CDJ withdrawn from paris

Well if the Danish have reinstated Helgstrand as far as putting him back on their international team for the dressage euros I fully expect to see CDJ back with UK Sport funding and on a British team as soon as she has the horsepower.

As put many times in this thread it seems to be acceptable to the elite for riders to do just about anything - so long as they don't get caught by the nasty public with their phones!
 
I’ve just typed a long post and it seems to have disappeared but the quote is there , can’t now be bothered to try again as I seem to be having trouble with H&H these days , seems to be after the last update ☹️
 
palo1 said:
That video...again, I just wonder what on earth she thought she was trying to achieve?! It was awful and cheap the first time I saw it but the casual, calm, mindless abuse just looks worse and worse on every viewing.
Click to expand...
Quite. It really is appalling. It's not a couple of timely reminders, it's not a tap tap to say engage more, it's just absolutely awful whichever way to carve it up. Try doing it to a dog in the street and see how far you get. Have someone do it to you and see how much it hurts. If you ever try to justify it, you're part of the problem. I don't want her back in the sport and I was one of her biggest supporters.
 
Equipment like stud chains have their place, as long as you're not relying on it to replace training gaps or because you're asking the horse to do something they find stressful or can't cope with. Horses are rather large animals that we can't get into a battle of strength with and sometimes yes we have to up the anti. I have one that will rear and leap around coming in from the field, he only ever does it coming in from the field, and it's because he's in a rush to get in and have a bucket feed. All his needs are met, he is in a field of lush grass for 16 hours overnight, he has company, he is calm and happy in his field and in his stable once he gets there, he is a darling to handle any other time and knows how he is expected to behave - he is just rude and impatient. I use a stud chain to bring him in from the field, normally completely loose but if he tries his antics then he gets a quick check on the chain to remind him that's not how we behave. He's 17hh and leaping around and rearing and boxing on the end of a lead rope is bloody dangerous.
 
PoppyAnderson said:
Quite. It really is appalling. It's not a couple of timely reminders, it's not a tap tap to say engage more, it's just absolutely awful whichever way to carve it up. Try doing it to a dog in the street and see how far you get. Have someone do it to you and see how much it hurts. If you ever try to justify it, you're part of the problem. I don't want her back in the sport and I was one of her biggest supporters.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

I wish she had changed her approach and training methods. It doesn't read that way, does it?


frankieduck said:
All his needs are met, he is in a field of lush grass for 16 hours overnight, he has company, he is calm and happy in his field and in his stable once he gets there, he is a darling to handle any other time and knows how he is expected to behave - he is just rude and impatient. I use a stud chain to bring him in from the field, normally completely loose but if he tries his antics then he gets a quick check on the chain to remind him that's not how we behave. He's 17hh and leaping around and rearing and boxing on the end of a lead rope is bloody dangerous
Click to expand...

frankieduck, thank you. You put my thoughts into the words I couldn't seem to find.

Also, I am imposing my will on my cat. My neighbor let me know that he was going in their backyard and her dogs were getting agitated. So, now he has to stay inside. He isn't happy and I'm not happy that he isn't happy. But, I would be beyond unhappy if he were to be killed because I let him out every time he wanted.
 
eahotson said:
Re stallions. I spoke to a woman once who bred Highlands.The stallion lived out with the mares and foals.
Click to expand...
A stallion that always grazes with his ladies is usually much more laid back, but don’t underestimate how enthusiastic they can be when a new bride turns up.
Generally, handler will always use the same bridle for covering, something different to what he might be ridden / driven / shown in, and a breeding stallion will know what to expect when that bridle goes on.
Stud chains can be fitted in a variety of ways, and like anything else, could be ‘abused’. Some entires are very tactful, almost timid with mares, most aren’t.
 
GSD Woman said:
I totally agree.

I wish she had changed her approach and training methods. It doesn't read that way, does it?




frankieduck, thank you. You put my thoughts into the words I couldn't seem to find.

Also, I am imposing my will on my cat. My neighbor let me know that he was going in their backyard and her dogs were getting agitated. So, now he has to stay inside. He isn't happy and I'm not happy that he isn't happy. But, I would be beyond unhappy if he were to be killed because I let him out every time he wanted.
Click to expand...

