Read legal disclaimer here.

6/27/07: How do you feel about the sport of horse racing?

6/20/07: How can I get people to change their traditional ways with horses?

6/13/07: Can I do a bad Join-Up® and destroy my horse while I am trying to learn the concepts?

6/05/07: Do you believe that you can breed horses for qualities that are not inherent in the nature of the flight animal?

Answers to June 2007 Ask Monty Questions

Monty's Answer: When viewing the collection of equine activities pursued, it is my position that horse racing is the most natural competitive activity we conduct. In order to understand the natural thought process of Equus, we should peel back the centuries of domesticity and view the horse considering the realities they faced prior to man’s arrival on this earth of ours.

Horses are herbivores. Nature has set them up to graze initially on the vast grasslands of North Africa. In their original environment horses enjoyed the safety of the herd while grazing in areas which allowed them to see a mile or so in every direction. As flight animals and with the strongest of survival intention they were ever vigilant to observe and evade potential predators.

When objects they were unfamiliar with entered their space they were extremely quick to set about putting distance between that object and their family group. Mother Nature imprinted their brain with certain inherent tendencies developed through a survival of the fittest process.

Those who were observant, quick to respond and possessed the athletic skills to execute affective flight lived to reproduce. And those who fell short in one or more of these categories generally didn’t live long enough to pass on their short comings to individuals apt to meet the same fate.

For those of us fortunate enough to live in an environment whereby we can watch the birthing process and then observe the months of growing up and becoming adults, it is an awesome experience. Watching a group of foals no more than two to three weeks of age will allow us to become aware of their extreme desire to become strong and fast.

We will see them racing one another while their mothers quietly graze in the pasture. The observant horseman will inevitably ask the question “Are they really having races and if so why?” Of course the answer is “yes they are racing” and the “why”, without any question is “That is how their genes were set up many centuries ago”. If survival of the fittest is to work, then one must become fit in order to survive.

We modern race enthusiasts are blessed to be able to take advantage of the millions of years during which Mother Nature did our work for us. Survival of the fittest allows us to enjoy watching a species which through selective breeding produces individuals with an incredible desire to run fast and get there first.

It seems clear to me that as responsible, civilized, human beings we need to respect the qualities gifted to us by Mother Nature. I believe that we need to help horses in every way appropriate and reasonable. It is my opinion that this should be done through breeding, nutrition and training. It is also my opinion that the judicious use of modern medicine should be available to prevent diseases.

It is my opinion that the artificial alteration of their physiology through unnatural drugs used to enhance performance should be avoided leaving the true nature of their abilities to rise to the surface. Causing horses’ pain in an attempt to enhance performance should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

A scientific fact is that horses are flight animals and, as the reader knows, they only have two goals in life: survival and reproduction. Horses do not often think strongly about reproduction during a race, which leaves us with only one facet of a horse’s existence which is his goal to survive. Consider for a moment that we are human beings dealing with horses under circumstances extremely demanding and frightening to them. Knowing that they are vitally concerned with their own survival, we often conclude that the best course of action is to whip them and cause them pain in the hopes that it will get them to run faster.

I submit that this is not only a bad decision from a humane standpoint, but a worse decision where its effect is concerned. Horses are “into-pain” animals. Their natural tendency is to push into pressure, like a child does biting on hard bread when cutting teeth. We may frighten a horse the first few times we whip him in a race, but very soon he may resent the whip and back-up to it, actually causing him to run more slowly.

I feel the first thing a horseman should say is, “It does not matter whether it’s racing or any other discipline, the whip is the whip.”

Equus, the flight animal, is about 50 million years old. If you accept the discovery by Dr. Leakey who discovered Lucy in the Olduvai Gorge, then humans are approximately 3.2 million years old. We must conclude then that horses got along just fine without human beings for 47 million years. We are quick, however, to use the term “problem horse” a quite pompous statement from a species so junior.

You so often hear the statement, “We need the whips for safety’s sake,” but, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth, because far more accidents are caused by whips than are ever averted by whips. In fact, if a jockey felt the need for a whip to guide the horse, why not use a spongy whip so that no pain could be produced?

In a recent conversation with Trevor Denman (a race announcer at the Santa Anita race track), he said to me that he felt it would be a good idea if, whenever applicable, a disqualification recorded in the newspaper should read, “the horse ducked from the whip and interfered with the progress of another horse and was thus disqualified.” Trevor suggested that an extremely high percentage of disqualifications were caused by using the whip. Further, he said that if the bettors could understand that fact, they would be less apt to insist that jockeys use the whips to verify that they are trying.

Aside from whether it is effective or not, let us examine for a moment how we stand with the rest of the world on this issue. Nearly all the racing countries of the world are dealing with the issue of the whip in ways that suggest it will soon be obsolete. I believe Great Britain is down to five strikes now, while Sweden has restricted the use of the whip severely, and, Norway, I am told has decided to allow the use of the whip only when both hands are grasping the reins. In Germany, it is interesting to note that all two-year-olds are ridden only with a soft spongy whip, which is handed to the jockey as he leaves the weighing room. The United States is virtually the only country to fail to act on what has become an important issue to race fans the world over.

