Leadership and dominance shouldn’t be used to train horses

I think most reasonable people know that its a balance, like with most things in life. Sure there are those who think to dominate you must use fear and pain, but I doubt most people do that.

Both of mine look to me for reassurance. If I was as scared as them of the wheelie bin we would get no where. They respect that you will keep them safe, like in a herd, and feed off your feelings. They wouldn't load into that tiny box on wheels or stand whilst we burn metal onto their feet if they didn't think we would keep them safe. Likewise when I am nervous at a show, the horse feels that and gets nervous himself. Most of us know all of that. I think the study is over simplified, stating that "attempting to dominate horses often encourages and justifies the application of punishment and trigger fear and avoidance responses”. Plus I don't like the amount of "ands" they use :p
 
I expect any horse I have or am around to -

  • Not get in my personal space or barge me in any way (that includes rubbing their head on me)
  • Move out of my way when I ask, nicely
  • Never attempt to deliberately hurt me
  • Stand quietly when tied up

In return I -

  • Respect their personal space
  • Don't lose my rag with them, ever, unless presented with rude/dangerous behaviour that needs immediately correcting
  • Ride to the best of my ability for them
  • Give them every opportunity to 'be a horse', in terms of adequate turnout, company, and chill-out time

Horses don't need much. Just basic mutual respect and yes, leadership!
 
I went to a very interesting talk with Ben Hart called 'Leadership without Dominance'.
It was geared to make you think and question.
I came to the conclusion I don't need to be percieved by my pony as a 'leader', what I really need to be able to to is influence her behaviour in the few hours a day I am with her.
What good is a 'leader' if you aren't there 22 hours of the day?

I know that comes accross as fluffy bunny but I would really recommend you have a look at Ben Hart's website (Hart's Horsemanship) as it poses some interesting questions and really makes you question what you want / need from your human / horse interactions.
 
MotherOfChickens said:
I broadly agree but the problem imho is how these things (leadership) are defined. I think ISES are trying to put to sleep the alpha 'theory' and apply learning theory over somone's misunderstood theories on herd dynamics (yes MR and PP I am looking at you ;) ).
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The term 'leadership' is too undefined to make a judgement based on this statement.

The theories you mention would be laughable if they had not been responsible for the mental shutdown of so many horses. Learning theory and it's application is a different matter altogether... and a fascinating subject.

Broadly speaking I want my horses to trust me enough to follow my lead when it is necessary whilst still appreciating they are sentient beings and allowing them to think for themselves and to have an opinion. Ours are allowed to say 'I am not happy about that daffodil Mum, it might jump out and kill me' but instead of needing to dominate and force them past an issue we can have a debate about it as they trust us enough to be proved wrong in their initial assumption.
 
Ladyinred said:
Ours are allowed to say 'I am not happy about that daffodil Mum, it might jump out and kill me' but instead of needing to dominate and force them past an issue we can have a debate about it as they trust us enough to be proved wrong in their initial assumption.
Click to expand...

What do you class as a 'debate'? Seems an interesting way to look at things.
 
Haven't read the research, but the article is a bit too vague for me to actually understand what they're getting at.

If they mean doing things with a horse with no learning objective other than to assert your dominance over them, then yes, I agree that is largely pointless.

If they are just talking about the notion of the human being in charge of things......well, I await the day my horse wakes me up, tack at the ready, to ask if I fancy a jumping trip today.....
 
I don't agree with the article when it says that horses have no concept of dominance or leadership in general; they most certainly do. They know which people they can get away with things with, they can be consistently dominant with another horse even when they are not competing over resources. However, that said, I do agree that training horses should not be about dominance and submission; it's about respect and teamwork. It's about understanding, listening and learning on both sides.
 
little_critter said:
I went to a very interesting talk with Ben Hart called 'Leadership without Dominance'.
It was geared to make you think and question.
I came to the conclusion I don't need to be percieved by my pony as a 'leader', what I really need to be able to to is influence her behaviour in the few hours a day I am with her.
What good is a 'leader' if you aren't there 22 hours of the day?

I know that comes accross as fluffy bunny but I would really recommend you have a look at Ben Hart's website (Hart's Horsemanship) as it poses some interesting questions and really makes you question what you want / need from your human / horse interactions.
Click to expand...

I am a big fan of Ben Hart. I think his shaping plans are what very good horse people do anyway, but for the rest of us its useful to have it spelled out and I often fall back on them to think through a problem. Lots of horse owners would do well to break things down in this manner I think. And for those of you that dont know him-this is NOT NH.
 
Wish there was a like button....

SpringArising said:
I expect any horse I have or am around to -

  • Not get in my personal space or barge me in any way (that includes rubbing their head on me)
  • Move out of my way when I ask, nicely
  • Never attempt to deliberately hurt me
  • Stand quietly when tied up

In return I -

  • Respect their personal space
  • Don't lose my rag with them, ever, unless presented with rude/dangerous behaviour that needs immediately correcting
  • Ride to the best of my ability for them
  • Give them every opportunity to 'be a horse', in terms of adequate turnout, company, and chill-out time

Horses don't need much. Just basic mutual respect and yes, leadership!
Click to expand...
 
Cortez said:
Somebody has to be the boss. When it involves the horse, that'd be me, then.
Click to expand...

Goldenstar said:
That's how it works in GS world .
Click to expand...

PaddyMonty said:
A lot of words, very little meaning or substance. Put it another way- waffle!
Click to expand...

DabDab said:
Haha, so glad it wasn't just me
Click to expand...

