Am I alone in this view?

[rhino]

What they shouldn't be doing is name calling and being repeatedly rude to other members.

I think the one thing we all have in common on this forum is our love of horses. Someone of us want to learn and to continually 'do better' by our horses. That when the questions are asked. If someone says 'no I wouldn't do it like that' the natural question is 'how would you do it differently?' Surely that is how we all learn as a group to be better at what we do with our animals?

There has been unpleasantness on both ‘sides’. Many of the people sharing what they *have* learned, with evidence, have been the subject of ridicule and derision.

Assumptions that their horses must be rude treat-muggers.
Assumptions that they have never actually met or worked with a troubled horse.
Assumptions assumptions…

 

[dorsetladette]

I have quoted above a certain posters first response to me in this thread, their first response to anyone actually. You tell me if you think this is just asking questions or if its deliberately confrontational.

I'm probably not the right person to ask as I've found most of your comments confrontational on this thread.

There has been unpleasantness on both ‘sides’. Many of the people sharing what they *have* learned, with evidence, have been the subject of ridicule and derision.

Assumptions that their horses must be rude treat-muggers.
Assumptions that they have never actually met or worked with a troubled horse.
Assumptions assumptions…

I don't believe there are 'sides' in this conversation, just people willing to share experiences and other who wish to only criticise.

I may have made assumptions based on comments made, but I have also had my words twisted and directly insulted.

I have refrained from contributing on threads certain posters have been active involved in due to their nature/personality traits/online persona and I guess I will likely go back to doing the same.

 

[smolmaus]

I'm probably not the right person to ask as I've found most of your comments confrontational on this thread.

Just making sure you have all the context!!

I'm not going to pretend I haven't been a snarky cow, but for a thread full of people defending harsher treatment of horses you'd think yous would be a touch less sensitive about some hurty words. Won't kill ya!

 

[moosea]

oh oops my quotes are still getting all mixed up how embarrassing

If you start a new thread perhaps someone more tech savy can help you?
Because it is making you look a bit silly imho.

I have quoted above a certain posters first response to me in this thread, their first response to anyone actually. You tell me if you think this is just asking questions or if its deliberately confrontational.

I read it as asking questions.

Just making sure you have all the context!!

I'm not going to pretend I haven't been a snarky cow, but for a thread full of people defending harsher treatment of horses you'd think yous would be a touch less sensitive about some hurty words. Won't kill ya!

It won't kill a horse to be beaten with a sick, but its still not acceptable.



SY, does he have a place in training horses?
IMHO, he does.

Perhaps for people who are on livery, maybe they need the staff to handle their horses? or maybe SY is a bit of a demonstration to frazzeled owners that their 'untrainable' horse can be trained?

So, IMHO, SY and trainers like him offer a bit of an instant reset to both owners and horses.
A starting point if you will. To build on and improve.
Do I like everything SY does? no , but I can see it has a place.

R+ I have no idea what that is!

 

[smolmaus]

R+ I have no idea what that is!

Lmao

 

[moosea]

Lmao

I'm unclear on why that is funny?

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

I freely admit I don't have experience working with troubled horses but you're still gonna get my opinions on SY and I'm not sorry about it.

ETA - I might not know better but I'd like to have my own horse and I like to think I know enough to know (most of) what I don't know, and pick who it is that will help me fill in those gaps. I would not pick someone whose training produces animals who look confused, worried, and/or shut down and call that a success.

@moosea R+ is 'Positive Reinforcement' which is adding something to increase the chance of a behaviour repeating. In animal training this would often be a food reward.

 

[moosea]

I freely admit I don't have experience working with troubled horses but you're still gonna get my opinions on SY and I'm not sorry about it.

ETA - I might not know better but I'd like to have my own horse and I like to think I know enough to know (most of) what I don't know, and pick who it is that will help me fill in those gaps. I would not pick someone whose training produces animals who look confused, worried, and/or shut down and call that a success.

