Horse Behaviour - The Horse Behavourists Way

Maybe you should report me to the rspca!

That would be a little OTT don't you think?

Could you have trained all that you can now do in a normal headcollar, in a normal headcollar? If no, why? If yes, then why do you need to use a pressure halter?

It's great you think that RM is a true horseman, and in some ways I'm sure he is, but they way he deals with non loaders for example, makes me think otherwise. He relys on his pressure halter for this sort of work, and states on his website that he will have the horse loading in one visit, and in my opinion, a true horseman wouldn't do that.
 
Lannerch I am glad this worked well for you.:)

But pressure halters are a kill or cure approach to Horsemanship and have been over sold by Max, Kelly and Monty. What are the odds and should we gamble with our horses in this way.:confused:
 
yes I could however it would have taken a lot longer so I used the pressure halter so I could e.g load my horse in 2 minuintes not one hour. So I am guilty in that.
You can do without in a nice manner it by everytime the horse will not travel forward making it go four steps back, it soon gets sick of going back however it does take time, whilst the pressure halter got him to load in a few minuites with no visable stress and a happy but slightly concerned horse. (slightly concerned of the nasty trailer ) and then we would go out of said trailer and repeat process til no longer concerned.

As said I never need the pressure halter now however it is there if I ever find the circumstance where I do.

My first horse I made the mistake of forcing it in, it would take me half an hour to get him in, he would remember the lesson if I travelled him regularly but soon forgot if he went no where, and we were always back to square one as he never lost his fear.

I think reported me to the rspca is as over the top as calliing the halter a chicken wire halter as yes it does exhert pressure on certain points that I agree must irritate the horse but no more than that. Hence I made that I agree ott statement ie like for like.

I do not advocate purely and soley nh methods ( never parelli ) however I like to take the good bits out of all training methods and use them to mine and my horses advantage. And working with the horse is always more effective long term than pure force.
Its all common sense really.
 
I think one point here is that you may have had three choices with your horse not two:

1. force him in trailer
2. use pressure halter, which is an aversive method of training because the horse experiences an unpleasant effect until it performs the behaviour
3. use a reward based method, where the horse is rewarded for doing the right behaviour and ignored for everything else.

Conceptually neither aversive or reward based methods of training are either the definition of or the sole domain of NH.
 
Booboos said:
I think one point here is that you may have had three choices with your horse not two:

1. force him in trailer
2. use pressure halter, which is an aversive method of training because the horse experiences an unpleasant effect until it performs the behaviour
3. use a reward based method, where the horse is rewarded for doing the right behaviour and ignored for everything else.
Click to expand...
Gosh, that's a bit limiting isn't it? What happened to negative reinforcement based methods? Here I'm assuming on this thread that obviously many think pressure halters are only able to be used as punishers in fact lets put all tack in that category while were're at it then. What happened to habituation and to a mix of these concepts depending on the horse and handler?? What happenned to someone using sensitive negative reinforcement methods over a period of time??

Not having a go at you booboo I just get so frustrated when every aproach that doesn't fit in with SOME (and it is some NOT all) behaviourists views is considered forceful or not a 'good' way to train horses.
The 'science' of learning theory incorporates many scientists work not just one +R model and if we are going to chuck -R out of the window unless used by certian people who assume they are the only ones that can use it 'corretly' we're going to end up in a bloomin mess imo!
 
the third choice for a horse alarmed about a scary trailer does indeed take an awful long time as I did say in my post. And the end result of the halter method is indeed the same, a happy very easy to load no longer alarmed horse.

(The downside off course to the pressure halter being used is although I have achieved the result a lot quicker my horse does not now have any ears could that be due to the cheesewire effect? )

I agree with amadap and would go so far as to say that a bit in a horses mouth is also an aversive method of training as the unplessant effect is caused by pressure on the bars of the mouth which the horse learns can be relieved by stopping or dropping its head into the contact.

And how many of us here use bits on our horses?

Cruel me I again am one :)
 
Last edited:
amandap said:
Gosh, that's a bit limiting isn't it? What happened to negative reinforcement based methods? Here I'm assuming on this thread that obviously many think pressure halters are only able to be used as punishers in fact lets put all tack in that category while were're at it then. What happened to habituation and to a mix of these concepts depending on the horse and handler?? What happenned to someone using sensitive negative reinforcement methods over a period of time??
Click to expand...
Quite! There is a broad spectrum of possible approaches to trailer loading. Another one not mentioned is "self loading" - give the horse free-access to a trailer and let him discover for himself he has nothing to fear from it, so that it becomes trivially easy when it's time to do it for real. (Yes, that's habituation but with the horse doing all the work.) Note: I am not saying this is a practical method for most people, but I have seen that it works.

One method that I would like to see demonstrated, because it would inform the debate about dominance and leadership, is for a person to establish very definitely that they are the horse's leader and then for them either to walk into the trailer and the horse will follow due to the established relationship, or for them to point the horse at the trailer and "tell" it to go on with leaderly body language - no ropes or prior trailer-specific training. In theory (NH theory at least), it should be easy to do as we're always told how important it is to "establish leadership". In practice, I think most of the time it won't work because horses have more sense and can think for themselves, even after they've been round-penned (or whatever) into submission (or whatever).

On the other hand, I think it's fairly obvious that a horse is more likely to follow the lead of a trusted person without baulking. Finally, and probably most importantly, a horse that has learned to lead well (i.e. respond reliably to the signals) will on the whole be much easier to load. I believe that 90% of loading is leading.

This applies to loading into a horsebox too, of course.
 
RM's halter doesn't appear to be any thinner than those of Parelli et all, yet these are the halters used by so many equine behaviourists! If they are so bad .......

What is wrong with the short-term usage of these halters given that there will be posters to this thread who readily use a flash noseband on their horse. Yet such nosebands are a cover-up fix for a problem that needs resolving not masking. And bear in mind that these halters have primarily come into usage because the large numbers of horses out there which have been badly trained, misunderstood or handled by those who do not have enough experience and a way to resolve these problems was needed. I agree wholeheartedly that all ground work should be able to be carried out in a conventional headollar.

Pressure and release is part of the language equus so what is wrong with us using such technique in our training? After all, we do actually use P & R in our everyday dealings with our horses or do we all ride with a few centimetres of air between our bodies and that of our horses!! Legs on is a pressure, legs off is a release; so we apply an aid to ask the horse to do something and when he complies we release the aid. When a young horse is learning to move over in the stable do we not use our hand on his body to help him understand what we are asking of him? Oh dear, we are applying pressure, that is wrong!

Some people do not believe in training animals with food. And indeed, this is only working on the animal's orientation to food. He is not doing as you ask because he really wants to, he is doing so because if he does he will get something tasty to eat. A horse that comes when he is called in the field, usually gets a reward for doing so, that is why he comes in the first place.

Riding is all about P & R and there is no getting away from that fact. And whilst I would support the questioning of the training methods of some well-known persons, I don't think any of us here would be quick to criticise Laura and Dr. B; they are highly respected for the regard they show to their horses throughout their training and competition. And Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling - what a guy but he carries a whip most times when working from the ground and will ride with a double bridle.

Perhaps it is the word "presssure" which needs to be modernised as it conjures up the wrong images of horses being placed under duress, etc. when so often this is just not the case.

I will stop rambling now!
 
amandap said:
Gosh, that's a bit limiting isn't it? What happened to negative reinforcement based methods? Here I'm assuming on this thread that obviously many think pressure halters are only able to be used as punishers in fact lets put all tack in that category while were're at it then. What happened to habituation and to a mix of these concepts depending on the horse and handler?? What happenned to someone using sensitive negative reinforcement methods over a period of time??

Not having a go at you booboo I just get so frustrated when every aproach that doesn't fit in with SOME (and it is some NOT all) behaviourists views is considered forceful or not a 'good' way to train horses.
The 'science' of learning theory incorporates many scientists work not just one +R model and if we are going to chuck -R out of the window unless used by certian people who assume they are the only ones that can use it 'corretly' we're going to end up in a bloomin mess imo!
Click to expand...

I am not too sure what your point is. I didn't suggest any of these techniques are better than others, merely pointed out to the OP that her choice was not limited to between 1 and 2.

Also if you read my earlier post on this thread I did reference R+, R-, P+ and P-, which are, to my understanding, the main distinctions (duration of the technique is not part of the formal distinction, all four can be applied singly, repetitively or over time. "Habituation" is not a separate techinique but an underlying principle about the nature of stimulus/response repetition). If you re-read my second post I listed three options and mentioned the fourth one in the sentence below, so pretty comprehensive.

I also made no claims about any of these techiniques being correct or about it being impossible or undesirable to combine them.

My main concern with this area of discussion is the lack of precision and thoughtful consideration of the ideas.
 
Toby773 said:
Some people do not believe in training animals with food. And indeed, this is only working on the animal's orientation to food. He is not doing as you ask because he really wants to, he is doing so because if he does he will get something tasty to eat. A horse that comes when he is called in the field, usually gets a reward for doing so, that is why he comes in the first place.
Click to expand...
Do you think that when a horse is trained to do something with pressure and release that he really wants to (at least, any more or less than he wants to when trained with food)? I don't believe so myself. Still, horses may come to find us (or what we stand for, or are associated with) as positive motivators for reasons other than food - a sense of security, companionship perhaps, that we make them more comfortable, that we are fun to be with, that we pay attention and are responsive to them, etc.

That said, please don't get the impression I am against the use of pressure and release. It is pretty fundamental as you say (though I wouldn't couch it in terms of being "the language of Equus" per se, as horses communicate in ways other than putting pressure on each other and releasing it). However, pressure is on a long spectrum, from intolerably intense and unrelenting to so slight and subtle that only the horse is aware that it has occurred. It is my firm belief that one of the principles of good horsemanship is to aim to achieve communication through lighter and lighter pressure - ideally, invisible levels. A corollary of this is that the mark of a good horseperson is that he or she rarely needs to use large amounts of pressure. (We can debate what constitutes "large".) In my view, the really good horseman always gives the impression of quiet confidence and everything he/she does is understated. They are generally not showy or loud! My opinion, anyway...

I will stop rambling now!
Click to expand...
Please don't - this is very interesting. :)
 
Horses are honourable and very highly social they know how to work together and with us. It is up to us to learn how to work with them.

Pressure or release, eye's on eyes off, are easy to understand but, a look can give much information we just need to give the horses the credit they deserve and refine our approach to them.

Pressure halters and clickers are human gadgets which do not help build trusting relationships with horses. They may be great for dogs.
 
fburton said:
One method that I would like to see demonstrated, because it would inform the debate about dominance and leadership, is for a person to establish very definitely that they are the horse's leader and then for them either to walk into the trailer and the horse will follow due to the established relationship, or for them to point the horse at the trailer and "tell" it to go on with leaderly body language - no ropes or prior trailer-specific training. In theory (NH theory at least), it should be easy to do as we're always told how important it is to "establish leadership". In practice, I think most of the time it won't work because horses have more sense and can think for themselves, even after they've been round-penned (or whatever) into submission (or whatever).
Click to expand...
Leaders imo don't just expect followers or want a horse that follows blindly (trainers might though), well not in my idea of leadership. I also think you are making huge assumptions about 'round penning here btw. Are you saying all round penning always creates a shut down robot? I don't think any of my horses would go into a trailer as you describe unless I 'trained' them to do that.
To me leadership is all about training and learning not mindless following.
fburton said:
On the other hand, I think it's fairly obvious that a horse is more likely to follow the lead of a trusted person without baulking. Finally, and probably most importantly, a horse that has learned to lead well (i.e. respond reliably to the signals) will on the whole be much easier to load. I believe that 90% of loading is leading.
Click to expand...
Mmmm, it could be argued a 'Trusted' person could be one that can be trusted to always give you a good hiding as well as always keep you safe surely? It's very difficult imo to pick these things apart because of everyones personal understanding of words.
Neither would I expect anyone/horse who 'trusted' me to follow me blindly either. NH states the loading is a leading issue as you say 90% ish of the time so we have to teach the horse to lead/load without creating a robotic response either through fear of punishment, shut down or brainwashed so the horse no longer thinks for itself imo.
There are training methods some behaviourists use eg. clicker training but like round penning used excessively/badly and without thought for the horse can imo create a mindless, submissive horse that does whatever you want without 'thought' in my eyes.
 
Toby773 said:
"Qualified Behaviourists tend to know that the release of pressure is not a reward"

In my ignorance I thought that "release of pressure" whether it be from the leg, the hand, etc. was the horse's reward for the correct response to what is being asked of him e.g. legs on for more forward movement and as soon as the horse responds, the rider takes the legs off.

Can someone please enlighten me as I am now confused!!
Click to expand...

They way i see it, the pressure is a negative reinforcement - the release of pressure is just that - the release of pressure. A reward is a positive outcome to a response which could be a treat, a pat, praise or whatever.
 
I said I wouldn't Post again but there has been so many sensible comments made I can't resist it.

When you consider the Dam and her Foal, how does the Dam control her little one? She uses visual pressure to move the Foals feet around and so the Foal realises that her Mum is charge.

With others she uses the same visual pressure initially and then follows up with tactile pressure usually a bite on the neck to move the other one out of her space. In this way she establishes the role of herd leader and from then on all of the herd members show her respect not fear. They will happily graze near the dominant mare but respect her space.

What is wrong with using these methods when training a horse? The Horse already understands the language of "Pressure and Release" however it doesn't understand the whip or riding crop so why use it.

I don't understand why traditionalists are so against NH anyone who is any good at their job should realise that there is no right and no wrong way of doing things; some methods are just better than others in certain circumstances.
 
Laura1812 said:
They way i see it, the pressure is a negative reinforcement - the release of pressure is just that - the release of pressure. A reward is a positive outcome to a response which could be a treat, a pat, praise or whatever.
Click to expand...

In learning theory speak it's negative reinforcement.
A reward is something the horse values that is added as a consequence of the correct behaviour. Eg. a scratch or treat.

Negative reinforcemnt is applying something aversive to get a response and then removing it when the response happens. Apply leg aid then remove when horse responds. Adding a treat would be positive reinforcement ie. a 'reward'.
This is my simple understanding and I know calling a release of pressure a 'reward' drives some behaviourists insane!
Not being a scientist or theorist I see calling it a reward as a way of impressing that the 'release' at the correct time is where the learning takes place imo. I suppose calling it a 'yes that's what I want' might be more acceptable to some?
For me the really important issue is timing ie. noticing even the smallest response to the pressure and releasing and building from there. Don't look for the complete response straight away (if you get it great) and wait with pressure on till you get it release at the smallest 'try' in the right direction and build slowly is my understanding of using negative reinforcement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What really irks me is when people start harping on about NH and you behaving like a horse.

My horse KNOWS im NOT a horse - i'm a human - I never will be a horse, EVER!

Or maybe my horse is just super-duper intelligent?
 
Laura1812 said:
What really irks me is when people start harping on about NH and you behaving like a horse.

My horse KNOWS im NOT a horse - i'm a human - I never will be a horse, EVER!

Or maybe my horse is just super-duper intelligent?
Click to expand...
Eh! My understanding isn't this and my horses certainly know I'm not a horse that's insulting in the extreme to horses imo.
My take on most 'NH' that I've looked into is that using body language that a horse understands is a helpful way to communicate and also imo try and meet the horse on HIS terms rather than purely imposing some random training tool without any attempt to behave or communicate in their language. Prime example here imo is where you position your body when longlining a horse, if you get 'in front' of him he may well slow down and stop etc.

