You know, our mishap at the bridge the other day has really driven one point home with me: it is up to me to decide how MY horsemanship should be, and equally up to me to own the implications of my decisions. Allow me to explain:
I recently watched a brief video tutorial about introducing OTTBs to jumping. The progression presented was clear, logical and fair, and produced the rider's desired results... which is great! That's success! Something the rider said stuck in my mind, though. To paraphrase, he said he just wants the horse to know that he wants to get to the other side.
That caught my attention because it speaks of a preservation of tension to me. The rider didn't say he wanted the horse to be confident in every way around the jump. He didn't say he wanted the horse to be tuned into communication about what to do with the jump. He said he wanted the horse to know he wants to get to the other side. If your primary goal is to have the horse jump anything you put in front of him, with main priority on getting it done no matter what, that is an excellent understanding for the horse to have. The other options? Useless.
BUT... if you prioritize relaxation over getting the job done.... if you prioritize versatility over 100% jumping... well, then you might want to consider teaching your horse a different understanding. Do you get my drift?
Consider: if you train a horse with the idea of "he just needs to want to get to the other side," how well do you think he'd handle the bridge situation Finn and I encountered? This is why, when English sport folks proclaim that such a bridge is dangerous, they are, in some way, right. Considering the way most English sport horses are trained, a narrow bridge would not be safe at all.
Let me be perfectly clear: I am NOT suggesting that the tutorial I am referring to was wrong in any way. I am just trying to discuss the fact that different desired results call for different training methods. Surely we can all agree on that.
Which leads me to my own personal question: what results do I want? Well, I do prioritize relaxation over getting the job done. I do want to be able to take my horse trail riding in Nevada and California and not have to worry about turning back anytime we come to a slightly narrow bridge. (Rope bridge over a canyon? We'll turn around, thanks.) So, I need to act accordingly.
Now, to bring this closer to home, the bridge episode (and the creek episode that followed) have a lot of links to the tarp crossing we've been working on for SO long. I started with the idea "the other side is the answer" ... which is basically the same as the above "I just want the horse to know he wants to get to the other side." Once that was pretty solid, I started expecting Finn to cross it with more deliberation and relaxation - basically, walk instead of leap. But, I have never gone so far as to MAKE him walk... if he wanted to leap, I let him, I just didn't reward him for it. Can you see how that failed to serve us when the "real world" (ie - the unexpected bridge) DEMANDED deliberation?
So, I am rethinking my approach to dealing with things Finn is unconfident about. I am so used to letting him have a certain share of the leadership when it comes to facing things he's scared of... because I allow him to tell me how far he can go. And while I'm not convinced that's a flawed approach, our last trail ride showed me that when I needed to lay down the law and have him obey in spite of his concern, he wasn't prepared to.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know how to "fix" this. It's not really a problem, so much as a very profound puzzle. How to you teach a horse to obey in spite of it's concern without making him feel forced or trapped by you? I suppose by keeping him there until he realizes there is nothing to be scared of. But when I think about the tarp, I know beyond a certain point I just can't hold Finn there when he decides he needs to leave... that's what I need to figure out.
I don't have an answer yet, but I am working on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment