#1 in Series of Training Thoughts

[Candice Burger]

I've been gnawing on some musings for quite some time, mainly because I've had plenty to do, but not the place to do or because I've been through some times where I had no time to do.

In between all that I've done some thinking and thought I'd share some of this just for some fun. Seeing that my playmates, Carol, Cindy, and Pasomom decided to pack it up on another thread.

Anyway, I've been thinking about the age of starting a horse. Now for me, I've always liked to start one later than most. I'd like to do some ground work around 30 months to 3 years. Give them a few months of ground work and then begin the saddle work close around 3 1/2 years. I'd like the foundation to be in around 4 years old. One reason was because I was a "tad" hard on a horse to begin with. If I got one that tested me, I simply worked him. He would have to have some bone and maturity to handle that so I would wait until I thought they had the physical stature to do so.

Well, things change and so have my ideas on this. I got to feeling guilty about how hard I could get with a horse that gave me trouble. (and the saying goes girls don't have guts--HA!). And I got into hard times and didn't have space or time to work a horse like I wanted to so I let them go.

I noticed something when I did that. I noticed allot of changes in a horse somewhere between almost 3 to 4 years old. The way they moved, how they acted, their acceptance, and their confidence changed. Mostly for the better. Of course I've got some lines that take their time in maturing physically but their minds have always been pretty sharp.

Then I've done some reading about how the oldtime ways of starting a horse later in life had to do with the job intended. Long, hard days that required an older horse to begin with. As that changed then horses were started earlier because they were more "pliable" both mentally and physically. Same type of horse but with less demand on the job. So younger was better when talking about control.

Now there's a trend to start horses later again for various reasons. But one I've been mulling over is the idea that we can start them later because we have selectively bred for a more pliable horse even when they have some age on them. No longer do we need to worry about when they start because we handle them differently and they have a different character than their ancestors at the turn of the 20th century. I'm not talking about physical aspects of muscle and skeleton and don't want to digress into that. I'm talking purely about the mind of the animal and the general maturation that happens.

I'm wondering are we also breeding in some dullness that we are interpreting as being more pliable? Or are our horses more attuned to our training methods because we have bred them to be so? Or are we the ones better attuned to the horse and so horse age matters less?

After watching my young ones change on their own without much intervention around 3-4 years and with circumstances dictating when I could start one, I've decided to wait until 4 years. Now I've got a few ripe for picking so I'll see just how wrong or right my idea about this is.

[Carol Nelson]

You've touched on a subject that I stumbled on quite by accident, actually. When I started breeding, I started my babies the way everyone said you should. First I imprinted them at birth...the ole Dr. Bob Miller way...the plastic bags, the hairdryer...the halter on at birth, etc. I picked up their feet, got them used to farrier, and sacked them out with ropes. Now I got a pretty nice horse out of that...but a little spoiled, and not particularly afraid of (ie., respectful) of humans.
Then I had four at one time, had a little bit of a health problem, and while they were all handled at birth, after that, mostly just left to grow up on their own. Hmmm...surprise, surprise. I'm getting a better, more willing, more interested, definitely more respectful horse when I start to mess with them about two to three years old. Gee...what's happened?
What's happened is that yes, they've been allowed to MATURE. The brain waves are functioning better...they understand better, and they respect me more because I haven't been all over them from the day they were born.
Now our horses are not left in a 100 acre pasture all by themselves. Our pens surround our house and they live with us pretty much. But now I've come to just let them be until it comes time when it's necessary to do something with them...and contrary to popular belief, it's been pretty easy to put a halter on them, pop them into a trailer, put them in stocks, have their feet trimmed, etc. etc. etc. They're much calmer at a later age which allows them to absorb more and learn faster.

I'm wondering are we also breeding in some dullness that we are interpreting as being more pliable? Or are our horses more attuned to our training methods because we have bred them to be so? Or are we the ones better attuned to the horse and so horse age matters less?


