethics systematized is impossible, because life is messy and situations are unique and individual. But that doesn't means that our understanding of the topic has not been enhanced.  We are a soundbite society. We expect immediate clarification when, in reality, we should only expect to inch every so slowly to an improved understanding. We have learned things. Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: I can do that - I'm not aware I'm alive - I won't, I don't, can't make me, ain't gonna The laying down procedure has multiple purposes. Only when the intent of the horseman matches the need of the horse does this  procedure have a chance to be successful. Even then, it isn't necessarily a "soundbite" moment leading to an immediate cure. Follow-up treatment is crucial. It's a process with many opportunities for things to go wrong. Clarissa wrote: Quote: Thinking about ‘hereditary aggression The term "hereditary aggression" would indicate that these problems are not always simply caused by bad training. They may be caused by bad breeeding as well. Man is responsible for a lot of that, maybe not all of it Blue Flame wrote: Quote: Reading further between the lines under Conflict Behaviours (referred to in my previous post), it appears that long term regular opposition reflex and even conflicting aids could potentially lead to  extreme behaviour. So it opens up the human causes to include something as benign sounding as low skill levels of horsemanship without any necessity for the human to be cruel or agressive or to use punishment. These problems can develop incrementally, over time. The event in the UK should be seen as more than just an opportunity to bash or support Pat Parelli, especially since there doesn't seem to exist a clear cut account of what went on. I see it as a learning opportunity. With that in mind, what if we make some assumptions? What if we hypothesize that Catwalk's condition fit the following description: From Blue Flame's links to Andrew McLean's work: That's pretty well how all ‘bad' behaviour is learned. He rears - the pressure on the rein and leg disappears; he bucks - the whole problem (the rider) disappears; he shies - the rider loses balance and control. The truth is whatever behaviour immediately precedes the removal of pressure, the horse learns that it caused it. When would the "treatment" that Pat Parelli used be appropriate? When would the laying down procedure be appropriate? Alternatives? Don't forget to weigh the risk factors(have you ever seen a horse strike out with its front legs with the same lack of warning, to you, that a spooked horse might provide prior to a spook). Forget PR ramifications for the moment.   Larry Peeperpuppy Larry, Here’s where I might have started with Catwalk... back at the beginning.  When a horse has big problems that's the starting point because there's holes in the foundation or someone's made trouble in the horse so... you go back to square 1.  Trouble is, it doesn't fit in a short format like was intended for that venue... & there's where the problem began.  Maybe the best way to cure the problem isn't to go to the big guns but instead you start over.  They've been doing things bad enough to force a bridle on him just making his attitude worse. That's just my opinion.  A horse with extreme or serious problems seldom gets cured by 1 big monster training session. And starting too quick on the 'big gun' worst senario training tactics is a little like the gun going off before you set the sights on the target... you may not get the outcome you hope for.  And man ain't that a shame if it means losing the horse, breaking the horse's spirit or making him worse. coveredbridgefarm Peeperpuppy wrote: Larry, Here’s where I might have started with Catwalk... back at the beginning.  When a horse has big problems that's the starting point because there's holes in the foundation or someone's made trouble in the horse so... you go back to square 1.  Trouble is, it doesn't fit in a short format like was intended for that venue... & there's where the problem began.  Maybe the best way to cure the problem isn't to go to the big guns but instead you start over.  They've been doing things bad enough to force a bridle on him just making his attitude worse. Are you questioning whether Catwalk was necessarily a candidate for extreme measures? If you can go back to the beginning, is the horse really extreme? Wouldn't it usually be a judgement call as to whether to call in the big guns(extreme procedures) right away or not. I'm wondering about the borderline cases. It seems to me that you would come across borderline cases sometimes and then other circumstances might influence your course of action. Quote: That's just my opinion.  A horse with extreme or serious problems seldom gets cured by 1 big monster training session. And starting too quick on the 'big gun' worst senario training tactics is a little like the gun going off before you set the sights on the target... you may not get the outcome you hope for.  