Have you ever seen any person living in a field eating grass or living in a stable eating hay?? lol This is where stuff gets blurred and misrepresented, horses may kick and bite each other but would I consider doing that? LOL NO. Some people use this as an excuse to be violent towards their horses ie. hitting or chucking stuff at them but I think this is a total misrepresentation of most what is considered as NH.
Humans who are aggressive towards their horses come from all walks of life it's not by any means an NH thing imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roggybabe said:
I don't understand why traditionalists are so against NH .
Click to expand...

I don't find that traditionalists are against NH. I think they don't necessarily like having novice horsepersons who are on a $50 a day Parelli habit trying to ram their beliefs down their throats.

I think if some of those New Age NH bods were to listen instead of talk, now and then, they may find there is a lot of common ground lying between the fruitful fields of NH and traditional horsemanship.
 
AengusOg said:
I think if some of those New Age NH bods were to listen instead of talk, now and then, they may find there is a lot of common ground lying between the fruitful fields of NH and traditional horsemanship.
Click to expand...
I think this is so true and imo 'common ground' is where should start to learn.
 
I would say Max is one of the most conventional NH/Equine Behaviourists out there. You only have to look at his background to see that.
He's also had the sense to train with many different people and learn all sorts of approaches so thankfully he has many options to solve problems unlike the one cure fits all approach some others have.
He's certainly very open minded about new ideas etc still as well as having a vast knowledge of the things he's already learnt.
Oh and he's openly against flooding/sacking out, well he was when I asked him about it a coupe of months ago anyway.
So pretty good all round , which is why I like his methods.
He also not prone to trying to flog you stuff like some of his competitors and as for cheeswire halters, erm no they really aren't but they are pressure halters hence how they work.
He also has that rare gift of being a natural around horses , they usually like him instantly even those that hate men.
I believe clicker training is the only method that acutally genuinely provides a reward for correct behaviour. It certainly has it's uses.
I see no problem in combining everything as needed to get your horse trained as a solid citizen.

Oh and for certain there are people out there who can ride/school their horses through all problems in just a snaffle. Just not all of us can do that I'm afraid and there aren't the facilities for us to all learn to be able to do that.

But then I also believe that if you have the pleasure of riding a well trained/schooled horse, however it was trained you will find the same things. Well trained/schooled horses are a delight to ride and totally throw out the door all the questions of how much weight should I have in my hands, how much should me legs be on etc, its wonderful.
 
Last edited:
Fburton has pretty much said what I would say, so just a couple of things

Amandap.....I don't think that many people "obviously" think that pressure halters are only used as punishers at all. I certainly don't. It can go into the realms of positve punishment though if used to stop a behaviour, such as moving away, and lets face it, certainly with loading, horses get stopped from turning/ going away from the trailer a lot, so for work like that, there is a lot of punishment going on.

Toby773....Which behaviourists ( properly qualified ones that is) use pressure halters/ thin rope halters to teach behaviours?

Roggybabe....you seem to assume that anyone who is not a fan of NH, must be someone who whips horses instead?

Alibear.....You say that Max has recently stated that he doesn't like flooding methods. If Max goes out to see a horse that is a problem loader, and has it loading in one session, which he says he will do on his website, he will be using flooding. He either doesn't understand what flooding is ( which he would if he was a behaviourist) or he says one thing and does another....another common trait of NH gurus.

For me, it isn't about whether someone chooses to use this sort of equipment or not, it is about understanding how they work and what the horse is learning, which is very rarely, if ever, anything to do with the handler being a great leader and speaking the language of equus. If that was what was happening, one wouldn't need the "special" equipment.
 
I likened it to "cheeswire" not chickenwire. :)

What I have said is that it most certainly can be a physical punisher, a long with lots of other things, if used to stop a behaviour, such as moving away from a trailer for example. Don't get me wrong, physical punishers are everywhere in horse training and certainly not limited to these types of halters. People use punishment all the time, whether it is intentional or not. What annoys me is that the proffessional trainers that use them all the time, never tell us that we are using punishment left right and centre, but tell us that we are becoming " better leaders" and other such nonsense. They work (for a lot of horses, although not all), and they work quickly. The reason they work quicker, is that they hurt more than your normal headcollar. All I ask is that these trainers both understand themselves and explain to their clients/students, exactly how what they are doing works and stop telling everyone that their horses see them as great leaders. The horse just learns to avoid the pressure and keep a "smile in the line" ( God I hate that phrase!) at all times.
 
cheesewire chicken wire is there a difference?

