skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
Just so I understand this, as a dog person learning about horsemanship through the posts on this forum.
What do you do to the horse's nose with the chain. Isn't the nose a highly sensitive part of their body?
CDJ withdrawn from paris
- Thread starter Zoeypxo
- Start date
Just so I understand this, as a dog person learning about horsemanship through the posts on this forum.
What do you do to the horse's nose with the chain. Isn't the nose a highly sensitive part of their body?
Ifmpw
Well-Known Member
Some of our professionals would have you believe horses are made of sold steel, without an ounce of feeling in their mouth, neck, ribs, shoulders, legs, rump, back, ears, belly, hence we can bray them, force them into ill fitting tack and rugs, beast them over the ground, tie them is so they cant see, or breath, overfeed them is they are show poines, put adults on 11 hh ponies for the warm up.
the more i think about what we do to these animals, i simply wonder how long before we do see a ban on equine competition.
I'm Dun
Well-Known Member
nah, they know fine well what they are doing but they think its worth it to get the results they do.
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
Sounds like abuse to me. Poor horses.
I'm not a fan of aversive techniques whatever the animal.
teapot
Well-Known Member
Did anyone see the post by Eurodressage re the number of horses in each of the discplines? Think data was taken from the 2024 FEI returns, but the gap between all the discplines and show jumping with c52k horses was interesting to see. Dressage was under 6k in comparison.
Better return on investment? More money to win? Better sponsors?
ETS for link and correcting of figure https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https://www.facebook.com/Eurodressage/posts/pfbid0X4vTu7ngh1Aqh1DVfwRcaQR7zv3z8k7YDw3j8PrvXrHHPydhnw1dLFXQoFsUQZ6Gl&show_text=true&width=500
Better return on investment? More money to win? Better sponsors?
ETS for link and correcting of figure https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https://www.facebook.com/Eurodressage/posts/pfbid0X4vTu7ngh1Aqh1DVfwRcaQR7zv3z8k7YDw3j8PrvXrHHPydhnw1dLFXQoFsUQZ6Gl&show_text=true&width=500
Last edited:
GSD Woman
Well-Known Member
Wasn't there a recent opinion piece in H and H about the lower prize money in dressage?
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Most £ involved and easier to run multiple top level horses than the others
GSD Woman
Well-Known Member
I rode for years and found that there were plenty of people out there that acted that way. To paraphrase Maya Angelou, When you know better you do better.
And, no, I'm not a dog trainer trying to learn about horse training through this forum. I rode and helped train horses and ponies for years before I had a bad fall, couldn't get back on (broken pelvis), and lost my nerve. I was thin in my 20s and experienced enough that if children were having trouble with their ponies I would occasionally ride them for 10 minutes or so during a lesson. 30+ years ago it was believed, at least in the places where I rode, that if an experienced rider rode the pony for a short while it would be better behaved for the child. And I rode in different areas of the mid-Atlantic. It seemed to work. And, I didn't beat up the ponies, I just rode them. Beating up animals hasn't ever been my go to.
As far as stud chains being used, I'm guessing most of you would rather kill the horse vs using some leverage to teach it to be polite while being led? And, if you've ever been slammed into by a horse that has been allowed to do that by others, you would want to keep yourself safe while the horse is relearning manners.
PurpleSpots
Well-Known Member
The trouble is that if you correct or train with pain and punishment and fear of what the horse will do unless dominated, that's the only way the horse's life is ever likely to go in.
There are so many other ways to establish safety and a genuinely balanced relationship with a horse - or any other animal or person.
Just to clarify: Before I knew better I didn't understand what I was getting wrong either. Before you've experienced how different a rapport you can have it is impossible to imagine it.
There are so many other ways to establish safety and a genuinely balanced relationship with a horse - or any other animal or person.
Just to clarify: Before I knew better I didn't understand what I was getting wrong either. Before you've experienced how different a rapport you can have it is impossible to imagine it.
