|
|
Post by horseguy on Mar 18, 2016 21:31:13 GMT
I know absolutely nothing about imprinting. It became a trend at a time when I was pretty busy with other things and the brief info I heard about it sounded uninteresting. Jimmy posted that it was a form of desensitization that is over the top. Why? How? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 18, 2016 23:24:15 GMT
"Imprint Training', as a noun was created by Dr. Robert Miller. There is a book called Imprint Training, by Dr. Miller.
Dr. Miller espouses the practice of being there the moment the foal is born, and taken it in your arms (in the stall on the bedding)and removing the sack your self, before the mare even has a chance to lick it off, and lick and touch and rub her own foal. You remove the sack, and talk to it, and rub and touch it all over, even putting your fingers in every orifice and manipulating all it's feet and legs, and then even bending the neck for some reason. You repeat this for several days.
I always allowed a mare to bond and lick and her foal, and just stayed in the corner to help if there was problem. Or sometimes you miss the whole thing, and just let the foal get curious with you. And if the mare is a good momma, she will allow this. I scratch the foal if it will let me. I never worried about gentling it. Just hanging around or visiting with it when you feed, or things like that, was sufficient. i have gentled a lot of foals.
This is not enough for Dr. Miller.
Years ago,before Facebook and internet chat boards, a horse magazine wrote a big article on imprinting and Dr. Miller. It was so full of BS that I wrote a rebuttal to the editor, which he published, and it created a firestorm.
I think his imprint training is invasive, completely unnatural,(he is a big proponent of Natural Horsemanship), and totally unnecessary. And the results are horses that are so numb to people and aversive stimulus, they are almost dangerous.
I knew Miller years ago, and trained a couple of mules for him. So I know what he is like.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Mar 19, 2016 12:28:20 GMT
It all sounds like a very intellectual idea of something that Miller did not understand. The problem with humans is they can imagine that they know something when they have no idea of what a horse is doing, thinking, etc. and from that imagined place they come up with more ideas, some of which they think would make it better between horses and humans. It's like three deep in human intellectualization, beginning with an imagined idea of a horse, then a conclusion based on a vacuum of actual horse experience, with a resulting flawed imagined concept. All that happens when the horse is totally somewhere else. That kind of projection of the human mind onto a horse is academic. Not very useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 19, 2016 13:55:22 GMT
It all sounds like a very intellectual idea of something that Miller did not understand. The problem with humans is they can imagine that they know something when they have no idea of what a horse is doing, thinking, etc. and from that imagined place they come up with more ideas, some of which they think would make it better between horses and humans. It's like three deep in human intellectualization, beginning with an imagined idea of a horse, then a conclusion based on a vacuum of actual horse experience, with a resulting flawed imagined concept. All that happens when the horse is totally somewhere else. That kind of projection of the human mind onto a horse is academic. Not very useful. That is spot on. Bob Miller is an academic. He has written numerous books. He is an expert, of course. The truth is, I believe, from watching his interactions with horses, and hearing stories second hand also, he is afraid of horses. I had a similar experience with his when delivering his mule down to Los Angeles. We had to meet at LA Equestrian center, and swap trailers. The mule was a kind, big, dull animal. I had to teach him to load in a trailer, He was still a little unsure. I went to load the mule for him in his trailer, but he had this "proven process" he insisted upon. So he took the mule from me, and then proceeded with this embarrassingly ridiculous antic of voice cues and arm movements and such, while the mule just stood there. He was, you know, very scientific about it, so of course it was superior to what I did, which was slap the mule on the ass and he jumped in. That was years ago, but I don't think he has changed much. And now he is involved with Cowboy Dressage as some sort of guru, who doesn't ride, but writes volumes on the correct way to ride. He received a while back some big horsemanship award. For writing books, I guess. Big pals with Parelli too. I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Mar 19, 2016 14:39:17 GMT
"He received a while back some big horsemanship award. For writing books, I guess. Big pals with Parelli too. I don't get it."