I personally prefer pressure and release methods as long as the pressure is not too greatly applied ( which with a pressure halter it need not be if you have done your ground work properly and the horse learns to step forward to relieve the pressure not as lean into it ) than so training methods e.g clicker training where bribary is used, but that is my personal opinion.
Indeed imo the same can be applied to children but that is a differend thread and possibly a different forum :)

What really gets my goat is the superior attitude some people have over their methods to others, even talking down to those they consider lessor when really common sense should prevail and a lot of these methods work, there is not one way of doing things and unless it is particularly cruel if the end result is a balanced well trained kalm horse then who are we to criticize!
 
Last edited:
Why all this hatred of pressure halters?

Both Daisy and Lil came to me from owners that were intimidated by them and they had learned that they could throw their weight around. Daisy was a real shocker for dragging people to the point where she was dangerous and I was told to have her shot. Lil was, and is still is to some extent, bargy and rude.

In that I don't have the luxury of keeping my horses at home I needed to make sure with both of them that I had a safe and secure way of leading them to and from the field without them getting loose and causing injury to themselves or other liveries.

A few months of firm and consistent handling and Lil is now a pleasure to be around because for the first time in her life she is very clear about where the boundaries lie.

I would have loved to have had both of my horses from foals and so to teach them proper ground manners using a normal headcollar but that wasn't the case. I don't regret using a pressure halter one bit if it helped train my horses to be polite and respectful.
 
Obviously I'm not suggesting that rope halters cut horses!! The likening is to do with the difference in the amount of the pressure exerted to that of something with a flatter, wider surface. Perhaps my humour is lost on some and for that I apologise. Forget I said it and lets just talk about small surface area as opposed to a larger surface area and the difference, pound for pound, in the actual pressure exerted.

For what it's worth, clicker training is not bribary. Bribery and food reward are two different things and the difference lies in the timing of the presentation of the food, not to mention the marking of precise behaviour that you don't get with bribery.

Sorry Lannerch if you think that I feel superior in some way. I don't think that at all! As I have said, my problem is that these trainers portray their work as something that it is not....and also advertise themselves as behaviourists when they don't know their flooding from their elbows! It's up to you who you learn from and how you train your horse....I don't care, but I do care that professional NH trainers sell a message that I, and many others, believe to be false. Yes it works in a lot of cases, it's just how it works and that it isn't how they say it does, in my opinion. I have a right to my opinion, just as others have theirs.

Absolute diva...I am glad you have found a way of working with your two horses that were "bargy and rude" and that they are both a pleasure for you to be around.

Maybe, next time someone is talking to Max, you could ask him to show you proof of his behavioural science degree? If all he can come up with are his experience and relevant qualification from his work with the horse guards and a couple of meaningless certificates from Monty, then I'm not convinced he should be calling himself a behaviourist.
 
I have met (Dr) Equine Behaviourists that don't know how to put a headcollar on a horse, but have the qualifications it takes to sign a death warrant for a horse they are scared of. Science can not yet explain horse emotion, as they are only just waking up to horse emotion existing.
 
Exactly!
experiance imo is far more important than qualifications particualarly when training and horses are concerned.

This applies to rider trainers on the ground too, many of the best instructors are the most poorly qualified in paper.

Qualifilations are learnt from scinarios on paper that do not account for individuals and rely on generalisations

Clicker training imo is a bribary training method, correct me if I am wrong but does not
the horse or animal first get introduced to the clicker by receiving a reward straight after so it learns to associate the click with that reward, and hence is perssuaded to do something to hear that click that it associates with that reward which it hopes it will receive.
Sounds like bribary to me

Leogeorge when you likened my pressure halter to cheese wire how were you not suggesting that the halter does not cut horses it certainly did not sound and was not said in a humourous way so sorry if I missed it!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top