And man ain't that a shame if it means losing the horse, breaking the horse's spirit or making him worse. Regarding the horses that your grandfather laid down(I think you said they were a relatively small number of horses), did he lay them down more than once? On multiple days? Some people's perceptions of these procedures are that they are kind of a miracle cure, not only in what they accomplish but in how quickly they accomplish it. That's not always true, is it? Some things that make this topic difficult: 1) What exactly is an extreme horse? 2) What are extreme procedures and how do they work, exactly? 3) How can you tell when a horseman understands #1 and knows how and when to use #2?   Larry alexwein coveredbridgefarm wrote: As Alex said: Quote: An interesting thread.  Reminds me of many heated discussions about ethics I used to have in graduate school.  There were those who sought to have things clearly defined, which in itself was a good process to keep clarifying the issues involved. But the ultimate goal of having ethics systematized is impossible, because life is messy and situations are unique and individual. But that doesn't means that our understanding of the topic has not been enhanced.  We are a soundbite society. We expect immediate clarification when, in reality, we should only expect to inch every so slowly to an improved understanding. We have learned things. Yes, which is precisely what I said in the rest of my post. You will definitely learn things, but you will not remove the fundamental 'messiness' of having to deal with particular situations and the demands they bring. However, such discussions help you get better and more clear in approaching these situations. Peeperpuppy coveredbridgefarm wrote: Peeperpuppy wrote: Larry, Here’s where I might have started with Catwalk... back at the beginning.  When a horse has big problems that's the starting point because there's holes in the foundation or someone's made trouble in the horse so... you go back to square 1.  Trouble is, it doesn't fit in a short format like was intended for that venue... & there's where the problem began.  Maybe the best way to cure the problem isn't to go to the big guns but instead you start over.  They've been doing things bad enough to force a bridle on him just making his attitude worse. Are you questioning whether Catwalk was necessarily a candidate for extreme measures? If you can go back to the beginning, is the horse really extreme? Wouldn't it usually be a judgement call as to whether to call in the big guns(extreme procedures) right away or not. I'm wondering about the borderline cases. It seems to me that you would come across borderline cases sometimes and then other circumstances might influence your course of action. Quote: That's just my opinion.  A horse with extreme or serious problems seldom gets cured by 1 big monster training session. And starting too quick on the 'big gun' worst senario training tactics is a little like the gun going off before you set the sights on the target... you may not get the outcome you hope for.  And man ain't that a shame if it means losing the horse, breaking the horse's spirit or making him worse. Regarding the horses that your grandfather laid down(I think you said they were a relatively small number of horses), did he lay them down more than once? On multiple days? Some people's perceptions of these procedures are that they are kind of a miracle cure, not only in what they accomplish but in how quickly they accomplish it. That's not always true, is it? Some things that make this topic difficult: 1) What exactly is an extreme horse? 2) What are extreme procedures and how do they work, exactly? 3) How can you tell when a horseman understands #1 and knows how and when to use #2?   Larry Well, what I meant about 1 big monster session wasn't really about having to lay the horse down more than once.  What I meant was the person who affected that change in the horse needs to finish what he started. 1) What exactly is an extreme horse?         What we considered extreme was a horse that had become so dangerous that they endangered people & themselves whenever anyone wanted/needed to handle them.  You go in you come out bloody or on  a stretcher or ready for a hearse.  Some had become so violent that even the sight of a person could have them driving toward you ready to bite, strike or whirl last minute to kick.   THAT's not what I saw from Catwalk (at least what I could see from the grainy video footage).  I might change my mind if I could see the whole thing from start thru the first day.  But if it comes to dead or seriously injured human or horse, going to the 'big guns' may be necessary.  I'm venturing a guess that if they were doing nasty things to get the bridle on so they could ride him someone needs to look at their priorities.  And going to the extreme too quickly may not have the long lasting effects some may hope 2) What are the extreme procedures & how do they work? Hmmm, that's a long list.  Laying down a horse, taking a foot away, tying a horse up in such a way that he's mortally trapped is another, & the list goes on & on & ON...  How they work has a great deal to do with the intent of the person & how they go about it.  We never did that tying-to-death business.  I've seen it done.  I've even seen it work but mostly what I saw were horses that gave up & were broken inside, broken in spirit.   Some of these things take a horse to a place that no one should ever have to go.  It's force & it's ugly.  