Today "success" in the American horse world is mostly marketing. It's why, I think, our Equestrian Federation is not a horsemanship organization but rather an business organization.
With academic people and horses I always go to the great Ted Williams of the Red Sox who said, "If you don't think too good, don't think too much". Dr. Miller it seems thinks way too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 19, 2016 15:12:24 GMT
The other side of this, is that many people who claim they imprint their foals, are simply getting them gentle like every one else might. They may handle or spoil them a little too much. They say,"Dr. Miller is great! I love imprinting". But many of them have never actually read his book, and followed his instructions as he lays his method out.
You should find the book and just read a few chapters. I think you would be appalled at what he does. I am.
He claims that Tom Dorrance even likes it. That is that same old validity be association.
I don't believe Tom would ever do anything that would remove the natural curiosity in the horse.
Imprint Training destroys that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 21, 2016 0:51:11 GMT
Here is an interesting update on the imprinting conversation.
Since this came up again, I posted on a FB group, Tom Dorrance,-More than a Horseman.
This is actually administered by Margaret Dorrance, his widow, and a friend of mine, John St.Ryan, who spent a bit of time with Tom.
I asked if anyone knew what Tom thought of Dr. Miller's imprinting. Since Miller and others talk as if it relates somehow to Tom's work and approach. Miller makes references to Tom in his book several times. Many people say thing like, oh yeah, it like Tom Dorrance kind of thing. It created a long thread of discussion, trying hard not to bash the good Doctor. And many people had anecdotes of imprinting,etc.
Bottom line is that Margaret herself chimed in to clarify. Tom in no way, no how, approved in any form of Dr. Miller's imprinting. Period.
So there there you have it from the horse's mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Mar 21, 2016 11:17:59 GMT
Horses need to learn about being horses first. The part where they learn how to deal with humans can come later...you know, after they find their feet and the milk bar. It's not that hard to teach a horse to accept the things they need to to get along with humans, that there's no reason to make a baby put up with what equates to rape.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Mar 21, 2016 12:12:28 GMT
Horses need to learn about being horses first. The part where they learn how to deal with humans can come later...you know, after they find their feet and the milk bar. It's not that hard to teach a horse to accept the things they need to to get along with humans, that there's no reason to make a baby put up with what equates to rape. I think racehorses are an example of too much intervention by humans before a horse completely form its own idea of horseness. I have had 3 year olds off the track that seem like babies struggling to be a horse. |
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Mar 21, 2016 12:22:58 GMT
Horses need to learn about being horses first. The part where they learn how to deal with humans can come later...you know, after they find their feet and the milk bar. It's not that hard to teach a horse to accept the things they need to to get along with humans, that there's no reason to make a baby put up with what equates to rape. I think racehorses are an example of too much intervention by humans before a horse completely form its own idea of horseness. I have had 3 year olds off the track that seem like babies struggling to be a horse. Why should they know? OTTBs are what I like to call "hot house horses". They rarely just get to be horses. Their time is really regimented and managed to the point where they are barely horses anymore. The difference between a 3 y/o OTTB and a 3 y/o range raised QH are amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 21, 2016 14:00:08 GMT
Interesting the TBs came up. When I challenged Dr. Miller to review the positive results of his ideas, he used the Thoroughbred industry as his gauge, since he used them as a testing ground, evidently. I have worked on several TB farms and been on the back side of the track. It wouldn't take a lot to claim an improvement in that industry.
What really irks me about Miller, is that he pretends to be a scientist. But his work is personally biased, and has no real peer review, auditing or any blind studies. Aside from the fact that he throws a name around like Tom Dorrance in association with it. Tom was a very polite man. Rarely said anything negative. When asked about it in public, he would simply say, "It's not important".
Millers explanation for any failures of his process,or criticism is, and I'm not kidding you, is that they are simply doing it wrong. It is so effective, he says, as to be dangerous in the wrong hands. Well, they bought his book, which he sold as an instruction manual. If something is so dangerous to a horse's well being, then maybe it has no merit.
Nevertheless, the horse community embraces him as great contribution to horsemanship.