@moosea R+ is 'Positive Reinforcement' which is adding something to increase the chance of a behaviour repeating. In animal training this would often be a food reward.

Thank you for explaining.

I have never tried this type of training.

I don't use treats to train because I always feel that animals should want to work with you, not be bribed into certain behaviours.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

Thank you for explaining.

I have never tried this type of training.

I don't use treats to train because I always feel that animals should want to work with you, not be bribed into certain behaviours.

I don't know how else I would have taught my dog to do various behaviours I need her to do. A bit of fuss and praise just wouldn't cut it for her!

ETA - I wouldn't personally view it as a training system. I'm aware some do but it's really just one of the ways behaviours can be increased, whether we are deliberately training it or not.

 

[DabDab]

Thank you for explaining.

I have never tried this type of training.

I don't use treats to train because I always feel that animals should want to work with you, not be bribed into certain behaviours.

You probably do, you just don't realise and/or name it.
If the reward is that the animal gets your affection or attention as a result of doing a thing then that is R+

 

[Burnttoast]

Thank you for explaining.

I have never tried this type of training.

I don't use treats to train because I always feel that animals should want to work with you, not be bribed into certain behaviours.

So you're saying that before you even start you have expectations that an animal should want to do things you want them to do? That seems backwards. If that was the case training would hardly be necessary. At its base, all training is is finding a way around an animal's 'no'. Marking a behaviour with something they find pleasant and valuable is surely the ultimate in making them want to work with you.

 

[moosea]

You probably do, you just don't realise and/or name it.
If the reward is that the animal gets your affection or attention as a result of doing a thing then that is R+

ooh! ok then I do use that!!

 

[moosea]

So you're saying that before you even start you have expectations that an animal should want to do things you want them to do? That seems backwards. If that was the case training would hardly be necessary. At its base, all training is is finding a way around an animal's 'no'. Marking a behaviour with something they find pleasant and valuable is surely the ultimate in making them want to work with you.

I don't even think about that, I just think about what I want them to do and then work out how to get them to do it? I don't really spend hours analysing every micro step in the process.

If I want a horse to learn to pick it's feet up then I know how to train it to do so. But I don't sit down and think about it that much!

Apparently I am using R+ when I give vocal praise? But I am using pressure/ release by letting go of the foot as soon as it is picked up? So no real one method or the other, just a jumble of lots of methods.

 

[DabDab]

ooh! ok then I do use that!!

Most people do, you'd have to be really stoney hearted to diligently remove R+ entirely from your repertoire with animals. It is also quite normal (and ethical) to use R+ with P- or P+ or R- as long as it is done carefully.

So pressure and release is generally P+ (adding a punishment to the horse's environment in the form of physical pressure), followed by R- (removing the pressure as a reinforcer to the behaviour that they just did). And then if the next time you cue the thing you have taught through pressure and release and the horse just does it so you say good horse and give them a stroke (presuming that they see this as a reward), you are now using R+ to continue training a behaviour that your were previously using P+ & R- to train.

And possibly the most important thing to remember, is that what you think you are doing in terms of R+, P+ etc etc is actually irrelevant. It is the horse (or dog or human) that decides whether something is a punishment or a reinforcer or neither. Some horses might interpret a pat or an ear scritch as a reinforcer, others may see it as a punishment, others are entirely indifferent. That's why people who want to do most of their training in the R+ quadrant of operant conditioning will most commonly use food, because horses, dogs, people, most animals in fact, are biologically pre-programmed to find food rewards reinforcing.

 

[Burnttoast]

I don't even think about that, I just think about what I want them to do and then work out how to get them to do it? I don't really spend hours analysing every micro step in the process.

If I want a horse to learn to pick it's feet up then I know how to train it to do so. But I don't sit down and think about it that much!

Apparently I am using R+ when I give vocal praise? But I am using pressure/ release by letting go of the foot as soon as it is picked up? So no real one method or the other, just a jumble of lots of methods.

Fair enough, that's not quite what I took from your earlier post about them wanting to work with you.

