Horse Behaviour - The Horse Behavourists Way

R

Roggybabe

New User
Joined
17 July 2010
Messages
7
Visit site
Hi

I am a Newbie here and have been reading the Threads associated with Richard Maxwell and to be honest I am a bit surprised at shall we call it the "Shorted Sightedness" of some of the comments.

Max's, or in fact any behaviourists methods aren't intended to be a cure all for any behavioural problems you might encounter they are Tools that you can all add into your Training Repetoire. What you need to remember is that the person who controls a Horses movement/feet stands a better chance of controlling the horse. Groundwork is the ideal way of initiating this control and when it is found to be successful should be used on a regular basis.

If a bad loader begins to act-up then reintroduce your Groundwork exercises to effect a decent level of control.

Nobody can elliminate habitual behaviour in half a day but they can give you the tools so that you can start to get rid of them yourself. You wouldn't expect to visit a Dancing Instructor and come away able to perform a full repetoire of dances, perfectly in half a day. Why therefore, do you expect someone like Max or any other Trainer to perform miracles on your horses.

Rog
 
I spent two days on a course with Richard Maxwell earlier this year and found his methods made a huge difference. To see such a change and such calmness in my youngster over such a short span of time has encouraged me to continue with this way of working, he taught me the tools to keep using with my pony and although progress has been considerably slower at home than it was when I was on the course, I'm not an expert like he is, so I can't expect results at the same pace, but they are happening and I will continue to use his methods as they really do work and are in all essence very simple once you start getting your head around them.

I would completely recommend him and his methods.
 
The "Control the feet" thing is very much NH and he also learnt from Monty...I believe he used to be one of Montys first demo riders, but I might have that wrong. Whatever he is, he is not a behaviouist.Qualified Behaviourists tend to know that the release of pressure is not a reward. Does Max still say that it does?
 
Flooding a kill or cure approach makes a good show, the horse has to fight through and submit which makes a much more spectacular demo. Special halters can help cause this making the 'expert' look great. All good for the ego but not to get a genuine result for the horse. :rolleyes:

Flooding takes no skill or talent so any one can have a go and call yourself an expert. :eek:

Did Max not learn with Monty.:confused:
 
I'm not a fan of flooding methods ( as used by many of these trainers including Max) and I'm not a fan of very thin rope halters of the variety that Max uses because they hurt....which incidently, is how and why these methods "work".
 
What's the difference between an NH practitioner and a behaviourist?

One definition of NH that was given elsewhere is:

"Natural horsemanship (NH) simply means that we know and understand the horse's instinctive and herd behaviors and that we use that information to develop a willing partnership and communicate with the horse and in a way that he understands." ~ Julie Goodnight

It seems to me there must be a fair amount of overlap, with NH people having at least a feel for "learning theory" (even if they don't know the formal theory, a lot of which is commonsense anyway), and behaviorists understanding and using horses' instinctive and herd behaviours. So are there other defining characteristics of the two groups or does it just come down to the label they give themselves?
 
Possibly that the NH view of herd behaviour is incorrect? Does dominance equal leadership? Most Equine Ethologists disagree and have done for years. I would think that someone who has studied behavioural science, would have a grasp of correct ethology too, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I would think that it is very difficult to correctly interpret behaviour, if one doesn't know about Ethology?
 
leogeorge said:
Possibly that the NH view of herd behaviour is incorrect? Does dominance equal leadership? Most Equine Ethologists disagree and have done for years. I would think that someone who has studied behavioural science, would have a grasp of correct ethology too, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I would think that it is very difficult to correctly interpret behaviour, if one doesn't know about Ethology?
Click to expand...
Hmm, I think you may have a point there! ;) I suppose that mirrors the divide in the dog training world - the Ian Dunbars compared to the Cesar Millans.
 
Yes Ceasar Millan does adopt a similar, wrong view of dominance and bases his rather aggressive methods on this. They say "relaxation", behaviourists say " learned helplessness".

Apologies....Max doesn't cost £300.00 per hour. That is the minimum cost of a "consultation".
 
"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!!
 
A well timed release of pressure is information for the horse and they most certainly learn this way. Well timed would be as the horse gives the correct response, the pressure ( something the horse is wanting to avoid) is taken away. This increases the chances of the horse repeating the correct behaviour. A reward is something of value that is added after the correct response, and in conjunction with an event marker, also increases the chances of the horse repeating the correct response. The difference between the two are that with pressure/release, the horse is working to avoid something, whereas with a reward, they are working to gain something of value to them.

