I was first exposed to the term Natural Horsemanship in 2007 at Windhorse Ranch where the community of horsemen-and-women practiced Parelli Natural Horsemanship among other methods.

At this ranch my horsemanship skills grew exponentially through watching fellow boarders ‘play’ with their horses at liberty, or ride their horses bridleless and bareback. It was not only a shock to transition from a traditional barn where I rode my horse in a bit with a dressage saddle and was disciplined to always “show my horse who was boss” but a revelation at this barn where I was surrounded by folk who didn’t work their horses but play with them as equals. It was as if what I always felt was possible with horses was real and within my grasp. Each day fellow boarders at this barn demonstrated what it looked like to have a happy relaxed horse, and likewise what it looked like to be relaxed themselves in their interactions. This place was indeed a haven for horse-people who sought to have more positive interactions with horses. Displayed in the tack room were bumper stickers on the wall that read “I used to be normal, but now I’m natural”, and to be found next to the arena were communal carrot sticks which anyone could borrow to work with their horse if they didn’t have their own.

As someone who “used to be normal” or practiced traditional horsemanship (because I simply didn’t know any alternatives), I fell deeply and lovingly into the belief system of working with horses “in a natural way”. No less enamored with the application, there was however, something that continued to gnaw at me about the theory of NH. While I was able to accomplish many feats such as ride my horse bareback and bridle less, play at liberty and trust my horse would stick by my side thanks to my understanding of NH, I still wondered, was NH simply a cunning marketing strategy or a revolution?

“Natural” or “Normal”?

According to the Oxford dictionary, the term natural (adj.) is defined first and foremost as existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Tom Moates, an equestrian journalist and author has written extensively on the subject of Horsemanship, presents one of my favorite ideas in tackling the question of how NH stands apart from the rest of the equestrian community as he writes (Eclectic Horseman, 2009):

Ultimately, what natural horsemanship is if anything, is a shift in the language of horsemanship. How people change the language of horsemanship at large and share ideas as an attempt to impart ways of improving the horse/human relationship is where some consistency may be found under this heading. But, the frequent application of the term “natural horsemanship” to all kinds of people and methods muddies the waters.

Pat Parelli was reportedly responsible for coining the term Natural Horsemanship, and in his book Natural Horse-Man-Ship, writes, “there are two types of horsemanship: natural and normal” (Parelli, Kadash and Parelli, 1993: 9). Parelli is one among a group of countless other popular clinicians and professionals that helped spread NH like wildfire across Europe and North America over the last three decades (Miller and Lamb, 2005). Many popular NH clinicians site their knowledge being passed down to them from the legendary cowboy Tom Dorrance whose non-coercive methods of working with horses were far ahead of his time (Miller and Lamb, 2005). While research points to measurable success and efficacy of NH methods, (Fureix et al., 2009; Fowler, Kennedy and Marlin, 2012; Henshall and McGreevy, 2014), and prominent clinicians and trainers who promote themselves as NH advocates contribute great diversity to the field, there is a general misunderstanding as to what NH truly is… or even if it is anything at all.

The Dawn of Horsemanship

Around 350-400 BC, Xenophon, a student of Socrates, published his work “Art of Horsemanship” and over the following centuries, horsemanship has been defined by different riding traditions as the essence which separates the average horse enthusiast from the master trainers (Birke, 2007; Sitton, 2006). Lynda Birke (2007: 19) details in her study of NH culture:

However good the training, it does not guarantee that ‘something extra,’ an indefinable quality described as horsemanship that provides understanding of horses’ behavior and what they might do next. That understanding matters, not only for horse wellbeing but also for human safety around such large and potentially dangerous animals.