I don't think it's dullness...I'm actually breeding FOR a quieter horse...and mine are pretty darned smart. Comes from their daddy, Red. He's gotten himself into some fixes when he was younger, and only because he was quiet and focused he kept himself from hurting himself badly, and his babies are the same way.
Are they attuned more to us...perhaps because of the breeding, yes. But probably more because of your last statement, we are more attuned to them. Now we are seeking more to be a partner to the animal, rather than the Master...and that could be a reason why. The time of the horse being a work machine is over...now they are becoming so much more to us...a partner, a team member, a part of our lives.

[britzlove]

I have to say you, Cindy, and Pasomom got the first laugh in a while on that thread!

My opinion on starting horses older, honestly I think enviornment also must be considered. Are these horses raised with human interaction regularly...what is the living situation?

I believe that waiting for maturity is an excellent idea for saddle training, but do not think they should be let go with no interaction for 3 or 4 years. And perhaps I am confused about what is being proposed.

Mentioning enviornment...herd behavior in human manipulated enviornment can cause problems. Meaning, we put them in small enclosures as opposed to open territory, or stalls even. I know first hand the mental damage horses can suffer from being left alone in such enviornments.

Do you mean absolutely no human interaction? No tying? No hoofcare? No vetting? No desensitizing at all? I do not think so.

As far as training for riding or driving, I do believe that experience does help. I am of the opinion that no horse is really getting "right" until around 5, so I guess there we agree.

[Pinto Paso]

When I first started turning toward the Paso Fino breed, owners I spoke to stated that PF should NEVER be started at 2 because of the rate they mature at... this fell in line with my thinking (coming from Paints & QH) that they were sooooo small.. in fact trainers that started PF young were very much admonished by most of the breeders that I met the first few years.

When I started raising my own PF - I followed the foal handling and 1st year as I did with my previous breeds. ensuring there were no holes in the basic handling and ground work training. the difference was I kept this up through their second year and added very basic maneuvers and skills that did not tax a young horse but made sure their minds were kept supple. I did this because they seem to require more stimulation than my QH & Paints at that age (I could turn out the others and pull in as 2 1/2 yr olds and start basic saddle work and be riding by 3).

2 yr old carry a saddle, lunge lightly, cross tie, and when showing in PFHA training for bella forma... I still incorporate BF in my training, I think it gives them a good foundation (not all collected and hot just in gait with natural collection)...

3 yrs I start mounting, basic turns, backing and moving willingly. This is followed by turn out to 40 months. riding work is reintroduced and as long as emotionally and physically able we proceed. Those not ready will have some basic ground/lunge work then turn out to 48 months.

[CarolU]

Since I don't breed, I prefer to buy youngsters that have been imprinted and had human contact. I then work with them a little, maybe 20 minutes once a week. Mostly tying, leading, trailer loading, picking up feet, getting desensitized to things (have to admit that desensitizing 'almost' is a waste of time with imprinted foals, but I do it anyway...no holes that way). I may teach to circle (lunge) but don't do much more then a lesson now and then with youngsters.

I start serious ground work at 3 and first riding when they are ready (emotionally and how fast they learn their ground work). Then light riding until 4 (walking, desensitizing, trail obstacles, etc.), then harder riding (gait, start collection, start trail training) and finally full riding at age 5. I want them 5 before jumping, reining spins, rollbacks, hard riding so they are fully developed.

I do see two types of maturity in horses. One is emotional and that is what guides my ground work. The other is physical, and I've seem some very narrow and 'splindly' 4 year-olds that don't seem to come into their own until 5 or even later.

You made a statement that I wanted to ask you about.

'm wondering are we also breeding in some dullness that we are interpreting as being more pliable? Or are our horses more attuned to our training methods because we have bred them to be so?

I'm thinking that there should be another 'or' in your list, that maybe our training methods have improved to include understanding the horse better, so we are communicating better, and the ease with which we train and the pliability of the horse afterwards are a result. I do know I'm a much better trainer then I used to be.

