|
|
Post by horseguy on Feb 15, 2016 14:02:22 GMT
This time of year horses come into training age. More often than not in the spring I'd have a young one to start. I like backing a yearling or 2 year old in a stall. By the time I begin this work, I have handled them a lot, trimming their feet, grooming them, teaching them to stand and have manners. With all the preparation work done, in the spring I'd ask someone to help me start a horse. The two of us and the horse would go into a good sized box stall with a plastic manure bucket to stand on, and with the helper holding the lead, I'd lay across the horse's back from standing on the bucket. When the horse got used to my weight, I'd ask the helper to lead the horse in a circle around the stall so he could feel my weight shifting in each stride.
Sometimes they'd act up, jump around a couple times, maybe rear a little or buck at the unfamiliar weight, but with many repetitions they would get use to it and learn to enjoy the attention of training. I think laying across a young horse's back is the safest way to start a horse. If he gets jumpy it is easy to slide off and start over. Sometimes after only two or three sessions of stall backing, a horse will be accepting enough that you can swing a leg over. When I felt it was safe I'd do that and hug the neck, now laying along his spine, not across it. In this astride position laying my chest on the crest of the neck and hugging it, I'd ask my helper to lead us again around the stall. I'd let my legs dangle so the horse would feel them touch his sides. This might cause some jumpiness, but if you keep a good hug on the neck you just slide off to one side and land on your feet. After a sufficient number of times circling the stall in this position, maybe a few days worth, I could then usually feel the horse's acceptance of me, the astride rider, complete with leg stimulation but not gripping him with the legs. At this point it is safe to sit up and let the horse feel your seat across his spine.
That first sit up straight moment on a never been ridden horse is a favorite experience of mine. It is then you can feel their sensitivity to the seat bones. Some are tickled by it and they don't know what to do but act ticklish. Some are dull and don't seem to feel anything special. That's a disappointing feeling after feeding and working with a baby for a year. I prefer the ones that are a little tickled and stimulated. I will sit very straight on them and exhale to lower my seat bones as much as possible. I have had some buck just from that kind of lowering of the seat bones. I like that level of sensitivity if the horse doesn't get too self indulgent and carried away about it.
Spring is coming. I don't have a young one to back this year. I don't have that first sit up straight on his back moment to look forward to. I spoke with a breeder last week who said he needed help starting his crop of yearlings. I'm 69 now and wondering if I will give it a go one more time this spring. Maybe, we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 15, 2016 14:19:10 GMT
I must be claustrophobic. I wouldn't want to start one in a stall. All roads lead to Rome, eh?
If my knee wasn't still an issue, I would have been signing up for a trainer's challenge with one of the rescues. They give you a rescue horse for 90 days and then there's a competition (basically bragging rights) and the horses now have some skills (hopefully) and they go on to get adopted. Maybe next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Feb 15, 2016 14:26:00 GMT
I think you would have enjoyed starting horses with Ray Hunt.
I don't think that when you sit up for the first time the horse is reacting to your seat bones as much as he is fearful of the sight of you over him, and trying to find you with both eyes. Though of course, the weight of you adds to the feel he experiences.
This is why working a young horse from horse back, and also working over him from a fence is so helpful. He can visually get used to a human above him, and you can lean over him, and he can get used to switching eyes, and seeing you on both sides of him.
A horse has to be able to switch eyes, to keep you in his vision. Otherwise, when he turns his head, you suddenly pop up over there and scare him. That is mostly the point of very basic ground work we do.
I have never liked anyone holding a horse for me to get on, unless it was someone on horseback, and a really good hand on a good horse. The colt finds some comfort in the other horse as well.
A person holding a horse on the ground for me is useless, and only gets in the way. I want the horses entire attention on me. If a colt has to move around a little, that's fine. All I need is something on his head he is comfortable and familiar enough with, that I can control, and he will figure out how to stop his own feet. Being able to take his head around on both sides is important, and again, part of any ground work needs to address that.
When I was younger, I never used a stall. The last few horses I started were fairly touchy. I didn't have good help, and the only pen was large. So I used a stall to get on and off of them in. But sooner or later, you have to let them move with you and see how that feels.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Feb 15, 2016 15:00:46 GMT
There are so many ways to start a horse. For me the stall backing is a way I learned and over time I developed a kind of "data base" in my head of what was typical. That in itself is very useful. It helps me see if a horses is slow to learn or quick and other comparisons. I like the person leading the horse because it is familiar to the horse to be lead by the time we back them. Some of the young horses will have been ponied off a calm horse before we backed them, but over the years I did less and less ponying compared to when I was starting out. I think that was just a time thing, maybe cutting a corner. Still, with the ones that were very nervous, I would use ponying them before backing.
The horse looking back at a rider during the first time with a rider sitting up on his back is a good point. I think in the stall the wall limits their ability to look back and up on the outside. I'd say in my experience the looking up and back at the rider was a big deal with maybe 1 out of 5 or 6 horses. I say this because in that many I'd see that they were really distracted by their urge to look even when they had a person on the ground leading them to distract them. Again, a consistent way to start them offers years of comparisons from which to measure a prospect.
I think no matter how you start young ones, it is a time of intense insight into their future training process. I have had some that acted like they had been ridden plenty before we backed them, even when I knew that had not. That type seems to want to get on with training and be a "grown-up" from the first day. Those horses were always easy to train from the basics all the way through the advance stuff. But I still liked the sensitive ticklish ones the best because they danced in very fun ways. Those were the ones when later we would teach them roll backs or lateral work, they danced their way through the process. I always found that interesting, easy and enjoyable. The ones that treated you like a sack of potatoes in the early backing days seemed to be perpetually dull to train, and not much fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 15, 2016 15:16:52 GMT
It's always nice to be around the youngin's that are "born with a bridle on". They just seem to want to be a broke horse and do the right thing. Sensitive without being silly and calm without being dull. My favorite.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Feb 15, 2016 15:36:01 GMT
One thing about using the stall gave me an idea about using a square pen. So on this really touchy broncy colt I started last year, I went from the stall, to a square pen about 40 x 40. I really thought this colt might hurt me too. and he did things that made my heart shrink a little. Enough to make a fellow pucker. A horse in a round pen can get to blasting around and really get scared. In a square pen,you can let them use a corner and stop. It shuts them down, just about he time they might feel like leaving. Gives you some time to let them collect themselves. Large enough to trot across, or sometimes, even lope a couple strides. This worked real well for this horse, while he got used to things. Pretty soon, I was able to let him lope in the big round pen.
Of course, as it always happens, as he got more confident, he bucked me off hard about three weeks later! It was a long while before I trusted him outside.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Feb 15, 2016 21:07:30 GMT
I remember Beau's early training. Back then, I would have never thought he would be such a laid back kind of guy. He had so much spunk and energy back then. He's come a long way.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Feb 16, 2016 13:48:51 GMT
I remember Beau's early training. Back then, I would have never thought he would be such a laid back kind of guy. He had so much spunk and energy back then. He's come a long way. Yes, Beau was an energetic baby with no direction for his exuberance but to play. He was a scatter brained dancer and a class clown, but he found a job he liked. After we get a horse to the point that he tolerates a rider on his back telling him what to do, or not to do, we are in the next phase of "starting" him. This phase is teaching the horse how to work and what that means. It means listening and doing. It means assembling sequences of tasks into something more complicated. It's a lot to learn and it is where we can sour or burn out a young horse's mind. When I was young starting out, I worked for a western trainer who made a certain specific kind of show horse within the context of a breed. I'd grown up in this generalist military seat rider idea with a go anywhere, do anything frame of mind. Then, there I was on a big horse farm doing something very narrow. The place felt to me like a huge kind of metal stamping machine that turned out the same part every day, all day long.  This trainer won championships every year at some national show out west. The horses from this farm were bred to be a certain way and be trained into a predictable same as last year horse. The head trainer saw all the prospects as the same. I saw them all as different. I eventually got fired, but until then I learned things. One day I said something to the head trainer, who was visibly angry at a young horse after a training session. I said, "Maybe he doesn't want to be a show horse". That got me a very detailed description of how stupid I was. My point is after we get them used to a rider, we need to get them to enjoy training. If we try to run a horse through some kind of forming machine, the good ones resist. It's a delicate balance between moving them forward in the training process and teaching them that they hate the training process. If we don't push them enough, they get lazy and spoiled. If we push the too much, they get sour and oppositional. The most difficult part is that each prospect has its own balance in this regard. It's easy to be wrong in assessing what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 16, 2016 14:43:50 GMT
That's the hard part of working for someone else, especially in the horse world. One of the hardest lessons is to learn to say "yes, sir! or yes, ma'am". When people have made a training machine designed to output horses that will build the "brand" of the trainer, it's hard to bring in ideas that are outside of the current modality. Gaining experience and putting in time (paying dues) is one of the toughest parts of just about any industry.
Some of the current trends in the Western discipline - the futurities etc really force trainers and horses into a time frame that for a lot of horses is tough to meet. Often the babies burn out and few make it to the championship, much less win. I'm sure there's quite a bit of "let down" time after the competition...if the trainer wants to have a horse left at the derby or limited age events.