In horsemanship culture, the masters are ascribed with near mystical powers, capable of taming a wild horse with just one look and a nod, or manage to convince a horse who previously would buck everyone from their back to let them ride them without hesitation. The term “Horse Whisperer”, popularized by the 1998 Hollywood film may have something to do with the elusive connotations that don’t quite do justice to the real thing. As Moates (2009) surmises, “It seems that the general meaning has shifted now, and one who calls himself a horse whisperer is thought to be an obvious fraud.”

“Gentlers talk, not about people with horse problems, but about horses with people problems. About the horse as teacher, about the slow way with horses as the quickest way.” - Monty Roberts

What exactly is so natural about NH? The emphasis on learning the horse’s inherent behavior and building a relationship founded on trust and compassion over force and intimidation are universal themes in the realm of NH (Parelli, Kadash and Parelli, 1993; Roberts, 1997; Brandt, 2004; Birke, 2007). However, for all of the “naturalness” of the discipline, there is to a much lesser extent discussion of the environmental conditions, food, and social interactions that horses need to thrive, not simply survive. Moates (2009) bluntly writes that NH is a myth, as it is too broad and conveys conflicting definitions—as he writes there may be nothing “natural” about horsemanship when it involves man-made tack and unnatural behaviors conditioned for the sake of performances—however he embraces the ideals of pursuing a better way of working with horses. Rather than lump countless diverse, and at times conflicting, methodologies and clinicians under the NH heading, he argues that “specifics are truly telling, and it’s perhaps best to leave the enormously über-headings out of the arena” (Moates, 2009). 

Birke (2007: 225) observed that within NH culture, “Nearly all the people identifying as trainers emphasized that they see their job as working with humans, on the grounds that whatever problems the horse/human relationship might have almost certainly originated in equine responses to human behavior.” Similarly, renowned horseman Monty Roberts (1997) expressed, “gentlers talk, not about people with horse problems, but about horses with people problems. About the horse as teacher, about the slow way with horses as the quickest way.” NH practitioners have been commonly described (Birke, 2007: 217) as “evangelical” about their methods, as they speak fervently about the radical shift in approach and philosophy from conventional training to NH. What separates the two methodologies, according to advocates of NH, can be likened to the difference between good and evil, with NH representing trust, kindness, patience, and compassion, and traditional horsemanship emulating fear, intimidation, and force (Parelli, Kadash and Parelli, 1993; Birke, 2007). Interestingly, regardless of where NH practitioners pinpoint themselves on the NH spectrum from radical to moderate, Birke (2007: 222) observed that they resoundingly agreed that conventional horsemanship practitioners were “failing their horses.”

Freedom and Control

A central theme in NH is the idea of allowing the horse freedom, which may seem contradictory to the very practice of horse training in the first place. How freedom has been explored and pursued by individual practitioners, and analyzed by scholars, however, illuminates that these variables which may seem of little consequence to the training process, are actually strikingly complex. Birke (2008) points to the entrenched inequality that is perpetuated even in the fringe subset of NH that makes the idea of allowing freedom seem laughable, as she writes, “humans seek to express their emotions more fully, the horse is effectively denied such expression.” However, while there may be glaring holes in the NH philosophy which idealizes freedom while enacting control, there are practitioners pushing the boundaries still in order to further the “revolution in horsemanship” (Miller and Lamb, 2005).

In 2016, trainer Elsa Sinclair began a year-long training experiment when she brought home a wild mustang with the premise of “letting the horse decide” how they would interact (Taming Wild, 2016). Her training approach was simple: she would be the only person interacting with the wild horse and she would use no tools—such as a bridle, saddle, halter, spurs, or ropes— but rather, she would use only body language to communicate with and train the horse. The goal of the experiment was to find a way of training that was in Sinclair’s words, “more collaborative, and less about force” (Taming Wild, 2016). Sinclair wanted to know whether she could cultivate a partnership with a wild horse that was founded on trust and consent over bribery and force, and eventually, if the horse would one day voluntarily allow her to ride (Taming Wild, 2016). In the end, Sinclair’s experiment answered her question with a resounding yes—her horse Myrnah allowed her to ride without any tools and came to be a beloved and trusted partner—and she came to call her brand of horsemanship “Freedom Based Training” (henceforth FT) (Taming Wild, 2016). Does Sincair’s technique embody the epitome of NH, as what could be more natural than a horse-human partnership cultivated without any man-made tack, and unrestricted by any agenda or expectation?