So when trainers say that the release of pressure is a reward, it does give the impression that the horse is learning in a wonderfully rewarding, happy clappy, non forceful way, when in fact all the horse is learning is how to avoid the pressure that the trainer has applied.

Most training is based on pressure/release, be it traditional or NH, but what really does get my goat, is the false impression that NH trainers give their clients when they talk of rewarding a horse with the release of pressure.
 
Rmember horses naturally communicate amongst each other by pressure and release. Ears back if horse responds ears forward, if horse does not respond increased pressure of e.g leg threatens to kick
It is indeed the fundimental basis of all training however certain trainers will exhert a lot more pressure so it is more forceful than politely insisting as seen in richard maxwells training methods.

A release of pressure is a reward in my books it all depends on your individual definition of reward, so I disagree with you leogeorge imo it is not a false impression.

Whether rm is a behaviourist or trainer all I can say is from what I have seen he is a true horseman and seems to get the horses working with him to please him, and not due to fear unfortunaly not what I could say about all nh training methods but that is another thread!
 
Lannerch, Firstly, we are not horses. Also, Richard Maxwells halters are like cheesewire. They hurt! And yes, just as much as a chiffony for example. The pain is just applyed to a different, but just as sensitive, area of the horses head.

It maybe a reward in your book, but it isn't in your horses.

RM gets horses working to release the pressure he applys via his cheeswire halters, not "for him". If he is a true horseman and gets horses working for him, why can't he do it in a bog standard headcollar?

Perhaps you can explain to me what is going on when RM turns up to see a non loader and within one session, not only has the horse loading, but also has the owner loading the horse too?
 
I don't rate any off this if I'm honest. They make a song and dance about their methods when in practice common sence works best.
Iv worked with ( state with) in normal head collars and doing things my way and all have come right as with a lot off peoples horses no doubt. I used no known nh methods just plain common sence without the hipe behind it. If a horse is in the CORRECT hands they will come right. Simple.
 
My personal impression of many of the people who peddle their own version of horsemanship is that 'qualifications' in any appropriate field of study are nowhere in their CVs. The terms used are horrifically muddled and many of the people who spout their own versions of horse training techiniques have little understanding of the terms they are using.

I am not a behaviourist, NH practitioner or anything else, just interested in reading about the theory behind training practices. As far as I understand it these are the distinctions in instrumental conditioning:

Increase re-inforcement:
a. presentation of reward, e.g. give treat after behaviour. This is POSITIVE RE-INFORCEMENT
b. withdrawal or omission of aversive, e.g. release pressure halter when behaviour occurs. This is NEGATIVE RE-INFORCEMENT.

Decrease punishment:
a. presentation of aversive, e.g. smack with whip when behaviour does not take place. This is POSITIVE PUNISHMENT
b. withdrawal or omission of reward, e.g. loss of treat when behaviour does not take place. This is NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT.

The technical definition of reinforcement is whatever increases the relative probability or frequency of the behaviour, whereas the techinical definition of punishment is whatever decreases the relative probability or frequency of the behaviour it follows. In this technical sense, neither 'reward' nor 'punishment' are moral concepts. It's not the case that one is bad and the other good, they merely denote what is likely to happen to the frequency of the behaviour.

Which of these techniques you think you should be using depends on your views on their effects. For example, clicker training uses positive re-inforcement and negative punishment and terms those "kind, positive techniques", which of course is totally misleading given the above technical terms, but makes sense if you decide that you want to train without using techniques which are aversive to the subject, i.e. negative re-inforcement and positive punishment.

There is a fantastic three volume book by Steven R. Lindsey, the "Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training", which goes through psychology and ethology 101 for the educated amateur with all the references to anything else one might ever want to read. II've found it really helpful and interesting.
 
My horse has one of those halters.

No cheese wire in!

I can get him to do everything in a normal halter which is why he no longer wears his cheesewire halter. Maybe you should report me to the rspca!

He is a very sensitive individual and if you wacked him with a whip he would go to peaces, and flatly refulse to do what ever you were asking. With the halter though he argues against himself, he has never gone to peaces and always performed very quickly what has been requested.

IMo Evidence speaks louder than words.
And on what I have seen and read rm is a true horseman!
He also looks on me as his leader, has manners to burn and relys on me in a stressful situation not bad for one domineered so badly!

Richard Maxwell is a true horseman!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top