The third facet, and possibly the most important, is in the area of public perception. Those of us in the racing industry need to be pro-active. We need to realize that many potential race fans abhor the use of the whip and are turned off by our sport. The racing industry needs to recognize that the whip has a negative connotation among racing fans. What if we had whipless racing? Someone would be first, someone would be last and someone would be in the middle, exactly as it is with the whips. As for finding the genetic aptitude for racing, would you not prefer the winning horse to run out of a natural desire, rather than running from pain? And, wouldn’t we be more acceptable to our audience?

I believe the number of race fans would increase with a strong promotional program featuring whipless racing. As racehorse people, we often say we are giving the horse a chance to do what he loves best, run. I believe that is a true statement, but if it is what he loves best, why do we have to whip him to do it? We do not.

It is my opinion that the best jockeys would still be the best jockeys, and in fact, true horsemanship skills would come to the front if we were to eliminate whipping.

I sincerely believe that the buggy whips used at the starting gate cause far more trouble than good. I have spent a good deal of my life studying equine behavior at the starting gate and I am absolutely convinced that the elimination of the whip would actually make life easier for the starting-gate crews.

Many disciplines use the whip for communication, and not pain. This is acceptable. But whatever the discipline, the use of the whip to produce pain is unacceptable.

People love animals, and we are supposed to be a civilized species. Is it not time for us to consider changing some of our retained barbaric ways? We have stopped lashing prisoners and whipping small children. Is it not time that we stopped whipping our horses, flight animals, who have no intention to hurt anyone? My goal is to leave the world a better place than I found it—for horses and people too. Racing could lead the horse industry in this truly important area of humane treatment.

Editor’s Note: Read more of Monty’s concepts in his textbook From My Hands To Yours: Lessons from a Lifetime of Training Championship Horses

(see more questions)

Question: How can I get people to change their traditional ways with horses?

Monty's Answer: Go where there is fertile ground. Leopards are not anxious to change their spots.

You shouldn’t say “I’m going to make people change.”

You can’t do it. You have to figure out a way to demonstrate Join-Up’s effectiveness or pick a way to pass it on to the next generation. If you’re going to influence anybody, it would be the young people. The young people tend to be influenced by traditional horsemen because trainers often speak against you. It’s a long process. Who knows better than I that it’s impossible to go upriver head on. You’ve got to move on angles and go to eddies and rest for awhile and then go again. It’s not an easy proposition.

Critics will see that the world is changing and they will see value in better horsemanship. It’s going to happen. It IS happening!

- Monty

(see more questions)

Question: Can I do a bad Join-Up® and destroy my horse while I am trying to learn the concepts?

Monty's Answer: Traditional ways ruin horses too, so don’t worry about trying to perfect your Join-Up.

We all make mistakes everyday. I start off every day making mistakes of some sort. I can’t find my glasses or I misplace something. I make mistakes; we all make mistakes. Grievous mistakes are more difficult to throw away but if you have been a traditionalist don’t blame yourself for using traditional measures.

My father forced me to. I was beaten half to death if I didn’t, so I did it. That is what gave me the opportunity to say that I had tried it both ways. I could ask, “Have you tried it my way? No? And you don’t want to?”

Okay, then I would say “If I’ve tried it both ways and you’ve only tried it one way, you know less than I do about the whole situation.” That’s a fair assumption at least. The traditionalist doesn’t know my way and I do know his way.

I don’t want my students to beat themselves up over it. To continue to let it eat at you is counter productive. Does it bother me? Of course, but throwing it away becomes easier every time you succeed at throwing it away. I have a strong feeling that nobody who’s acted in the traditional way really sat down and thought that it was really what they wanted to do. Given a choice and there was a better way, I am sure they would re-think it. They train that way because it’s a peer influence. There’s no question. It’s influenced by those around us and we do what other people do.

When I think of the mistakes I made with Brownie! How he ever won a championship, I’ll never know. The only reason he won championship after championship for me is because he competed with horses that were treated the same way. Maybe I was learning to treat him better all along the way and he was born a champion so he stayed a champion and stayed in front of a bad pack. We likely wouldn’t win much today because horses are better, people are better, things have moved on.

- Monty

(see more questions)

Question: Do you believe that you can breed horses for qualities that are not inherent in the nature of the flight animal?

Monty's Answer: No I don’t. The fact is that I don’t believe that we can breed for any other characteristic that is not instinctual when it comes to behavior. The problem here is that the question is “breed for” and my suggestion is that the question ought to be ‘select for’. It is true that we can select certain behavioral traits and mate individuals that exhibit that behavioral pattern.

Where anatomical features are concerned we can often breed for specific features that we desire. The polled Hereford cattle for instance have been bred without horns. Through the selection process those with minimal horn growth were mated until there were no horns at all. Patterns of behavior simply must be present in order to overtly choose them. Mating with similar behavioral patterns will tend to concentrate those aspects of the horses life. Where the cutting horse is concerned we have simply selected those that were predisposed to herding cattle. One generation after another they come together to produce better and better cattle herders. It’s true that we have reduced virtually the entire cutting horse industry to more than 4-5 genetic families in the process of this selection.

The cutting horse industry of today is loaded with in-breeding. If you ask a cutting horse breeder they will call it line breeding. To the geneticist any time you mate related individuals it is in-breeding. To the breeder it is only in-breeding when it is in the immediate family. There are very few cutting horses today that are from unrelated parents.

- Monty

(see more questions)

Continue to May 2007 Ask Monty >

Return to main Ask Monty page >