In a 2012 study, researchers Fowler, Kennedy and Marlin compared the success of the Monty Roberts Technique (MRT) with the Conventional UK Technique (CT) in starting new horses under saddle. There were fourteen horse participants in the study that ranged from 3 to 5 years old, all of whom were untrained previously, and were assigned randomly to work with the MRT or CT training groups. The trainers were allowed thirty minutes to work with each horse for 20 days, following which the horses would undertake a ridden obstacle and flatwork test and a ridden freestyle test that was scored by a panel of judges who unaware of the study. The MRT trained horses consistently scored significantly higher and had lower maximum heart rates, although they had similar mean heart rates to CT trained horses.

The goal for many NH practitioners is to have a strong partnership with their horse wherein during their interactions, the horse is able to perform with in harmony, as one unit (Birke, 2007; 2008). However, when the horse is off physically or mentally, training, no matter how “natural” or positive, cannot realistically improve performance when there is pain or psychosis burdening the horse. Waran (2005) points out, “it may not always be possible to determine and reward good approaches to training using the current systems for judging equestrianism”, and equally, it is not always possible to remedy unwanted behaviors using NH as a guide alone, when welfare is lacking in other areas.

Embracing Nature

Natural may always remain a word with as many definitions as there are individuals to perceive it. My understanding of nature doesn’t agree with the concept that all the world is natural outside of modern human influence. Nature is the balance of all life and all of the elements that interplay in its creation and destruction. Nature conceived us and nature decays us, despite our best efforts at cheating it. Nature supplies its resources freely and we, sadly, as a species tend to take greedily and then put a price tag on them. Nature must remain in balance for our existence, so we ought to seek continually to better understand it. We ignore nature, within us and outside of us, at our own peril. It is not a linear graph nor box which we can classify all individuals under, but a spiralic complex mess of interconnected pulses which beat to their own rhythm.

So, as far as we attempt to label ourselves in our approach to horsemanship, and to life, I hope that as we unpack terminology, we take a step back and ask ourselves what feels natural or innate about the things we practice, and what flows easily like our breath as we engage with those around us. Ultimately, I believe we may find the true definition we are searching for as we learn to express and better understand ourselves, as we are our own unique embodiment of that glorious, elusive and confusing phenomenon that is nature.

Enjoy this post?

Show your support of this content by sharing, or send me a tip for good karma! Tips are much appreciated and accepted through PayPal or Venmo.

Resources

Birke, L., 2007. Learning to speak horse: The culture of Natural Horsemanship. Society & Animals, 15(3), pp.217-239. 

Fowler, V., Kennedy, M. and Marlin, D., 2012. A comparison of the Monty Roberts technique with a conventional UK technique for initial training of riding horses. Anthrozoös, 25(3), pp.301-321. 

Miller, R.M. and Lamb, R., 2005. The revolution in horsemanship and what it means to mankind. The Lyons Press. 

Moates, Tom. (2009). The Myth of Natural Horsemanship. [online] (March 21, 2009) Available at: <https://eclectic-horseman.com/the-myth-of-natural-horsemanship/> [Accessed January 20, 2020]. 

Parelli, P., Kadash, K. and Parelli, K., 1993. Natural horse-man-ship. Colorado Springs, CO: Western Horseman. 

Roberts, M., 1997. The man who listens to horses. Random House. 

Waran, N., 2005. Equestrianism and horse welfare: The need for an ‘equine-centred’approach to training. Friday 26th and Saturday 27th August, 2005 Australian Equine Behaviour Centre, Melbourne, Australia., p.67.