[Carol Nelson]

Do you mean absolutely no human interaction? No tying? No hoofcare? No vetting? No desensitizing at all? I do not think so.

No, I meant to clarify that when I said that our pens are all surrounding our house. They are exposed to EVERYTHING from birth up, dogs barking, tractors running, diesel trucks pulling horse trailers in and out, weedeaters, lawn mowers, and ATV's. None of this bothers our horses. They learn to live with humans. We frequently move them from pen to pen, and in doing so, teach them to yield their hindquarters, turn on the forehand, yield to all kinds of pressure, walk with a rope just around their necks, you name it. Some you can actually just drape the lead line over their backs and they follow you...without a halter. They think they're being led. :lol:
Just not what I'd call any "formal" training. By the time you get around to putting a saddle pad on them, it's usually just, "Oh...ok...whatever."

[Candice Burger]

Britz, you must have at least a dozen topics in there.

I agree about environmental factors. Mainly what I'm focusing on is the age to start a horse for saddle work. Whether running wild until then or having daily interaction, I'm still thinking a horse changes and with that comes a great opportunity for a trainer if we know what to look for and at what age.

I'm thinking the more we interevene the less likely we are to see independent expression that is the horse's and more likely to see a reflection of our interactions. I'm sure it still happens but it is covered up with all the "noise" of us training the animal. Maybe it doesn't matter, which would be good to know because then we can quit feeling guilty about when we start working with a horse. Maybe it does matter, in which case, why spend all that time with a 2 year old if he won't get it anyway until he's older? After all if my 4 year old catches up to a 5 year old that's been in training since he was 2 years old what's the point? Relax, enjoy watching them grow up.

EDIT: I forgot to add my real focus is this. If we think starting horses at an older age is great because they are changing, is it because it's always been that way or are we changing the type of horse we are breeding? As the job changes for the horse from a minimum wage earner to a highly paid companion, are we selecting the genes that allows us to have a more pliable horse no matter the age? Horses are changing from being a disposible commodity to obtaining human rights status. Have our changing perceptions changed how our horses respond? Is it because they are more sensitive and so we have gotten more sensitive with our methods and equipment or has the horse always been that way and we have finally figured it out? If so, then does age really matter when talking about training?

[Terry Wallace]

For me, starting horses at an older age, and I mean four or older..is so much easier because they are so much SMARTER and learn faster....doesn't matter what breed they are either, and doesn't matter what enviiroment it was raised in...from a BLM range horse to a hand-coddled purebred! JMO

Personally...I feel riding horses before they are at least 30 months old does the horse no good and may even set them up for a SHORT useful life.

I never could understand why the hurry on an animal that will live 20 years plus...Why a person won't wait for at least 30 months when the knees are..or should be...closed. Its the least one can do IMO...
I want my horses to have 15 or more years of usefull lifetime...and not be standing around lame by the time they are 12 or 15 years old....

This getting on two year olds and manhandling them around and possibly putting too much weight on them for the stage their legs and spine are in is something I will never understand.... Nor will I buy horses that were ridden as two year olds....which makes me absolutely cringe when I see sale ads that say something to the effect of "Bomb-proof three year old"...
Sooo...since it takes a good year to make a trail horse and a few more years to "bomb-proof" (a term I do not personally believe) were they riding it as an "embryo" or what???

[Carol Nelson]

Great post, Terry!!! Perfectly stated!!

[Cindy]

I think, mentally, that it depends on the horse. I think that it also depends on how the horse was handled up to the point of riding. I think that if the horse has been handled from birth and properly in order to establish respect, it matters less when they are started under saddle for most horses. I also think that some horses mentally need to be started earlier than others and some horses benefit from a bit of maturity before saddle training. I do not think that horses are any different now than they ever have been. They have all always been individuals and need to be treated as such and listened to regarding when is the right time to do whatever.