 

[PurpleSpots]

If the reward is that the animal gets your affection or attention as a result of doing a thing then that is R+

It is only a reward if the horse actually desires it.

Our perception of whether something is desirable for another being is often misguided, especially in the case of the expression of human 'niceness' towards animals, because in stroking a horse, for example, you are doing something 'to' the horse, and if they are restrained then it is hard for the horse to properly communicate that they don't like it. Especially when people who cannot interpret or respect the indications a horse gives insists a horse accepts pats and strokes whether they like it or not.

With food, the horse can choose whether to take it or not, so it is much easier to see if it truly IS giving the horse something they like - that way the tasks can clearly be seen to have something in it for the horse and work towards being properly consentual.

Often, R+ trainers work at liberty so it is even clearer whether the horse is consenting to the task or not, and in fact whether they are consenting to/enjoying the concept of training at all.

 

[DabDab]

I think you've probably cross-posted with me PS

 

[PurpleSpots]

I think you've probably cross-posted with me PS

It took me a while to type it and I didn't check the newly added posts before pressing 'Post reply' as I am too tired and hungry to have much brainpower spare right now - apologies if it seemed I was posting over you/ignoring what you'd already written .

 

[DabDab]

It took me a while to type it and I didn't check the newly added posts before pressing 'Post reply' as I am too tired and hungry to have much brainpower spare right now - apologies if it seemed I was posting over you/ignoring what you'd already written .

Not at all - I do it all the time.

Although I would say that I have had both horses, and even more so dogs, who will take a treat off me because they know I want them to/out of habit, rather than because they want the treat or are processing it as any kind of reinforcer in that moment.

 

[moosea]

It is only a reward if the horse actually desires it.

Our perception of whether something is desirable for another being is often misguided, especially in the case of the expression of human 'niceness' towards animals, because in stroking a horse, for example, you are doing something 'to' the horse, and if they are restrained then it is hard for the horse to properly communicate that they don't like it. Especially when people who cannot interpret or respect the indications a horse gives insists a horse accepts pats and strokes whether they like it or not.

With food, the horse can choose whether to take it or not, so it is much easier to see if it truly IS giving the horse something they like - that way the tasks can clearly be seen to have something in it for the horse and work towards being properly consentual.

Often, R+ trainers work at liberty so it is even clearer whether the horse is consenting to the task or not, and in fact whether they are consenting to/enjoying the concept of training at all.

So, for example, if I'm training a horse to lift it's feet and it reacts in a negative way what would R+ do in that situation? Because if I continue to persist in trying to lift the foot then that is non consensual. But the foot will eventually need to be lifted and the horse has no idea of that or of the fact that nothing bad will happen if he does lift his foot, until he has lifted his foot??
( not trying to be contraversial, just trying to understand )

 

[paddy555]

Most people do, you'd have to be really stoney hearted to diligently remove R+ entirely from your repertoire with animals.

Do they? I don't know people that do. Stroke the horse, use a voice reward then yes but per PS it's only a reward if the horse desires it and that basically is food as it is the only thing we can be sure the horse desires ie if it eats it.

I have never taught a young horse to give it's foot with food. I can"t see that at any stage picking up a foot is going to be a horse's choice. How does it see a benefit unless I remove a large uncomfortable stone.
No way would I want to be underneath a horse and have it expecting a reward for giving it's foot.

I don't remove R+ (if that is only a food reward) from my repetoire because I have never started it. If I give a treat it is not to mark a behaviour for a horse, there is nothing that the horse has done that he could relate to the treat.

 

[DabDab]

Do they? I don't know people that do. Stroke the horse, use a voice reward then yes but per PS it's only a reward if the horse desires it and that basically is food as it is the only thing we can be sure the horse desires ie if it eats it.

I have never taught a young horse to give it's foot with food. I can"t see that at any stage picking up a foot is going to be a horse's choice. How does it see a benefit unless I remove a large uncomfortable stone.
No way would I want to be underneath a horse and have it expecting a reward for giving it's foot.

I don't remove R+ (if that is only a food reward) from my repetoire because I have never started it. If I give a treat it is not to mark a behaviour for a horse, there is nothing that the horse has done that he could relate to the treat.

The R doesn't stand for reward, it stands for reinforcement. R+ is ANYTHING that gets added to a learner's environment that they find reinforcing (i.e. makes them more likely to repeat a behaviour).

A big reinforcer for horses other than food is other horses/the herd/company. Another common one is movement. Both can be more unpredictable to make use of in a deliberate training context than food is, but nevertheless, if the horse interprets a reward in response to specific action then it is being positively reinforced to repeat that action.

The cob in the video that you posted - why did it choose to stay in the stable? I would guess it is because he was very insecure when he was first put in there and therefore the feeling of security that he gained from the non-changing stable environment was a huge reinforcer for him (unintended R+). On top of that you then have the cob quickly learning that spinning in the stable and threatening with teeth and hooves makes the scary humans go away, so we now also have unintended R- (behaviour reinforcement from something being removed).

R+ is not some fluffy, idealistic, ineffective method, it is often a really really powerful behaviour modifier. However, a lot of humans are bad at working out how to apply it to horses in a deliberate way.

I have never trained a horse to lift a hoof using R+ either, because I have a reliable, effective and (I believe) ethical method to teach it reliably through other means, but that doesn't mean R+ in general is ineffective or that I don't use it all over the place to train other stuff.

 

[little_critter]

I don't even think about that, I just think about what I want them to do and then work out how to get them to do it? I don't really spend hours analysing every micro step in the process.

If I want a horse to learn to pick it's feet up then I know how to train it to do so. But I don't sit down and think about it that much!

Apparently I am using R+ when I give vocal praise? But I am using pressure/ release by letting go of the foot as soon as it is picked up? So no real one method or the other, just a jumble of lots of methods.

It is very very rare for someone to use no pressure and release at all.
Rein aids are pressure and release
Leg aids are pressure and release
Gently pulling a head collar to guide your horse is pressure and release

This is what an earlier poster meant when they said they wouldn’t lead past an open haylage bale with just hope and rainbows (or words to that effect)

People who use positive reinforcement (R+) usually layer it on top of gentle pressure and release. When they encounter a training issue, rather than apply more pressure, or apply punishment, they will look at how they can reward good behaviour (R+).
When the horse learns that doing the right thing (or not doing the wrong thing) gets them a reward (be that food, scratches, cuddles etc) then they are more likely to repeat the wanted behaviour.

So a lot of people do already use R+ (ever pat your horse after a good riding effort?)

Much of this horse training is a continuum; do you use more pressure and release/ punishment, or do you use more R+. It would be fleetingly rare for anyone to train exclusively at one end of the scale or the other.

Edit - sorry should have read all the posts before posting this. But I think we are on the same page.

 

[PurpleSpots]

I would say that I have had both horses, and even more so dogs, who will take a treat off me because they know I want them to/out of habit, rather than because they want the treat or are processing it as any kind of reinforcer in that moment.

I absolutely agree - they can become habituated to the process in some training scenarios, and if taking food is part of that habituated process it doesn't always mean the horse is consciously enjoying the situation, just because they are taking food.

I tend to find though, that once the 'good will' that has been created in the horse has begun to diminish - because they've given the less desirable or tolerable behaviour on goodwill 'credit' if you like, because they have had a positive feeling about training until that point - they do quite quickly stop taking food when the behaviour asked for becomes consciously less pleasant for them, rather than them remaining forever in an unconscious cycle.

The horse stopping taking food is a clear communication from them that they now don't feel positive about the situation and what they're being asked to do (in a R+ situation; in a traditional situation they may not associate food with the situation they're in in the same way), and that comes WAY before any stronger expressions of negativity like trying to leave the situation - which is one of the reasons R+ training makes it easier to see when the horse is even on the way to reaching their threshold for coping, and hence why R+ stays so much further under that threshold.

