Horse Behaviour - The Horse Behavourists Way

Half off the subject but when I was applying for foundation degrees there is one which was something along the lines of equine science and natural horsemanship methods :S
is it just me thinking wtf?!
 
sugarmia said:
Half off the subject but when I was applying for foundation degrees there is one which was something along the lines of equine science and natural horsemanship methods :S
is it just me thinking wtf?!
Click to expand...

There you go:

http://www.reaseheath.ac.uk/Home/Equine/FDEquineScienceComplementaryTherapy/tabid/148/Default.aspx

finally someone combining a "rigorous scientific approach" with homeopathy, reiki and animal communication. :eek: What the unholy offspring of such a union might be is anyone's guess.

I want to kill myself now but I might hold back long enough to lodge a formal complaint with whoever it is that acredits this rubbish at Reaseheath.
 
Booboos said:
Great article
Click to expand...

But . . . but . . . she bills herself as a "behaviourist"!

;) :D

Sorry, couldn't resist. Just teasing and I'll likely go to hell for it so no worries, I'll get mine. :)

I agree - great basic article explaining the answer to one of the most asked questions about clicker training.

I do think expecting people to be able to explain their approach and methods, including how it relates to other approaches in the area, is perfectly valid, in horses as in all things. And anyone secure in their knowledge should welcome intelligent discourse. I also think people are well within their rights to follow whatever path they choose. :)
 
Last edited:
TarrSteps said:
But . . . but . . . she bills herself as a "behaviourist"!

;) :D

Sorry, couldn't resist. Just teasing and I'll likely go to hell for it so no worries, I'll get mine. :)

I do think expecting people to be able to explain their approach and methods, including how it relates to other approaches in the area, is perfectly valid, in horses as in all things. And anyone secure in their knowledge should welcome intelligent discourse. I also think people are well within their rights to follow whatever path they choose. :)
Click to expand...

I know you are teasing but it's worth pointing out that I have hardly supported any one type of training in this thread aside from this last comment. I do find clicker useful but, personally, I also think there is merit in other training techniques.

As for calling oneself a behaviourist, I don't want to get too personal about the poster, but this is a case in point. Here is someone who has training and qualifications (as displayed in the relevant pages of her website) in a recognised and well researched theory of training (one doesn't have to agree with operant conditioning, but one can't dispute that it has some merits on the face of it and some reasoning behind it and is situated within the academic debate over theories of learning), as well as practical experience in the field, who can elloquently explain what she does, why she does it and what you can expect from the approach.
 
The article says 'still think clicker training is bribary'

Yes I do!

Cannot see it as anything else as hard as I try, although I suppose as fburton I think you said it all depends on how you view the meaning of the work bribary.
Sorry
 
Surely at the end of the day there is only one correct method of StartingTraining Horses?

If at the end of the day if you have produced an obedient, safe, submissive, flexible, happy and fit horse then you have discovered that Holy Gail of horse training.

What label you choose to apply to that method is totally irrelevant. Surely what is important is reaching your goal. Many of us can claim to make your trip/journey simpler and more enjoyable but only the individual can choose to make the trip in the first place and the map they use is up to them. It is up the rest of us who will be the judge as to whether they they took the right route.

No reliable Trainer will lay claim to their Method being the best/only training method. So, Conventional Methods or NH it doesn't matter to the horse it is us humans who need to give everything a Tag. As long as the horse understands what is expected of him is all that matters.
 
Roggybabe said:
Surely at the end of the day there is only one correct method of StartingTraining Horses?

If at the end of the day if you have produced an obedient, safe, submissive, flexible, happy and fit horse then you have discovered that Holy Gail of horse training.

What label you choose to apply to that method is totally irrelevant. Surely what is important is reaching your goal. Many of us can claim to make your trip/journey simpler and more enjoyable but only the individual can choose to make the trip in the first place and the map they use is up to them. It is up the rest of us who will be the judge as to whether they they took the right route.

No reliable Trainer will lay claim to their Method being the best/only training method. So, Conventional Methods or NH it doesn't matter to the horse it is us humans who need to give everything a Tag. As long as the horse understands what is expected of him is all that matters.
Click to expand...



What she said and halleluyah :)
 
Roggybabe said:
Surely at the end of the day there is only one correct method of StartingTraining Horses?
Click to expand...


Well some people do think that their way is the best way so I think it is important to be able to identify all the different options as a first step to comparing them. Personally I think a combination of training methods is probably the way to go, but some are incompatible with others so it is important to understand them individually.

So, out of interest, how many different behaviour theories are there? Off the top of my head, I have come up with:

- "lure and reward"
- operant conditioning, positive and aversive
- operant conditioning, positive only (I have this as separate, as some people reject all aversive techniques, I don't think there is anyone who rejects all positive techniques in favour of aversive only).
- herd dominance theories (I see "join-up" as one of these, and possibly the Parelli seven steps (although this one is so vacuous I dread adding it anywhere on the list!), but are there more?)
- dominance theories (I was thinking of the guy who throws horses to the ground as a gesture of submission, but should this be different from above or is it a herd dominance theory, not sure?)