Absolutely everything we do with horses is essentially pressure and release, just varying levels of pressure. A "half halt" is a jab in the mouth with a bit to get your horse to back off your hand. Using your leg is making life temporarily unpleasant until your horse moves away from the pressure looking for release. Even leading in a simple headcollar the horse is only really complying because if they don't, the pressure on their face will stop them. If you dissect it down then you could probably make yourself feel quite bad about it, but likewise I think horses are simple, amenable creatures who have evolved to seek security in their lives. If you watch them interact with each other they are fairly black and white and quite tough - if one horse wants another to get out of their space they get asked somewhat politely, and then they get swiftly told. Horses know we are not horses, but they do understand the language of pressure and release and I believe they like to know what is expected of them and find comfort in it. While I say this I'd say I'm at the 'soft' end of horse training, my horses are allowed to have personalities and opinions, sometimes they are a bit rude or pushy, they push the boundaries, they are cheeky, but they generally know what is expected of them and are happy with our dynamic. I had one that came to me completely shut down - he was like a robot and never put a foot out of line, watching his real personality slowly come out when he wasn't walking on eggshells anymore and expecting a slap every time he fidgeted in the wash bay has been a delight.
 
I remember reading an interesting study once where they measured the cortisol levels in horses. They found that the stress levels were lower in horses that were treated consistently harshly than those that were treated kindly but then infrequently reprimanded. While obviously neither is in any way ideal, it's something I always remind myself of when I'm having a bad day or a horse is testing my patience. Is my response warranted in a way the horse will understand? Have I increased the pressure in a reasonable way or have I gone from 0-60 because I'm frustrated? Does my horse understand exactly where the boundary is, or have I allowed him to cross it before but now I've changed the rules? I think we forget sometimes that we are essentially predators to horses and to feel safe we need to be predictable.
 
Agreed but what I am saying is that if you ride and train horses in the standardised way that most of us on here do, then you cannot avoid the fact that the majority of those training principles are built on pressure and release. Unless you go entirely down the route of positive reinforcement, you will be using pressure and release in your training at almost every step, no matter how subtly. Even the most basic riding aids are pressure and release. I think/hope we have evolved a lot in recent years that this has mostly changed to pressure/release/reward rather than the horse just trying to escape discomfort all the time, but you will still be applying 'pressure' in the ask. If you ride your horses, you place your leg on to ask them to move over away from the leg - whether you reward that question being answered correctly by just taking the leg off or clicker training and rewarding the try, then you have still started the question with pressure and released the pressure when you got the desired reaction.
 
frankieduck said:
Agreed but what I am saying is that if you ride and train horses in the standardised way that most of us on here do, then you cannot avoid the fact that the majority of those training principles are built on pressure and release. Unless you go entirely down the route of positive reinforcement, you will be using pressure and release in your training at almost every step, no matter how subtly. Even the most basic riding aids are pressure and release. I think/hope we have evolved a lot in recent years that this has mostly changed to pressure/release/reward rather than the horse just trying to escape discomfort all the time, but you will still be applying 'pressure' in the ask. If you ride your horses, you place your leg on to ask them to move over away from the leg - whether you reward that question being answered correctly by just taking the leg off or clicker training and rewarding the try, then you have still started the question with pressure and released the pressure when you got the desired reaction.
Click to expand...
I've had this running round my head for a bit. There is a difference in pressure that is an "ask" and pressure-release as true negative reinforcement. If you ask a question and the horse doesn't respond correctly, what do you do?

If you ask again HARDER then that is escalation of pressure and it is negative reinforcement. The pressure increases to the point where it becomes aversive enough to the horse that it then responds, the original "reason" that you didn't get a response was that the pressure wasn't sufficient. Usually that is physical pressure from bit, reins, seat, schooling whip but it can be voice if you shout or body language if you get big or loud with it.

You can on the other hand not ask again and take a break or change the environment, you can reward a try, you can look for a different way to shape the behaviour without just increasing the pressure which is more aligned with positive reinforcement. The "reason" for no response was a communication error or the reward offered not being enough to get the desired response.