But as I've said before, you can't help the horse make a change if you're in the hosptial or dead.  And the horse deserves a change to make that change rather than be put down.  Not all of ours were success stories but most of them were provided the owners made changes too.   BUT if you can lead the horse, you can groom the horse, you can be with the horse & not be in fear of mortal harm... laying down, taking a leg away, etc.. isn't really the place to start in my experience.  Some times it's an experimentation process.  sometimes it's a lot about thinking outside the box.  Grandpa had a kicking match with one horse that everyone thought extreme.  He'd threaten us from afar & Grandpa would kick dirt at him.  That horse would fly around the round pen & learned soon enough that Grandpa wouldn't throw dirt if he quit making threats.  Sometimes it's the dumbest thing.  Popping a soda bottle worked for another horse.  A soda can with some pennies in it tied to a string worked for another. I've seen Grandpa do some things that just had people rolling & then they'd say, " I CAN'T believe that worked."   3) How can you tell when a horseman understands #1 and knows how and when to use #2? I reckeon the short answer is, a horseman understands #1 when he doesn't try to put him on a time table.  And knowing when & how to use #2 is when there's no other way.  When it comes down to one or both horse/horseman ends up injured or dead... you have to find a way to bring the horse to another type of starting point & then you have to regain trust.  A good horseman doesn't do the extreme lesson & then go home.  That first week after the big lesson is pretty important.   Another point is I can recall one of the worst Grandpa worked with that he lay down the first time to keep us all alive.  But that same horse, 5 days later was lay down again but the 2nd time there was a halter & I think a twelve or so foot line.  He offered a suggestion & the horse lay down.  Grandpa took the rope off him & for the next 15-20 minutes Grandpa had me just sit there beside him, lovingly stroking his neck, his shoulder, his back.  For at least 5 minutes I just hung an arm over his neck and we just sat there.  It was so quiet, so soft, so gentle that no one could believe it was even the same horse.  This wasn't a planned event.  Things just clicked for it to happen.  That's when Grandpa said his time with the horse was done & it was time to work with the horse's handlers to retrain them to forget about the old horse & accept the new one without causing misbehavior because they expected the old horse to resurface. Larry, I wish Grandpa were here as he'd talk your leg off & explain it a lot better than I am.     But the reason he seldom had to go to the extreme 'big guns' was mostly because he would take a chance on all the lesser things he could do first. coveredbridgefarm Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: Larry, I wish Grandpa were here as he'd talk your leg off & explain it a lot better than I am.      But the reason he seldom had to go to the extreme 'big guns' was mostly because he would take a chance on all the lesser things he could do first. That would be great to be able to talk to your grandfather. But I appreciate your input very much. I'm trying to get a feel for what this is when it's done right. Your grandfather has become the prototype for that as far as I am concerned. These big named clinicians have their names to protect so they are understandly cautious and/or anxious about their reputations. Your grandfather sounds like he was truly all about the horse. How fortunate you were to have grown up around that knowledge. I'm not a horseman, I'm just a farmer, but thinking back over the years about the horses and mules I have been around who might qualify as extreme, I recall a team of 650 pound Mexican mules that were probably the most predictably vicious equines I have known. They may have been extreme but they were calculatingly extreme. You could feel them looking for an opportunity to kick, strike, bite, or lunge at you. They were like holding a grenade in your hands after you had pulled the pin. You were ok as long as you didn't release the lever and unleash their explosiveness. Their behavior always seemed to be premeditated. And then I have briefly known a few stallions who would seemingly explode spontaneously, as though it was out of their control. Two of them attacked and nearly killed their owners. You could probably make a decent case that they were extreme. We own a horse whose behavior toward men was pretty extreme for awhile after we got him back from an abusive trainer. He is fine now without the use of any extreme measures. And I have a mare whose "spook index" was off the charts. I did use some measures that some people might consider to be somewhat extreme with her to keep her from injuring herself or someone else. I get the sense that these are all judgement calls that people make when they decide what needs to be done with some horses. Some people's judgement is better than others. Larry Peeperpuppy coveredbridgefarm wrote: Peeperpuppy wrote: Quote: Larry, I wish Grandpa were here as he'd talk your leg off & explain it a lot better than I am.      