So, for example, if I'm training a horse to lift it's feet and it reacts in a negative way what would R+ do in that situation? Because if I continue to persist in trying to lift the foot then that is non consensual. But the foot will eventually need to be lifted and the horse has no idea of that or of the fact that nothing bad will happen if he does lift his foot, until he has lifted his foot??
( not trying to be contraversial, just trying to understand )

I understand completely where you're coming from. R+ taps into how the horse feels about the situation better than traditional methods. That the horse does not want to lift their foot and reacts negatively shows that they feel negative about lifting their foot. Perhaps they have pain in their body which makes standing on 3 legs uncomfortable; perhaps it creates fear to lose control of one leg because it affects their ability to flee, and for a prey animal this is a significant instinct, especially if you've had your foot/leg hung onto in the past - it quickly creates panic in some horses.

The way I use R+ to lift feet is usually with a clicker, so I use a light touch around some part of their lower leg (this is a cue, without pressure) and as soon as the shift weight off that leg, I click, remove the cue and then give a treat. It helps to teach that click means treat beforehand, so the click is not alarming when they're first in a vulnerable situation on 3 legs. Repeat the cycle so the horse starts to predict that your cue means that when they shift weight off that leg any ask is released and a treat is on its way, then start to build on the weight shifting towards a low lift, a higher lift, a hold of the leg, a longer hold of the leg, clicking and treating with each repeat of cue and desired response. Sometimes the same thing - so for example hold for a pause then click and treat three times - oh and release of the foot each time too! - to build proficiency of behaviour, then go to the next stage of holding foot for slightly longer before the click to build up duration of behaviour.

Working with feet this way is safer for the person because you're not trying to fight and wrestle to hold on while in the kick zone, and it's massively nicer for the horse too. It does work to some extent without R+ if you omit the click and treat from the above scenario, but then it becomes (in my opinion) P-, because you are removing something negative (human around their lower legs, restriction of leg, pain in body, fear at not being able to get away) when the horse does the desired thing, and from the horse's point of view, they didn't want to be in that situation anyway, and they gain only negative feelings from it, so they increasingly want to do it less and less. Add into the situation people getting cross when they spin or kick out and you have a surefire way for the horse to become increasingly resentful of lifting legs.

R+ puts the horse into a TOTALLY different mindset in the same situation with very few changes to the situation.

I've taught foals as young as 2 weeks along these lines, loose in large fields to lift feet as well as older aggressive or nervous foot lifters. It really does work.

Sometimes I've used a rope around the leg in the beginning to make it safer for me to apply a cue and build up duration without my head or body being in danger - which is flooding to some degree, and P- in other aspects - but in combination with R+.

Again, it is not about being a R+ evangelist, it's about wanting to do ethical training from the horse's point of view. I see none of this in the videos discussed, and that is why I object to them.

I have never taught a young horse to give it's foot with food. I can"t see that at any stage picking up a foot is going to be a horse's choice. How does it see a benefit unless I remove a large uncomfortable stone.
No way would I want to be underneath a horse and have it expecting a reward for giving it's foot.

The long reply to the quote above should address this. I am sorry I used the word 'unenlightened' and got frustrated at you earlier up the thread.

I know it is difficult to open up to different ideas because I struggled to do that myself and wish I could go back and enlighten myself sooner. So I was as frustrated at the mindset I know I used to have as much as I was with your responses. It takes time, thought and effort to reply, and meeting a brick wall each time makes me less and less willing to reply positively, so when I can't try any more I shut down, and after that I might react back. Exactly the same as a horse, in fact.

R+ is not some fluffy, idealistic, ineffective method, it is often a really really powerful behaviour modifier. However, a lot of humans are bad at working out how to apply it to horses in a deliberate way.

Totally agree, and the way you've written some replies has made me think a bit deeper too and find more clarity in some aspects which I'd just had as an unconscious sort of given, so thank you.