GSD Woman
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure where this idea of dominating the horse came from. Rather than correct out of fear, it can be a matter of keeping ones self unhurt/safe while retraining the bad habits a horse has been allowed.
I thought all of us had been around enough horses to have come across one that has been spoiled into bad behavior by an owner that didn't understand that love doesn't equal spoiling. Once that owner has become afraid of the horse a short course, not with fear, in relearning manners can often save that relationship and keep a horse from going to a kill pen.
stangs
Well-Known Member
A) To be clear, positive punishment doesn’t have to involve pain or fear or establishing dominance. For example, making a silly sound to interrupt a behaviour is positive punishment and it certainly doesn’t involve any of those things.
B) To quote Steven Lindsay, whose LIMA principle I would presume you agree with, “the LIMA principle entails that trainers use the least intrusive and minimally aversive technique likely to succeed in achieving a training objective with minimal risk of producing adverse side effects” but “aversive procedures are a necessary aspect of dog training.” And, by extension, horse training.
Would I use a stud chain as my first choice in dealing with an unwanted behaviour? Never. But, if other options have been evaluated and are not suitable, I don’t think it’s inherently abusive for a stud chain to be used on a horse for their safety and the handler’s safety, if used by an experienced handler who can use it in a minimally aversive fashion.
PurpleSpots
Well-Known Member
If you reframe 'bad habits' as 'the horse is struggling with a situation and needs help to feel better about it', you'll find a different, more sympathetic approach. All behaviour is simply an expression of how a being is feeling.
If you see that you have a right to use whatever pressure or technique to change a horse's behaviour in a situation to suit you, rather than setting the horse up to feel good in any situation they're placed into, tailoring what you do based on the feedback they give you, then that is dominance.
Basing a training technique on getting the horse to do what you want and that the end justifies the means, however 'least aversive' that may be, is not the same as both horse and handler participating equally and being emotionally supported to feel safe, secure and willing in the situation.
If you see that you have a right to use whatever pressure or technique to change a horse's behaviour in a situation to suit you, rather than setting the horse up to feel good in any situation they're placed into, tailoring what you do based on the feedback they give you, then that is dominance.
Basing a training technique on getting the horse to do what you want and that the end justifies the means, however 'least aversive' that may be, is not the same as both horse and handler participating equally and being emotionally supported to feel safe, secure and willing in the situation.
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
....
Last edited:
stangs
Well-Known Member
For context, I'm a R+, 3Fs, give animals choices, dominance is BS, management over training, etc fanatic. I think my approach is plenty sympathetic as is.
Firstly, I don't think it's necessarily correct to say that bad habits always mean a horse is struggling with a situation. In the case of the discussed hypothetical horse who's dangerous to lead, sure, they might be struggling because they don't get enough turnout and are living in a constant state of stress as a result. They might be struggling with impulse control walking past mares due to hormones (is that type of frustration behaviour still struggling in the typical pain/stress sense?). They might be young and testing the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour, in the same way that they would with a herdmate. Or they might not find what you're asking stressful but they've learnt that certain behaviour enables them to do what they'd prefer to do.
Secondly, in an ideal world, you'd avoid the use of aversives. And I certainly don't think situations like "horse is dangerous to lead at competitions because of competition-related stress" is an acceptable justification for the use of stud chains. However, in the real world, there are times where the context of the behaviour cannot be changed (e.g., horse currently cannot be turned out for medical reasons; horse's handler is very vulnerable to injury; horse has to be walked across a road to get to turnout and so handler cannot risk them getting loose etc) that might justify the use of an aversive. But I wouldn't say such situations are about "getting the horse to do what you [arbitrarily] want" but rather are about getting the horse to do something for their own welfare (e.g., veterinary care, being turned out).
Thirdly, I don't think using punishment, if done correctly (meaning excellent timing, minimal aversion, and not repeated), means that an animal will no longer feel safe and secure around their handler. Plus, once again, positive punishment is inherently just adding a stimulus to decrease the frequency of a behaviour. It doesn't need to involve pain.