I think that's one thing that English disciplines have an advantage in with waiting for the horse to mature a bit before starting them. I kinda like getting them used to the idea of work at/around 2 and then turning them out for another year to grow up and then bring em back in for a refresher course and light work until 4. That thought process will never win me any buckles and I'm ok with that. I like sound horses, in brain and body.
I don't expect a kindergartener to be able to perform at a high school level. But when it comes to horses, I'd like to get their brain in shape with understanding their roll in society early on. It's too painful to hit the ground these days and I just don't bounce the way I used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Feb 17, 2016 13:52:09 GMT
... Some of the current trends in the Western discipline - the futurities etc really force trainers and horses into a time frame that for a lot of horses is tough to meet. Often the babies burn out and few make it to the championship, much less win ... I think that's one thing that English disciplines have an advantage in with waiting for the horse to mature a bit before starting them ... I do not know a lot about western showing. I don't know that much about English showing either. I have been fortunate to come up through disciplines that rely completely on effectiveness like polo, fox hunting and to some extent eventing. I'm not sure now, but 20 years ago polo had the second highest per capita fatality rate of any sport, second to Formula One auto racing. Point being, it's pretty dangerous and there are not that many players, thus the high per capita losses. Fox hunting, if done well, is almost as dangerous. These sports are not about futurity points, or pretty, or anything but doing something very quickly in demanding conditions with other horses doing the same and very close by. Rushing training for these sports has significant consequences. At every step of training you are picturing yourself on the horse that you are working and thinking "will I be safe?" If the answer is no, you stop, or slow down or you cull the horse out. I agree that it is the artificial goals of the show world primarily that drives questionable results and an irrational training processes. Making a quick buck is the other driver. When I was much younger the obvious artificial training processes were confined to the Tennessee Walker trainers, who used heavy weights on the front feet of prospects to increase action, or the Saddlebred trainers who stuck big chunks if ginger up the butts of their horses to get a high tail. Most other "regular" trainers wrote those TWH and Saddlebred trainers off a goofy, now goofy seems to be more the norm. On the English side of things, we now see the "challenges" like the Thoroughbred Challenge where you get a TB off the track and do a makeover in a short time. www.retiredracehorseproject.org I am all for retraining TBs but I am a little afraid of the short term challenge process stressing them after coming off a very narrowly focused racing career. Tommy Wayman, who's dad was a head trainer at the King Ranch, trained some of the best American polo horses in the 70s and 80s. His horses were mostly TBs for the speed. He always said if you get a racehorse, turn him out for at least a year before working him in a new discipline. Horses need a job, but I'd add that they need a real job, something that is based in effectiveness and those jobs getting harder to find for a horse. The made up jobs like challenges and futurities are risky for some horses. They simply need more time. |
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 17, 2016 14:32:59 GMT
... Some of the current trends in the Western discipline - the futurities etc really force trainers and horses into a time frame that for a lot of horses is tough to meet. Often the babies burn out and few make it to the championship, much less win ... I think that's one thing that English disciplines have an advantage in with waiting for the horse to mature a bit before starting them ... I agree that it is the artificial goals of the show world primarily that drives questionable results and an irrational training processes. Making a quick buck is the other driver. When I was much younger the obvious artificial training processes were confined to the Tennessee Walker trainers, who used heavy weights on the front feet of prospects to increase action, or the Saddlebred trainers who stuck big chunks if ginger up the butts of their horses to get a high tail. Most other "regular" trainers wrote those TWH and Saddlebred trainers off a goofy, now goofy seems to be more the norm. On the English side of things, we now see the "challenges" like the Thoroughbred Challenge where you get a TB off the track and do a makeover in a short time. www.retiredracehorseproject.org I am all for retraining TBs but I am a little afraid of the short term challenge process stressing them after coming off a very narrowly focused racing career. Tommy Wayman, who's dad was a head trainer at the King Ranch, trained some of the best American polo horses in the 70s and 80s. His horses were mostly TBs for the speed. He always said if you get a racehorse, turn him out for at least a year before working him in a new discipline. Horses need a job, but I'd add that they need a real job, something that is based in effectiveness and those jobs getting harder to find for a horse. The made up jobs like challenges and futurities are risky for some horses. They simply need more time. The training challenges...I think they give you more than 90 days to give a horse some skills and then compete. For a horse that's already been backed and has seen some of the world and has been let down correctly that shouldn't be a big problem. Don't get me started on "big lick" TWH trainers. |
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Feb 18, 2016 13:24:30 GMT
We are getting off the starting topic, but with good reason. Stress in retraining or starting is counterproductive. I can remember being in a hurry to train a horse years ago. It took me a while to be convinced it was impossible. After many times of having to go back and undo hurried mistakes, I finally got it that going steadily forward was the fastest way. Slow steady training with a constant eye on how the horse is experiencing the process moves a horse through training faster and the training "sticks" better. The steady part of that is to avoid situations where you cannot work with a horse for a while and when you get back to it you feel like you have to make up for lost time. Horses don't have lost time. They don't respond to that human idea very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Mar 13, 2016 16:58:42 GMT
I was talking with a horse owner the other day about starting young horses and I heard about how a rider came off a young one on the first ride. In my way of thinking, not staying on a horse during the first few riders is a big problem. Staying on may be one of the most essential things at the beginning for a couple reasons. First, I think the earliest rides tell a horse so much about their future. It's when they feel the potential of the connection with a rider. I believe that horses are intuitively programed to seek unity and if a rider falls off on an early ride, the horses feels abandon and that can be traumatic.