It is very very rare for someone to use no pressure and release at all.
Rein aids are pressure and release
Leg aids are pressure and release
Gently pulling a head collar to guide your horse is pressure and release

Yes, and expecting a horse to guess at what you want without helping them with cues can actually create more stress and less mental engagement in them to boot!

So a lot of people do already use R+ (ever pat your horse after a good riding effort?)

But patting often isn't R+, because it may not be something the horse actually desires.

Much of this horse training is a continuum; do you use more pressure and release/ punishment, or do you use more R+. It would be fleetingly rare for anyone to train exclusively at one end of the scale or the other.

Absolutely, and I really struggled years ago over the concept of ONLY using R+, as alot of people seemed to suggest that to use anything else was terrible.

For me though, it's about ethical training, in a way which doesn't create mental, emotional or physical damage for the horse.

 

[Matafleur]

I absolutely agree - they can become habituated to the process in some training scenarios, and if taking food is part of that habituated process it doesn't always mean the horse is consciously enjoying the situation, just because they are taking food.

I tend to find though, that once the 'good will' that has been created in the horse has begun to diminish - because they've given the less desirable or tolerable behaviour on goodwill 'credit' if you like, because they have had a positive feeling about training until that point - they do quite quickly stop taking food when the behaviour asked for becomes consciously less pleasant for them, rather than them remaining forever in an unconscious cycle.

The horse stopping taking food is a clear communication from them that they now don't feel positive about the situation and what they're being asked to do (in a R+ situation; in a traditional situation they may not associate food with the situation they're in in the same way), and that comes WAY before any stronger expressions of negativity like trying to leave the situation - which is one of the reasons R+ training makes it easier to see when the horse is even on the way to reaching their threshold for coping, and hence why R+ stays so much further under that threshold.



I understand completely where you're coming from. R+ taps into how the horse feels about the situation better than traditional methods. That the horse does not want to lift their foot and reacts negatively shows that they feel negative about lifting their foot. Perhaps they have pain in their body which makes standing on 3 legs uncomfortable; perhaps it creates fear to lose control of one leg because it affects their ability to flee, and for a prey animal this is a significant instinct, especially if you've had your foot/leg hung onto in the past - it quickly creates panic in some horses.

The way I use R+ to lift feet is usually with a clicker, so I use a light touch around some part of their lower leg (this is a cue, without pressure) and as soon as the shift weight off that leg, I click, remove the cue and then give a treat. It helps to teach that click means treat beforehand, so the click is not alarming when they're first in a vulnerable situation on 3 legs. Repeat the cycle so the horse starts to predict that your cue means that when they shift weight off that leg any ask is released and a treat is on its way, then start to build on the weight shifting towards a low lift, a higher lift, a hold of the leg, a longer hold of the leg, clicking and treating with each repeat of cue and desired response. Sometimes the same thing - so for example hold for a pause then click and treat three times - oh and release of the foot each time too! - to build proficiency of behaviour, then go to the next stage of holding foot for slightly longer before the click to build up duration of behaviour.

Working with feet this way is safer for the person because you're not trying to fight and wrestle to hold on while in the kick zone, and it's massively nicer for the horse too. It does work to some extent without R+ if you omit the click and treat from the above scenario, but then it becomes (in my opinion) P-, because you are removing something negative (human around their lower legs, restriction of leg, pain in body, fear at not being able to get away) when the horse does the desired thing, and from the horse's point of view, they didn't want to be in that situation anyway, and they gain only negative feelings from it, so they increasingly want to do it less and less. Add into the situation people getting cross when they spin or kick out and you have a surefire way for the horse to become increasingly resentful of lifting legs.

R+ puts the horse into a TOTALLY different mindset in the same situation with very few changes to the situation.

I've taught foals as young as 2 weeks along these lines, loose in large fields to lift feet as well as older aggressive or nervous foot lifters. It really does work.

Sometimes I've used a rope around the leg in the beginning to make it safer for me to apply a cue and build up duration without my head or body being in danger - which is flooding to some degree, and P- in other aspects - but in combination with R+.