I also find your definition of dominance interesting - goes to show how much the term has lost its original meaning and started being used as a dogwhistle, so to speak, to denote training ideologies. But I'm running late for work so I'll leave it there.
smolmaus
Well-Known Member
This is where the Proper Nouns come into play. You can have a domineering training style while not subscribing to Dominance Theory.
Plenty of people have the attitude that "the horse must do what I want because it is a horse and I am a human" which is trying to enforce some arbitrary dominance rather than communication, but they don't always go full tilt into "I am the Boss Mare and you are challenging me!!" Proper Noun Dominance nonsense.
PurpleSpots
Well-Known Member
Exactly smolmaus. It's not about what we term anything, it's about how the horse feels in a situation.
Rather than everyone having a different justification of what aversives are acceptable in which situations and why, we should all, everyone, everywhere, recognise where we are getting it fundamentally wrong, and where we are using excuses rooted in our human world to use horses and not do better by them.
Rather than everyone having a different justification of what aversives are acceptable in which situations and why, we should all, everyone, everywhere, recognise where we are getting it fundamentally wrong, and where we are using excuses rooted in our human world to use horses and not do better by them.
rabatsa
Confuddled
Yesterday I dominated my donkey.
I put a headcollar on him and held the lead rein. I made him stay close by me. I made him walk up and down the barn in order for the farrier watch him move. I then prevented him from walking off while the farrier made him pick up a foot and trim it.
In between he ate quite a few fibre nuggets for doing what I asked of him.
I still enforced my will onto my donkey.
I put a headcollar on him and held the lead rein. I made him stay close by me. I made him walk up and down the barn in order for the farrier watch him move. I then prevented him from walking off while the farrier made him pick up a foot and trim it.
In between he ate quite a few fibre nuggets for doing what I asked of him.
I still enforced my will onto my donkey.
eahotson
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Equally you might say you forced your child to get up out of bed,get dressed,eat breakfast and go to school.
smolmaus
Well-Known Member
Well yes and no, obviously knowing how the horse feels is important if we want effective communication but knowing your learning theory and what tools you are actually using is important too for the communication on our end. Both with the horse, for clarity and consistency, and if we want to talk about it between ourselves.
I don't think it's just one subject really, or one answer. You start from "is the horse a piece of sports equipment" or previously "is the horse farming equipment/ transport" which is a more contentious subject than you'd think, then what rights do they have? What do we ethically need their consent for? When can we wait for enthusiastic consent and when is that actually dangerous for us and them? (Which is what stangs is getting at, I think) Does hand-wringing about ethics actually make a substantial difference in how a horse experiences the world?
You can also start from a place of empathy and kindness and still F it up and cause harm. I personally got a very qualified behaviourist in and one of the first lessons I learned was that I was causing more stress to my horse by asking her to make too many choices. I was using R+, I was attempting to shape behaviour rather than use pressure (which is a valid way to go about things of course) but horse knew I was expecting something and didn't know the answer and that was having a negative affect on her. The kinder thing to do was to ask with pressure and reward the right answer and to ask clear questions rather than waiting for her to figure it out herself. That is of course very far away from walloping her when she gets it wrong but it did make me think about what the horse is actually experiencing vs what we think we are giving them.
Edited as I hit post too soon!
tristars
Well-Known Member
But what about stud chains on stallions?
stormox
Well-Known Member
Horses are big. Horses are strong. A stallion trying to get to an in-season mare is in a hurry! A stallion mounting a mare is more like rape than a lovey dovey courtship. Injuries occur if the stallion isn't under restraint, mares can kick, the stallion could be disabled for life! Stallions can be brutal when they bite a mares crest.
The restraint of a chain on the stallion, and also maybe a twitch or hobbles on the mare, is all done for safety.
smolmaus
Well-Known Member
What about them?