I just shake my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Mar 21, 2016 14:29:31 GMT
Interesting the TBs came up. When I challenged Dr. Miller to review the positive results of his ideas, he used the Thoroughbred industry as his gauge, since he used them as a testing ground, evidently. I have worked on several TB farms and been on the back side of the track. It wouldn't take a lot to claim an improvement in that industry. What really irks me about Miller, is that he pretends to be a scientist. But his work is personally biased, and has no real peer review, auditing or any blind studies. Aside from the fact that he throws a name around like Tom Dorrance in association with it. Tom was a very polite man. Rarely said anything negative. When asked about it in public, he would simply say, "It's not important". Millers explanation for any failures of his process,or criticism is, and I'm not kidding you, is that they are simply doing it wrong. It is so effective, he says, as to be dangerous in the wrong hands. Well, they bought his book, which he sold as an instruction manual. If something is so dangerous to a horse's well being, then maybe it has no merit. Nevertheless, the horse community embraces him as great contribution to horsemanship. I just shake my head. This quote is found on Dr. Miller's website for imprint training..."I found out these young ones [foals] learn just as fast, or maybe faster, than the older ones. It's surprising how quick these little ones catch on and how lasting it is." - legendary horseman Tom Dorrance in his 1987 book True Unity. I think that may have been taken out of context. I will have to consult my book. I found an interesting article done by French researchers which can be found here: www.thehorse.com/articles/20503/hands-off-new-research-on-impact-of-human-intervention-on-foal-behaviorThe upshot is that foals that had been imprinted were less social etc. Of course, Dr Miller responded with www.robertmmiller.com/drmire.htmlHe basically states that the researchers did it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Mar 21, 2016 15:19:58 GMT
Of course Miller would say that! I guess you have to be a certified technician or something. Then where are those studies by trained imprinting professionals he has conducted? As far as I know, there aren't any. And by what measure could you possibly measure whether a horse was "better" or not. There are so many factors in that horse's life that have influence.
Like I said, for Miller to use a Dorrance quote, as if he and Tom were on the same page, is disingenuous. It's validity by association that isn't there. I think it is professionally irresponsible. He should retract any connection.
Tom's approach was more along the lines about working with foals, as posted by someone else, " on pg 30 - 32 in True Unity. He says likes to start working with them early because they will be just as squirmy at 1 week as they are at 6 months. He waits until the foal presents itself to him (rather than the other way around.) After they have become curious, he talks about directing that curiosity. He says he tries to keep things interesting but if the foal becomes unsure, he will take a step back and start fresh at another time. He likes to leave them with the impression that they are always welcome and is aware of their natural self-preservation."
To Tom, it wasn't about doing something TO the horse. But WITH the horse.
Big difference there.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Mar 21, 2016 16:12:51 GMT
Of course Miller would say that! I guess you have to be a certified technician or something. Then where are those studies by trained imprinting professionals he has conducted? As far as I know, there aren't any. And by what measure could you possibly measure whether a horse was "better" or not. There are so many factors in that horse's life that have influence. Like I said, for Miller to use a Dorrance quote, as if he and Tom were on the same page, is disingenuous. It's validity by association that isn't there. I think it is professionally irresponsible. He should retract any connection. Tom's approach was more along the lines about working with foals, as posted by someone else, " on pg 30 - 32 in True Unity. He says likes to start working with them early because they will be just as squirmy at 1 week as they are at 6 months. He waits until the foal presents itself to him (rather than the other way around.) After they have become curious, he talks about directing that curiosity. He says he tries to keep things interesting but if the foal becomes unsure, he will take a step back and start fresh at another time. He likes to leave them with the impression that they are always welcome and is aware of their natural self-preservation." To Tom, it wasn't about doing something TO the horse. But WITH the horse. Big difference there. I wasn't able to find peer reviewed articles on "imprinting"...but oddly enough, there are a couple about the harm it can cause. I watched a short video of imprinting, and it seemed to me that the foal was just shut down. I don't see "learning" happening. The horse has a long life. No need to rush. |
|