P.S. should anyone be interested the Reaseheath course is accredited by the Harper Adams University College, so questions about its accreditation should be directed initially to the Principal of HAUC, then to QAA (I shall be busy writing! :) )
 
Booboos said:
So, out of interest, how many different behaviour theories are there?
Click to expand...
Broadly speaking, just the two... "learning theory" and "natural horsemanship" (but see below) - unless you count really outlandish ones e.g. that regard horses as humans who understand English and can therefore simply be told what to do.

Off the top of my head, I have come up with:

- "lure and reward"
- operant conditioning, positive and aversive
- operant conditioning, positive only (I have this as separate, as some people reject all aversive techniques, I don't think there is anyone who rejects all positive techniques in favour of aversive only).
Click to expand...
Aren't all of these just variations of approaches that are directly explained in terms of standard learning theory?

- herd dominance theories (I see "join-up" as one of these, and possibly the Parelli seven steps (although this one is so vacuous I dread adding it anywhere on the list!), but are there more?)
- dominance theories (I was thinking of the guy who throws horses to the ground as a gesture of submission, but should this be different from above or is it a herd dominance theory, not sure?)
Click to expand...
These rely on the idea that by emulating a horse's behaviour ourselves we can communicate to a horse "in a language he understands" something about our relationship to him, in terms of dominance and/or leadership, that causes him to change the way he behaves towards us. (Maybe the second is simply emulating near-death-by-predator in the expectation that the horse will just give up and do our bidding! :eek:)

Whether or not we can actually convince the horse that we are effectively another, but more dominant, horse -- and I personally question the desirability of that -- most, if not all, of the changes in behaviour that are seen when people seek to do the latter can be readily explained in terms of learning theory. (I would love to be shown clear counter-examples to this.)

I won't deny that our use of "body language" can have a greater biological salience i.e. is more attention-grabbing and relevant to a horse than some other actions, like e.g. wiggling a leadrope - which is essentially meaningless until a meaning is taught. However, in my opinion it's a huge step to go from that to saying that horses therefore view (and "respect") us as honorary horses.

In any case, I don't think that "natural horsemen" who embrace theories that are rooted in a particular view of how equine society works reject learning theory entirely. I don't see how that is possible, given how much of it really is common sense. It's just a matter of the degree to which people believe there is something else, something that learning theory can't explain by itself, and can't contribute to the relationship people have with their horses - and the language used to describe that "something else".

Finally, and in reply to Amandp's point, those of us who base our approach on learning theory (a.k.a. common sense, mainly) also appreciate developing relationships and increasing our knowledge of horses. And just because we are aware of the formal theory doesn't mean we don't also value immediacy, "feel" and ability to adapt "in the moment". I realize that the very term "learning theory" conjures up a picture of clinical, unfeeling teaching of stimulus-response à la Pavlov or Skinner - but I suspect that for most of us that couldn't be further from the actuality.
 
Oh, I see, that is an interesting way of putting it.

Yes, the first three are variations of operant conditioning, and I can see how this could be contrasted with the theories of herd behaviour which humans can mimic. I suppose it's similar to dog training where theories of pack dominance and leadership were very influential until recently when there has been an overall shift to operant conditioning.
 
Booboos said:
I suppose it's similar to dog training where theories of pack dominance and leadership were very influential until recently when there has been an overall shift to operant conditioning.
Click to expand...
A bit of a shift, yes, but Cesar Millan's "natural dogmanship" is still very popular!

(ETA: You might like to watch this. Ian Dunbar is quite entertaining! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOW0IKO_zfM)
 
Last edited:
Roggybabe said:
Surely at the end of the day there is only one correct method of StartingTraining Horses?

If at the end of the day if you have produced an obedient, safe, submissive, flexible, happy and fit horse then you have discovered that Holy Gail of horse training.
Click to expand...

There are many ways to start horses. Many of them result in conditioned suppression. That is most definitely not what I want for my horses.

I want horses to be with me because they want to be with me, I want my horses to run to the gate to meet me because the 'work' we do is fun, I want my horses to not want training to end.

I don't want them to be compliant, I want them to respond to cues because they have learnt amazing emotional control and they are doing what was asked of them because they think it is fun.

Last night I was trying to get some video of my horses and I playing with the mounting block lessons. As I was downloading the video i was chuckling almost as much as when I was playing with them. They were both at liberty, together in the field, no halters or leadropes in sight and they were both trying to get lined up to the upturned barrel i was standing on to get me on their backs.

One of them is a very green 7yr and the other is as far as being 'sat on' at 4 yrs old. The 4 yr old does not have nearly so much emotional control as the 7yr old and so he was happy to sneak in to place when the older one was trying to re-align himself (he's a perfectionist), the older one would then get miffed while the younger was trying to put himself underneath me.

For me there is only one way to back a horse and that is with clicker training. It produces a relationship between horse and rider that has it's foundations in mutual respect.

When I get on these horses backs I know I am treated like precious cargo. I have never had that with a traditionally trained horse. My experience with traditionally trained horses is that when the preverbial hits the fan they look after themselves. If my horses spook their focus shifts to me and if they feel the need to run they balance so that they take me with them. I've never felt anything like it....until I sat on clicker trained horses.

I wish everyone could experience that.

Amanda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top