Are they always necessary? Sometimes? Are they the least aversive method possible as per below? What are you asking?
tristars
Well-Known Member
Well as in using force to instill discipline, self control as mentioned by Gsd woman
How does that fit into welfare concerns
smolmaus
Well-Known Member
Discipline and self control are sort of opposites.
I personally don't have much or any real experience of stallions full stop never mind breeding stallions so I don't have much to say other than the principles should be the same with any other piece of "training" or safety equipment. Is it necessary, is it the least aversive method, is it used correctly, can the problem be solved with different management.
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
LIMA has largely been dropped by dog training associations
Zak George explains the problems with LIMA , Facebook March 2024
New Development: International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants Officially Closes the Door on Aversive Dog Training
Another domino has fallen in favor of modern, humane, and scientifically sound dog training methods.
We want to acknowledge the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) for officially moving beyond LIMA (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) as their guiding framework and explicitly rejecting the intentional use of positive punishment.
The issue with LIMA (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) is that while it was intended to prioritize minimally intrusive, positively reinforcing methods, it still allowed trainers to justify outdated, aversive techniques, like shock collars or prong collars, as a supposed ‘last resort.’
This effectively provided cover for outdated ‘balanced’ training practices, an approach that we now clearly understand is not supported by scientific evidence. IAABC, a prominent global certifying body for behavior consultants, has now recognized this flaw and moved beyond LIMA.
Scientific evidence clearly shows aversive methods, even as a "last resort", don’t address underlying behavior causes; for example, shocking a dog who displays aggression doesn’t change their emotional response, it simply suppresses their communication.
This loophole permitted methods based in pain, fear, and intimidation, methods clearly shown by behavior science to be ineffective at addressing underlying causes of behavior and ethically indefensible.
To be clear, LIMA is not a framework endorsed by credible behavior science. In 2025, it is pseudoscientific by definition because it incorporates unsupported, aversive techniques under certain conditions. The term has become deeply problematic in professional dog training.
True scientific professionals, behavior analysts, and animal welfare experts consistently affirm that methods using aversive tools or techniques are unnecessary, ineffective long-term, and detrimental to animal welfare.
By adopting an explicitly ethical framework, IAABC has joined organizations like the Pet Professional Guild (PPG) in setting a clearer, science-based standard.
Today, only a small number of certifying organizations still explicitly allow aversive training methods or cling to the ambiguous and outdated LIMA standard.
Quick update on major certifying bodies stance on aversives:
The Pet Professional Guild (PPG) remains committed to force-free, modern methods. https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/.../position.../
International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) now explicitly rejects intentional aversive methods under their new ethical framework. https://journal.iaabcfoundation.org/iaabc-free/
Association for Professional Dog Training International (APDTI) retains the term LIMA (“Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive”), and even explicitly states that aversive methods are not justified "in lieu of other effective positive reinforcement interventions and strategies." However, their guidelines do not categorically prohibit aversive methods, leaving open the possibility of their use when trainers determine other interventions are “ineffective”. This lack of absolute clarity can lead to confusion and indicates APDTI would benefit from adopting explicitly force-free terminology. https://apdt.com/membercertificant-announcement/...
Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, Inc. (CCPDT) still permits aversive methods as a “last resort”. Their outdated position is clearly at odds with current behavioral science, leaving significant room for improvement if CCPDT aims to gain credibility as a leading certifying organization. https://www.ccpdt.org/abo.../standards-practice-code-ethics/
Zak George explains the problems with LIMA , Facebook March 2024
New Development: International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants Officially Closes the Door on Aversive Dog Training
Another domino has fallen in favor of modern, humane, and scientifically sound dog training methods.
We want to acknowledge the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) for officially moving beyond LIMA (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) as their guiding framework and explicitly rejecting the intentional use of positive punishment.
The issue with LIMA (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) is that while it was intended to prioritize minimally intrusive, positively reinforcing methods, it still allowed trainers to justify outdated, aversive techniques, like shock collars or prong collars, as a supposed ‘last resort.’