I do agree that they are much more mature, all of them, at about 3 1/2 or four years of age. However, some horses need to get started before this maturity happens and others seem to be better off left until that time. They also reach another maturity level at 5 or 6, depending on the individual. In addition, those who are brought along properly reach perfection between 7 and ten years of age. After that it's all gravy.

[pnalley]

I think Cindy pretty much said it all.

Listen to the horse.

If you can listen, it WILL tell you what it needs.

That is why not all people get along with all horses. We are ALL individuals. With different wants, needs, and desires.

You may have a horse that love to compete in an arena, you may have one that loves to be a driving horse, or it may prefer a untaught kid riding it.

It is a trainer or an owners job, to find the right fit.

I truly believe the majority of horses are good horses, IF put in the right situation!

[Candice Burger]

What I'd like to do is maintain some generalities in the discussion. Like we all know to halter break a horse there's several techniques of just getting the halter on, the type of halter used, how long the lead rope is, what type of position to take while leading, the energy in the horse, you, halter and rope and so it goes. However there are some general concepts to halter breaking that are rather broad sweeping. Like you really have to have a halter on the horse and a lead rope. Now the type of halter and lead rope might be worth a full discussion in itself with the caveat "it depends on the individual".

In this topic, we all know the obvious. To saddle break a horse means there are certain required ingredients with the caveat "it depends on the individual".

The ingredient I've been thinking about is maturity, age, mental and physcial preparedness not based on training but based on the horse's character alone. Are we breeding, in general, a different horse than before as it applies across the board for the species? Or are we more educated about how to deal with horses; we know what to look for?

Specifically I've got horses that change noticeably around 3-4 years. Enough for me to think I might take advantage of this. Time wise, I'll never be in a position to work horses heavily like I used to. If I know I can prepare one and have plenty of time to do it, it gives me hope that I can prepare several instead of just the one. The other factor, of course, is my horses may be responding to my requirements and so they are not as precocious.

To relate, while I was at the Bill Smith Clinic earlier this year, he mentioned age and starting horses. He basically said (I'm paraphrasing and interpreting so don't go running off saying "Bill Smith said") a person could start a horse at any age because horses don't think in terms of age. In this conversation he mentioned how TX futurity prospects for reining and cutting were brought in around 18 months and saddle broke. Now he didn't say it was right or wrong, but he did say it could be done on the simple premise the horse was big enough to carry a saddle and person. He also said that a horse that age wouldn't be ridden very long. Maybe 15 minutes at a time for 2-3 times a week.

In the clinic was a filly not quite 18 months old started under saddle. Sweet mare. She was obviously still a baby and Bill favored her because she came out of his lines. Well, that didn't stop him from working her. I know the person that took the filly home, so later, I asked how she was doing. The filly had gotten stuck and didn't want to work.

Now I could say that supports starting horses older, but it really doesn't because now we are talking specifics about the rider, the filly, and type of training. In the long run, she's probably just fine starting at such a young age.

But that is what I'm getting at. The general comments I'm hearing all over is we no longer need to use certain equipment or methods because we are starting the horses younger and because they seem to be more pliable at that age.

My own questions about this say--really? Because it seems to me my horses are just as pliable at 4 years, even more so, easier to handle and seem to be much more focused. So is it because they have been handled differently from the get-go or have I selected for this? It seems to me to be both. I'm selecting horses that will remain forgiving and meet how I like to manage a horse. I think this is a trend seen in all horse breeds because we are changing the environment we raise them in. We play with hours old babies where before they might not see humans for years. Those that don't like to play aren't selected as breeding material.

So, I'm suggesting that given the SAME circumstances horses today might be easier to handle at an older age than they once were. Sure a horse might come in like a wild-eyed buck because he's been let go wild for 4 years but is he easier to handle than a wild-eye buck let go back in 1880? If he is, is it because we know better or he is bred differently?

[My Pasos]

I started Crystalchick at 7months. Yes, now I have a pocket pony. Sometimes I whish I would have done things different. But, really, She is well suited for just about anyone.