That is why I like the "backing" in the stall approach. It's not riding but more like body rubbing/desensitizing when the person lays over the horse's back, slides around and on and off. The horse can feel the rider's weight but not the way it will be in a ride, especially since there is no saddle. That's why the moment in the stall when we move from laying across the horses back to throwing a leg over and laying along the spin is a meaningful new beginning. It's still not riding but it's getting closer. Then we sit up and the horse feels our seat for the first time. True riding training begins there and it is important not to abandon the horse.
In the old days a lot of trainers who were great riders simply hopped on and "rode the buck out of em". That is the same principle of not abandoning the horse but much more abrupt. But either way, if a rider can get on a horse and sit in balance, it is an offer of potential unity to the young horse, something they usually seek. I like to calm them enough first so their earliest rides are bareback and go well. The bareback method makes for a nice transition from the stall bareback to actual riding in shared balance. I often wondered if bareback bronc riding comes from the idea of starting young horses bareback.
But sometimes, even with the best preparation, the horse gets tickled or nervous or something and gets a little twisty. If I think that will be the case, I like to use a saddle in the first rides because I want to stay with the horse no matter what. I don't what them to feel any disconnect but rather that we will work it through together. If I do end up on the ground, we would go back a few steps to the stall backing. In the end, it's about comfort and connection. Coming off breaks the connection and then you have a new problem to overcome. |
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Mar 14, 2016 11:25:35 GMT
I was talking with a horse owner the other day about starting young horses and I heard about how a rider came off a young one on the first ride. In my way of thinking, not staying on a horse during the first few riders is a big problem. Staying on may be one of the most essential things at the beginning for a couple reasons. First, I think the earliest rides tell a horse so much about their future. It's when they feel the potential of the connection with a rider. I believe that horses are intuitively programed to seek unity and if a rider falls off on an early ride, the horses feels abandon and that can be traumatic.
That is why I like the "backing" in the stall approach. It's not riding but more like body rubbing/desensitizing when the person lays over the horse's back, slides around and on and off. The horse can feel the rider's weight but not the way it will be in a ride, especially since there is no saddle. That's why the moment in the stall when we move from laying across the horses back to throwing a leg over and laying along the spin is a meaningful new beginning. It's still not riding but it's getting closer. Then we sit up and the horse feels our seat for the first time. True riding training begins there and it is important not to abandon the horse.
In the old days a lot of trainers who were great riders simply hopped on and "rode the buck out of em". That is the same principle of not abandoning the horse but much more abrupt. But either way, if a rider can get on a horse and sit in balance, it is an offer of potential unity to the young horse, something they usually seek. I like to calm them enough first so their earliest rides are bareback and go well. The bareback method makes for a nice transition from the stall bareback to actual riding in shared balance. I often wondered if bareback bronc riding comes from the idea of starting young horses bareback.
But sometimes, even with the best preparation, the horse gets tickled or nervous or something and gets a little twisty. If I think that will be the case, I like to use a saddle in the first rides because I want to stay with the horse no matter what. I don't what them to feel any disconnect but rather that we will work it through together. If I do end up on the ground, we would go back a few steps to the stall backing. In the end, it's about comfort and connection. Coming off breaks the connection and then you have a new problem to overcome. The first few rides are the foundation for so much. It becomes their "default settings". I have found that's what a horse will return to in times of stress. That's one of the reasons why I like a good rainsheet or winter blanket for young horses. It touches them everywhere. They can't get away from it. It makes noise. It does soooooo much "training" and gets a young one used to so much. Then the odd noise or touch isn't such a big deal later in life. |
|