This effectively provided cover for outdated ‘balanced’ training practices, an approach that we now clearly understand is not supported by scientific evidence. IAABC, a prominent global certifying body for behavior consultants, has now recognized this flaw and moved beyond LIMA.
Scientific evidence clearly shows aversive methods, even as a "last resort", don’t address underlying behavior causes; for example, shocking a dog who displays aggression doesn’t change their emotional response, it simply suppresses their communication.
This loophole permitted methods based in pain, fear, and intimidation, methods clearly shown by behavior science to be ineffective at addressing underlying causes of behavior and ethically indefensible.
To be clear, LIMA is not a framework endorsed by credible behavior science. In 2025, it is pseudoscientific by definition because it incorporates unsupported, aversive techniques under certain conditions. The term has become deeply problematic in professional dog training.
True scientific professionals, behavior analysts, and animal welfare experts consistently affirm that methods using aversive tools or techniques are unnecessary, ineffective long-term, and detrimental to animal welfare.
By adopting an explicitly ethical framework, IAABC has joined organizations like the Pet Professional Guild (PPG) in setting a clearer, science-based standard.
Today, only a small number of certifying organizations still explicitly allow aversive training methods or cling to the ambiguous and outdated LIMA standard.
Quick update on major certifying bodies stance on aversives:
The Pet Professional Guild (PPG) remains committed to force-free, modern methods. https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/.../position.../
International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) now explicitly rejects intentional aversive methods under their new ethical framework. https://journal.iaabcfoundation.org/iaabc-free/
Association for Professional Dog Training International (APDTI) retains the term LIMA (“Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive”), and even explicitly states that aversive methods are not justified "in lieu of other effective positive reinforcement interventions and strategies." However, their guidelines do not categorically prohibit aversive methods, leaving open the possibility of their use when trainers determine other interventions are “ineffective”. This lack of absolute clarity can lead to confusion and indicates APDTI would benefit from adopting explicitly force-free terminology. https://apdt.com/membercertificant-announcement/...
Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, Inc. (CCPDT) still permits aversive methods as a “last resort”. Their outdated position is clearly at odds with current behavioral science, leaving significant room for improvement if CCPDT aims to gain credibility as a leading certifying organization. https://www.ccpdt.org/abo.../standards-practice-code-ethics/
Last edited:
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
.
Last edited:
stangs
Well-Known Member
Ironically, we’re actually in agreement then. The priority is to make decisions based on what is right for the individual horse we’re working with and not what we feel is “right” based on our own ideologies and terminology.
Oh I know what Zak George thinks. And I wouldn’t say that that post ‘explains the problems with LIMA’ as much as it pushes his own very black-and-white view of animal training.
Equally, I’m not convinced that organisations are changing their opinions about LIMA solely because of science/ethics instead of because of the politics associated with being considered force-free.
Not to mention - “shocking a dog who displays aggression doesn’t change their emotional response, it simply suppresses their communication” is a very poor quality example of the “problems of LIMA”, as, particularly with reactive aggression, it would be very unusual for that to be considered acceptable practice.
I like a lot of what Denise Fenzi says on this topic here. (Long video and not all relevant though.) Just because the vast, vast majority of animals and situations don't require aversives doesn’t mean that we can forget about that 1%.
eahotson
Well-Known Member
Re stallions. I spoke to a woman once who bred Highlands.The stallion lived out with the mares and foals.
smolmaus
Well-Known Member
Very interesting info. It's incredible that people were able to, even to themselves, jump through enough mental gymnastics to justify "least aversive" and shock collars!!!! in the same sentence
What training methods work for humans that take 100 miles when given an inch?
teapot
Well-Known Member
Dujardin free to compete after whipping ban https://www.bbc.com/sport/equestrian/articles/c3w4g666jl1o
Quite the headline from the Beeb
Quite the headline from the Beeb