Sometimes I do increase an "ask" if I don't get a response if it's a very established behaviour. Maybe repeating a question is aversive? Maybe going "hey please pay attention to me, actually" is aversive. But I think at that point we are getting a bit lost in the weeds.
 
The “negative” in negative reinforcement doesn’t mean “makes horse unhappy” in the same way that the “punishment” in positive punishment doesn’t mean “beat the horse up”.

Negative reinforcement = removing a stimulus to increase frequency of a behaviour. That’s it. Whether you escalate pressure, whether you use a stick or a feather, any sort of pressure and release training is negative reinforcement.

Negative reinforcement isn’t inherently aversive or non-aversive - that depends on the stimuli you use. And any sort of training can be aversive. For some dogs, being asked to do the same behaviour repeatedly, even if that behaviour was trained with R+, will be aversive. In others, if a behaviour isn’t shaped in very small approximations, the pressure of trying to figure out what their owner wants will be aversive, even if their owner is only using R+ and the animal is at liberty to leave.

As much as it’s important for us trainers to know learning theory, it’s worth remembering that animals don’t know it. They don’t know that they should be upset if trained in X way or that they should always be happy if trained in Y quadrant. But their behaviour will tell you if they find something aversive or not, and that’s all that really matters.

smolmaus said:
I've had this running round my head for a bit. There is a difference in pressure that is an "ask" and pressure-release as true negative reinforcement. If you ask a question and the horse doesn't respond correctly, what do you do?

If you ask again HARDER then that is escalation of pressure and it is negative reinforcement. The pressure increases to the point where it becomes aversive enough to the horse that it then responds, the original "reason" that you didn't get a response was that the pressure wasn't sufficient. Usually that is physical pressure from bit, reins, seat, schooling whip but it can be voice if you shout or body language if you get big or loud with it.

You can on the other hand not ask again and take a break or change the environment, you can reward a try, you can look for a different way to shape the behaviour without just increasing the pressure which is more aligned with positive reinforcement. The "reason" for no response was a communication error or the reward offered not being enough to get the desired response.

Sometimes I do increase an "ask" if I don't get a response if it's a very established behaviour. Maybe repeating a question is aversive? Maybe going "hey please pay attention to me, actually" is aversive. But I think at that point we are getting a bit lost in the weeds.
Click to expand...
 
smolmaus said:
I've had this running round my head for a bit. There is a difference in pressure that is an "ask" and pressure-release as true negative reinforcement. If you ask a question and the horse doesn't respond correctly, what do you do?

If you ask again HARDER then that is escalation of pressure and it is negative reinforcement. The pressure increases to the point where it becomes aversive enough to the horse that it then responds, the original "reason" that you didn't get a response was that the pressure wasn't sufficient. Usually that is physical pressure from bit, reins, seat, schooling whip but it can be voice if you shout or body language if you get big or loud with it.

You can on the other hand not ask again and take a break or change the environment, you can reward a try, you can look for a different way to shape the behaviour without just increasing the pressure which is more aligned with positive reinforcement. The "reason" for no response was a communication error or the reward offered not being enough to get the desired response.

Sometimes I do increase an "ask" if I don't get a response if it's a very established behaviour. Maybe repeating a question is aversive? Maybe going "hey please pay attention to me, actually" is aversive. But I think at that point we are getting a bit lost in the weeds.
Click to expand...

I think the nuances definitely rely on the intuition and ability to read your horse, and to a level how sympathetic you are. If I ask my horse to move back so I can enter his stable that might begin with the flat of my hand literally just placed on his chest, normally enough to get a response. If it doesn't, that becomes a harder push. As soon as he moves away from my hand the pressure is immediately removed. I would not immediately escalate from a flat hand to chasing the horse out of my space, though I know plenty who would.

With riding it becomes more nuanced for sure, I might ask my horse to move over from the leg laterally with my leg and if he ignores an aid he is well familiar with, then he will get a tap with my heel (tap, not a boot in the ribs), some might keep escalating that pressure until they got a response or add a spur but, for me, if I don't get a response from a pretty firm ask then either the horse doesn't understand what I am asking well enough, or for some reason he doesn't want to offer that today. Personally, I'd keep asking until I got at least a try and then stop, reward, and move on. That might just be one fractional step over away from my leg when I'd originally wanted a few steps of leg-yield, but I've always believed in rewarding the try, not the end result. In all honesty I don't know how you would approach from a complete positive reinforcement perspective, as I've never delved deeply enough into it, but I'd definitely be interested. Always learning!
 