Again, it is not about being a R+ evangelist, it's about wanting to do ethical training from the horse's point of view. I see none of this in the videos discussed, and that is why I object to them.



The long reply to the quote above should address this. I am sorry I used the word 'unenlightened' and got frustrated at you earlier up the thread.

I know it is difficult to open up to different ideas because I struggled to do that myself and wish I could go back and enlighten myself sooner. So I was as frustrated at the mindset I know I used to have as much as I was with your responses. It takes time, thought and effort to reply, and meeting a brick wall each time makes me less and less willing to reply positively, so when I can't try any more I shut down, and after that I might react back. Exactly the same as a horse, in fact.



Totally agree, and the way you've written some replies has made me think a bit deeper too and find more clarity in some aspects which I'd just had as an unconscious sort of given, so thank you.



Yes, and expecting a horse to guess at what you want without helping them with cues can actually create more stress and less mental engagement in them to boot!



But patting often isn't R+, because it may not be something the horse actually desires.



Absolutely, and I really struggled years ago over the concept of ONLY using R+, as alot of people seemed to suggest that to use anything else was terrible.

For me though, it's about ethical training, in a way which doesn't create mental, emotional or physical damage for the horse.

This is a really great, thoughtful and clear post. Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. You've articulated all the concepts very clearly, and clarified some of my own thought processes too!

 

[maya2008]

Now that people are having a rational discussion again…

Out of curiosity, how would people use food to train if:

- the fear response to humans was so high they would not take food, of any kind, from them? Especially if the need was high to get something done asap e.g. urgent wound care. (No crush available for the sake of the discussion).

- a horse responds well to one person with food (or without) but actively dislikes others and reacts with extreme behaviour? E.g. my little gelding would pick up his feet for ME. Anyone else was taking their lives into their hands. He would not accept food from them. Bucket, treats, nothing worked. Eventually I sent him away to a pro friend. He needed to accept other people for his own future safety in the human world.

 

[smolmaus]

Now that people are having a rational discussion again…

Out of curiosity, how would people use food to train if:

- the fear response to humans was so high they would not take food, of any kind, from them? Especially if the need was high to get something done asap e.g. urgent wound care. (No crush available for the sake of the discussion).

- a horse responds well to one person with food (or without) but actively dislikes others and reacts with extreme behaviour? E.g. my little gelding would pick up his feet for ME. Anyone else was taking their lives into their hands. He would not accept food from them. Bucket, treats, nothing worked. Eventually I sent him away to a pro friend. He needed to accept other people for his own future safety in the human world.

A) sedate with a dart gun? Or sedate with laced hardfeed in a bucket left in their vicinity. If you can't lure them in with food I don't see how you could safely use pressure either. Another very extreme situation tho, don't know how much value it has when comparing methodologies.

B) time and desensitisation. This isn't about food either really. I probably wouldn't have sent him away from the only person he considered safe.

I dont think point scoring "well what about this" is valuable or realistic. Especially when people are presenting extreme, emergency scenarios. How a horse copes with an emergency is precluded by their lived experience up until then. Being educated, considered and thoughtful about how you handle and train horses in the everyday will make any emergency less of an emergency. It is likely to prevent them, even. I can equally present a scenario where no horse is left so scared of humans that they can't cope with recieving medical care, because they have always been treated with consideration and gentleness.

 

[little_critter]

So a lot of people do already use R+ (ever pat your horse after a good riding effort?)

"But patting often isn't R+, because it may not be something the horse actually desires." - from PurpleSpots

Sorry about my failure to fathom quotes.
Agreed that the horse may not see the pat as a reward, but presumably the rider does (otherwise why pat?) so its their intention to reward, even if the choice of reward wasn't a great choice for that horse.

 

[paddy555]

Now that people are having a rational discussion again…

Out of curiosity, how would people use food to train if:

- the fear response to humans was so high they would not take food, of any kind, from them? Especially if the need was high to get something done asap e.g. urgent wound care. (No crush available for the sake of the discussion).