But the reason he seldom had to go to the extreme 'big guns' was mostly because he would take a chance on all the lesser things he could do first. That would be great to be able to talk to your grandfather. But I appreciate your input very much. I'm trying to get a feel for what this is when it's done right. Your grandfather has become the prototype for that as far as I am concerned. These big named clinicians have their names to protect so they are understandly cautious and/or anxious about their reputations. Your grandfather sounds like he was truly all about the horse. How fortunate you were to have grown up around that knowledge. I'm not a horseman, I'm just a farmer, but thinking back over the years about the horses and mules I have been around who might qualify as extreme, I recall a team of 650 pound Mexican mules that were probably the most predictably vicious equines I have known. They may have been extreme but they were calculatingly extreme. You could feel them looking for an opportunity to kick, strike, bite, or lunge at you. They were like holding a grenade in your hands after you had pulled the pin. You were ok as long as you didn't release the lever and unleash their explosiveness. Their behavior always seemed to be premeditated. And then I have briefly known a few stallions who would seemingly explode spontaneously, as though it was out of their control. Two of them attacked and nearly killed their owners. You could probably make a decent case that they were extreme. We own a horse whose behavior toward men was pretty extreme for awhile after we got him back from an abusive trainer. He is fine now without the use of any extreme measures. And I have a mare whose "spook index" was off the charts. I did use some measures that some people might consider to be somewhat extreme with her to keep her from injuring herself or someone else. I get the sense that these are all judgement calls that people make when they decide what needs to be done with some horses. Some people's judgement is better than others. Larry I used to really get tickled at him because when someone would challenge him.  "Who's that guy to say what we should or shouldn't do with a horse?"   He'd say something like, "Who I am to you ain't important.  It's who I am to the horse."  And to Grandpa it was the horse/mule's opinion that counted.  He wasn't above shedding a tear when one of those big critters came through something hard for them (no matter if it was in sweat or something quiet).   And really for him he'd always tell me that sometimes you ask a horse to help you save his life & he says no!  That was always a shame to him but then again sometimes he couldn't blame the horse for wanting out all things considered.  He could neither read nor write so pedigrees & what they said didn't mean diddly to him.  But he'd look at a horse & you could see excitement build in him in a way I've never seen it in another soul.  And I've seen him get in front of runaway teams of big draft horses & he could make them see him, even affect them in a way that they'd let him catch their harness & he'd run with them (hanging onto the harness & eventually stopping them. Mules... ah... a mean set of mules is a critter of a different feather.  Grandpa called 'em 'mad mules'.  Grandpa told me if you ever cross paths with a mule who's learned to be mean (& some are born more dominant & ornerier than others) he'd be the first to tell you:  Either you convince them that you're the giver/taker of life & that you're smarter than they are or you don't touch them.  Period.  End of discussion.  Don't start it unless you can finish it.  He was NOT talking about abuse.  He was very much talking about psychological games & if they were in his extreme category he was talking about physical.  But taking a leg away or laying a mule down - if done wrong - doesn't lend to nice-ness.  Grandpa said those buggers will live to plot your death if you don't know what you're doing.  When I was old enough & savvy enough he spoke of a mule much like what I think you're describing in the Mexican mules you dealt with.  Hair trigger & once he unleashed the mean... it was a bugger to contain or put the leash back on.  Sometimes if you met the person(s) who raised or started those mules, you'd fully understand how they got that way.  For those type water, food, graze & yes, freedom was dependant on their cooperation & their intelligence to take the olive branch from Grandpa when it was offered.  Once a mule sees you're not some ignorant lolli & you gain his respect he may still give you middle-finger but he'll get on with it without trying to kill you & he'll do it while he's doing his job.  An Amish friend of ours says the same thing.  There are mules he'll flat refuse to break for folks because he knows it's a 1-way-ticket (not for him) but for the owners. I know folks who've successfully done PNH with mules but I'd never advise anyone who isn't a master handle rank mules.  It's a good way to be daisy-food.        It's About The Horse Forum Index -> Beyond Parelli - Continuing Education Page 1 of 1

Free Advertising Join the free co-op advertising network and increase your traffic.

|

Online Advertising Join the free co-op advertising network and increase your traffic.

|

Free Advertising Join the free co-op advertising network and increase your traffic.