Out of interest, does anyone know which four horses she still keeps at Carl's?

Presumably Alive and Kicking is one, and Secret Agent? Who would be the others, as Imhotep was sold and Kismet went to Jess vonBW?
 
skinnydipper said:

The least inhibitive, functionally effective (LIFE) model: A new framework for ethical animal training practices​


Click to expand...
Am I the only one that finds this academia led research/framework/practices too theoretical? I first came across some theory makers about 20 years ago - and they did not actually work with living horses . It was all theory, textbook, competing philosophies. None of those I met would have been any use training horses!
Also, I resent the inference , frequently made, that past ways of horse handling was ignorant and /or cruel and that we know better now. Of course it s the case that horses were necessary for everyday life pre internal combustion engine , and many people would have been hard on their horses . But if you read the 'old masters' and lots of early 20c books , or have met and learnt from experienced horsemen , it s apparent that some thing s have not changed. A good experienced and sympathetic horse trainer would have , and still will, work with horses in a non domineering /threatening way. The end goal is surely a willing and mannerly horse that understands what s being asked and enjoys his work.
 
cornbrodolly said:
Am I the only one that finds this academia led research/framework/practices too theoretical? I first came across some theory makers about 20 years ago - and they did not actually work with living horses . It was all theory, textbook, competing philosophies. None of those I met would have been any use training horses!
Also, I resent the inference , frequently made, that past ways of horse handling was ignorant and /or cruel and that we know better now. Of course it s the case that horses were necessary for everyday life pre internal combustion engine , and many people would have been hard on their horses . But if you read the 'old masters' and lots of early 20c books , or have met and learnt from experienced horsemen , it s apparent that some thing s have not changed. A good experienced and sympathetic horse trainer would have , and still will, work with horses in a non domineering /threatening way. The end goal is surely a willing and mannerly horse that understands what s being asked and enjoys his work.
Click to expand...
Apparently Queen Elizabeth 1 horsemaster,who wrote a book about training horses that was still being used in the 1800s or thereabouts wrote much about kindness and gentleness in training horses.
 
cornbrodolly said:
Am I the only one that finds this academia led research/framework/practices too theoretical? I first came across some theory makers about 20 years ago - and they did not actually work with living horses . It was all theory, textbook, competing philosophies. None of those I met would have been any use training horses!
Also, I resent the inference , frequently made, that past ways of horse handling was ignorant and /or cruel and that we know better now. Of course it s the case that horses were necessary for everyday life pre internal combustion engine , and many people would have been hard on their horses . But if you read the 'old masters' and lots of early 20c books , or have met and learnt from experienced horsemen , it s apparent that some thing s have not changed. A good experienced and sympathetic horse trainer would have , and still will, work with horses in a non domineering /threatening way. The end goal is surely a willing and mannerly horse that understands what s being asked and enjoys his work.
Click to expand...
Not on your own, some of these ‘theorists’ are so far up, in danger of meeting themselves on the way back.
As noted - navel gazing.
 
cornbrodolly said:
. But if you read the 'old masters' and lots of early 20c books , or have met and learnt from experienced horsemen , it s apparent that some thing s have not changed.
Click to expand...
This is the nature of progress as well though, you keep what works and remove/ change what doesn't.

Maybe it is navel gazing, but I enjoy thinking about the theory, I enjoy the nuance even if it isn't always immediately applicable. It isn't necessarily all about the end result, how I think about what I'm doing affects me too.
 
I understand that she’s had her punishment etc but I’d be mortified showing my face back in the competition world.

That said, I’m betting that she knows, and others know, that there’s a whole load of people competing around her that use or have used similar methods of training. She’s just one of the ‘unlucky’ ones who someone had a grudge against really. I imagine that in the aftermath of the CDJ scandal last year, a LOT of people in the dressage world were low key panicking…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top