- a horse responds well to one person with food (or without) but actively dislikes others and reacts with extreme behaviour? E.g. my little gelding would pick up his feet for ME. Anyone else was taking their lives into their hands. He would not accept food from them. Bucket, treats, nothing worked. Eventually I sent him away to a pro friend. He needed to accept other people for his own future safety in the human world.

those are situations I can relate to. The final para I had/still have one. I could do anything with the little feral mare from day 1, OH finally declared success (and he is very experienced with horses) after about 4 years. It took a very very long time for him and I just felt very smug that she loved me so much.

A 3yo hill pony. . Pieced together what most likely happened. Lived as a semi feral, sold at the pony sales at 6m as a sweet little foal. They had horses (not ponies but horses) and used him as a companion. He is the best companion pony ever for horses but a nightmare with small ponies. When he got to around 3 they tried to do stuff with him, totally failed, terrified him beyond belief and their solution was to turn him back out onto Dartmoor.

A neighbour found him, he had come down from the common very seriously on 3 legs very thirsty to our stream. He had been beaten to h*ll by the ferals as he was entire. OH had managed to get him into a field. No way a vet was going to get anywhere near to look at the damage so I decided there was a good chance this was radial paralysis. Anything closer than 25 metres to him and total panic. All we could do was leave him to try and heal. No companions possible as they would make him move on 3 legs. He stayed there for several months, during that time we moved onto stabling him at night. He was alone in a large sized stable, other horses could look into him but he had no interest. We moved him by using temporary fencing and running him in. He came sound. He stood in the corner of the stable and that was it. He ate hay, he moved onto eating hard feed out of a bucket, You eventually could put the bucket in front of him and he would put his head in but any sort of touching or even hand moving was totally out of the question.

After months we were in total stalemate. I used the approach of trying to be nice, not frightening him in any way,, keeping stress to a minimum. Eventually this will work won't it, he will get over his fear? no way.

By chance I met a girl who trained feral ponies. She would come visit, get him haltered and leading and she would teach me how to deal with them. All in an afternoon.
. By the end of the afternoon I had learnt to deal with ferals, I could put the headcollar on and off and I could lead him outside around the yard safely.

I learnt that with very frightened horses doing nothing (ie piddling along by some method or other hoping they eventually like you or get the idea or become less fearful) doesn't work. You have to actually do something. Also strangely once the trainer "did" something the pony was no longer terrified. He could be led quite happily.


Ever since then I got on and dealt with the fear quickly and found it worked better which is probably why I have less problems with the likes of SY. ( I deliberately took or choose horses that were fearful)

A) sedate with a dart gun? Or sedate with laced hardfeed in a bucket left in their vicinity. If you can't lure them in with food I don't see how you could safely use pressure either. Another very extreme situation tho, don't know how much value it has when comparing methodologies.



I dont think point scoring "well what about this" is valuable or realistic. Especially when people are presenting extreme, emergency scenarios. How a horse copes with an emergency is precluded by their lived experience up until then. Being educated, considered and thoughtful about how you handle and train horses in the everyday will make any emergency less of an emergency..

this is not point scoring but real life and far from extreme situations. Of course they have value because if you are the person left with the responsibility for a horse in that situation it is pretty scary. As I have said before I live in the real world and have had to cope with some pretty nasty situations trying to control a horse till the vet gets there.

Who on earth is going to have sufficient sedative laced feed in a bucket to leave to a colicing horse in their vicinity, or one with blood spouting or many other things. whatever methodology you use it has to work for all situations. The colicing horse won't eat it anyway.
If you have a colic horse throwing itself onto the floor, screaming and hitting it's head, you cannot even hold onto the rope you just have to let it go and hope the vet can wedge it somewhere then you get a more realistic view of horse care. (that was real life for me BTW not a hypothetical situation). That horse's pain totally over ran it's perfectly nice training.

 

[smolmaus]

This is 100% anecdotal but the same kind of person will say they never use R+ despite using pats and praise AND will react badly when you suggest the horse might not like being patted