Maybe it is just the breed??? and their temperment??? But, Grey is so mellow as well. Hmmm.

[britzlove]

OK OK Candice Dang!
I mentioned the confusion about what your post was really asking and you've cleared it up so I'll post specifically.
I had a whole really nice reply written...but storm knocked it out at the end, I hope I can get it back.

So, I'm suggesting that given the SAME circumstances horses today might be easier to handle at an older age than they once were. Sure a horse might come in like a wild-eyed buck because he's been let go wild for 4 years but is he easier to handle than a wild-eye buck let go back in 1880? If he is, is it because we know better or he is bred differently?


Yes, they are. Yes, they were. Some horses are better, but they are the same.
See, those super smart, super nice to work with horses were there. SO were the super dull. I think there's more focused breeding, and in some ways it's working. Yet, for every success story, I see 10 failures.
What I mean is, yes it is technically a success story that we have managed to recreate more and more dull horses, horses so dull any idiot that can watch a video can work with and it doesn't turn out so bad. Really, technically thats successful, it allows more people to play with horses.
It's a success that we've made horses so fast that the greatest two minutes in sports is no longer close to 2 minutes often. What cost we may be starting to really see.
Perhaps no clearer is success more clear than in the cutting pen. I used to include reining pen in that, now I don't as in a few short years I've seen less and less of the reiners I used to idiolize. But in the cutting pen, more focused breeding is a HUGE success. Lets face it, they'll let you pay your money and enter, but you've really got to have an amazing animal to achieve real success in cutting. Thats always been the case, it won't change.

But, I see the same efforts to focus for brilliance, as focus for simpleness.
I also think that we are becoming both more observant and perceptive as well. Yes, I think the horses are alot the same we've just begun to reevaluate the way we interact. I'm not going to say that its new though...just different from the last 100 years maybe. The new trend I guess is goaling towards mediocrity. Before, a horseman chose from a group based on brilliance of something, and now, we see people wanting to choose for mediocre. It's one case where I don't agree with the power to the people theory.

Candice, you have paso finos. You still benefit from the horsemen before us, from selection that was forward thinking. Honestly, I think there is special about them and believe we owe them gratitude and thanks for the creation of them.

I think a person willing to be critical in their methods, and critical of both themselves and the horse...can certainly train an older horse just fine. But can you ever dull it up for the masses...I just don't know. There's this hint of the 1880s, and past horsemanship of the Americas. Well, yeah, lots of horses were pulled right of the range and under saddle, but there were years of lessons to come before that horse was ever considered a broke horse, a finished horse, a bridle horse, a finessed horse.
Paso finos...back to this...this is a paso fino forum. I've been dissing dull horses all my life. I ponder, thats what I do best. So, upon my recent ponderance, I'm saddened beyond words to see any effort to dull down, dumb down, undo the paso fino.

I still can't figure out who put the special goggles on me, because I just don't see what the majority of this list sees at the shows. I don't get mad because the loosely gaited, strung out, ugly horses aren't winning...I see them increasing in #, but rarely winning. I have seen pleasure horses win that should, not the horses that look like somebody loosened the screws in their hinges and I know you(Candice only) know what I mean.

All that said, if you mean, good horses, bred with thought..they are still here, they've been here, they'll stay. If you mean can a person who's willing to be flexible, perceptive, and critical be able to put those older animals under saddle, yeah I think so. Are there more dulled down horses among the paso finos, yeah I think maybe they increase every year. Are there more fanciers of certain limited skills to pair them with..certainly. Broad ranging though...I don't think you can say one way or the other with any certainty.

Like Cindy, I think that a good horse and a good person can transcend the rest. I mean, yeah, some horses, like my Pistol really need to have something to occupy his silly head...or it could develop into badness. But, could a good horseman overcome that if he was left wild until 4, yeah probably. Do I believe he'll be a more mature minded horse at 4...nope not really...he'll likely take longer to really grow up.

Anyway...so that I'll shut up...I think both cases are the case :lol: Sorry

[Cindy]

I have seen pleasure horses win that should, not the horses that look like somebody loosened the screws in their hinges and I know you(Candice only) know what I mean.


Ouch. Candice ONLY? I am hurt. Truely hurt. Going back under my rock now. :cry:

[Candice Burger]

AWWW Cindy :hug .

[Cindy]

Yeah, sure. Hugs now. But the damage is already done. Nice try though.

[Candice Burger]

Britz, hon, I agree with you about that. I'm not seeing our classes in the same light when it comes to our performance or pleasure classes.

What I'm seeing are good horses that have not been asked to perform correctly. I'm seeing judges who know what I mean by this, who agree, yet constantly complain their hands are tied by rules and sometimes by show management. I'm seeing trainers train for what wins and who can blame them for that? I'm seeing a bunch of cry bay, whiney members who don't have the gumption to make the changes it takes to get the message across yet refuse to admit it was the members that made it this way to begin with. Believe me, if more horses were kicked out not because they were in or out of paso gait but because they didn't perform the basics of good horsemanship, we'd see a sudden elevation on how our horses are presented. Same horse, same trainer, same judge, different criteria. We set the criteria. The sooner we admit that the sooner we can clean it up.

I'm not showing not because I care if I place or not. I don't show first because I can't afford it, second because I don't want to and last because I can't support a system that won't support our judges. I can't put money or motivation into a system that I believe is sending out mixed messages. I think the message needs to be clarified whether I agree or not is not the point.

I think paso are still "pure" in the sense we haven't been allowed to mess 'em up like some other breeds in the USA. They have been protected from the gringo-isms of modern tastes although we are trying awfully hard as seen by the showing debates. Each side argues for what they think a paso should be in the USA and in the middle is the paso for what it was all along. Unfortunately it suffers in the show arena because we have gringo-ized our show system to where it is a mess not matter how we look at it; it reeks.

I also tend to agree that I'm benefitting greatly from all the horsemen before me that saw something special, captured it and then concentrated it into paso fino. I'm ever so grateful for that. What I have found is environment means allot to a paso. They are like little sponges when they are born, picking up everything. I mean everything.

And since Britz opened up this door, I'll step in. I am worried about dummying down pasos for the everyday rider that seems to eminate in the USA--and we all here know the type I'm talking about. I've changed my mind about marketing pasos and the growth of the breed. I'd rather stay small and keep the quality than grow in numbers and have stupid horses because we think we have to breed that way to sell our horses. There is a slow moving trend back to good horsemenship. We have the horses for it, we only need to demonstrate that. We will begin attracting those type of people into the breed again. It is a pure thrill to sit a horse, only shave a leg on them and feel the pulsating power of the response. To simply sit down and have a horse slow down or stop, release and watch the head lower to rest is magnificent to me.

I, also think it's really both cases. We have old blood that works with just about any way you want it too. It's a gift we should take care of. I see other breeds talking about starting horses early, late, using this or that and ours will adjust however, whenever, with whomever.

My personal conclusions are it matters flip with pasos. They'll go about their thing adjusting and responding rather quickly however we want to do it. By this I mean if we want to breed a particular animal that is slower in maturation, we can. If we want something with less brios, it'll do it. If we want a horse that can prep for showing faster, it's in there.

What I see are a bunch of folks not really paying attention to all of this and going willy-nilly about it and ending up with a bunch of horses they have no clue what happened. Pasos aren't only about gait and too many think that is all they need to worry about is whether their butt bumps along or not. Then I hear "I don't know what to do with the XXXXXX, it's not working". Well geez, did ya bother to look at the horse besides whether it gaited or not? Because there's allot to a paso beside gait.

[Candice Burger]

Yeah, sure. Hugs now. But the damage is already done. Nice try though.

:hug :hug

Well I proofed my post after the fact. Have fun!

[britzlove]

And since Britz opened up this door, I'll step in.

Come on in then!

I'm glad we said it!