I prefer to be the one in charge too :-)

To be fair though I have had lessons with Andrew and Manu McLean who brought this methodology to the UK, I believe. Only some casual lessons, but they were VERY effective.

I am saying my take on it, which will probably not be their take on it, but here goes... They were having me in charge of my horse, but at a much more 'micro' level. For instance, we did a lot of work on the floor so the horse knew to soften to the bit before I even mounted. He learned to relax and step back. before I even mounted. He learned to focus, stand still, move with me, park up, move over, all before I mounted.

Once mounted we did again a lot of situations where the horse learned to do as I wished, but starting at what I would call a micro level. We did walk/halt/walk many many times, until it was willing and with a relaxed manner and jaw. We did transitions within the pace. I learned not to nag the horse, he learned self motivation. With the understanding he became more searching to do the correct thing.

That was in the first lesson! After that we did steering, moved on to lateral work, changes, jumping, collection...but that was over a period of years, a couple of sessions a year.

So, it is something that many people do naturally if they are good horse people, but put in an understandable way for people to whom it does not come naturally.

No special whips, ropes or whatever!

I enjoyed my lessons and learned loads.

The article was just as nonsensical to me too though :-)
 
Last edited:
Cortez said:
Somebody has to be the boss. When it involves the horse, that'd be me, then.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, every problem horse I've ever dealt with was started by someone not giving the horse clear instructions of what was acceptable and what is not acceptable
 
Here is what I don't understand:

if horses have no concept of leadership, then why is it that in the wild when one particular horse decides it's time to head to the watering hole or move on to a different bit of grazing all the others follow? Is that not following a leader? Or at the very least 'Horse A has decided it's time for a drink and Horse A's decisions are generally sensible and don't lead to me coming to harm so I will follow'. (I know horses don't think in sentences, just trying to illustrate what might be happening!).

Also, when Horse A decides to make another horse move away from the watering hole with ears back etc, it does look to an onlooker as if Horse A is saying 'you are inferior to me, I will drink first and you will drink when I let you'. If that isn't what's happening then what is the purpose of Horse A moving the other horses around?
 
fburton said:
Here's a link to the original position statement which explains things more fully than the H&H summary:

http://equitationscience.com/equita...ship-and-dominance-concepts-in-horse-training

They aren't advocating not being in charge. Rather they caution against getting diverted or bogged down with the notion that horses consider us to be part of their social hierarchy.
Click to expand...

people wont read it though fburton, they are too busy reacting against something they haven't actually engaged with ;)
 
southerncomfort said:
Here is what I don't understand:

if horses have no concept of leadership, then why is it that in the wild when one particular horse decides it's time to head to the watering hole or move on to a different bit of grazing all the others follow? Is that not following a leader? Or at the very least 'Horse A has decided it's time for a drink and Horse A's decisions are generally sensible and don't lead to me coming to harm so I will follow'. (I know horses don't think in sentences, just trying to illustrate what might be happening!).

Also, when Horse A decides to make another horse move away from the watering hole with ears back etc, it does look to an onlooker as if Horse A is saying 'you are inferior to me, I will drink first and you will drink when I let you'. If that isn't what's happening then what is the purpose of Horse A moving the other horses around?
Click to expand...

hiearchy in a herd is not linear. but anyway, see the original article :)
 
southerncomfort said:
Here is what I don't understand:

if horses have no concept of leadership, then why is it that in the wild when one particular horse decides it's time to head to the watering hole or move on to a different bit of grazing all the others follow? Is that not following a leader? Or at the very least 'Horse A has decided it's time for a drink and Horse A's decisions are generally sensible and don't lead to me coming to harm so I will follow'. (I know horses don't think in sentences, just trying to illustrate what might be happening!).

Also, when Horse A decides to make another horse move away from the watering hole with ears back etc, it does look to an onlooker as if Horse A is saying 'you are inferior to me, I will drink first and you will drink when I let you'. If that isn't what's happening then what is the purpose of Horse A moving the other horses around?
Click to expand...
Does reading the position statement at the link I gave go any way to answering your questions?
 
Read the actual paper that fburton posted. It's much more nuanced and makes more sense than the H&H article, which is a pretty poor rendition.

The paper is disputing the idea that horses have a linear social hierarchy where A>B>C>D and as trainers/handlers, we must be seen as A. Instead, it's asserting that the relationship between horses is "bilateral," meaning the horse learns who can push him off the pile of hay, and who he can push off the pile of hay, while there is no evidence that the horse maps all relationships within the herd as a hierarchy. (it's not just horses -- behaviour science for many creatures is unraveling the idea of the "pecking order" and saying it's more anthropomorphism than science). He simply knows horse B will chase him off, but horse C will run away from him, and D is his buddy who will share the hay, while E might chase B but won't chase him, which means he can stay at the hay when E is around. In other words, each relationship is individual and overall, the herd is a network of relationships. And they can change depending on herd dynamics and resources, i.e. the horse who's the most aggressive at guarding the pile of hay might not be the same one standing by the gate chasing the others off because it wants in first. It depends on how valuable the resource is to that particular animal, as well as its personality.

Mark Rashid, one of my favourite trainers, has been saying this for years. He has said that what looks like "dominance" behaviour in domestic horses has nothing to do with herd hierarchy, but rather resource allocation. Our horses (usually) have limited access to space, water, and sometimes food, hence conflicts over those resources. This type of aggression in the wild, where space is limitless and food is underfoot, is much more infrequent. The sort of aggression wild horses display will usually be among stallions fighting over mares, or a mare defending her foal.

I also thought wild herds had a "lead mare" who told the herd where to go, but apparently the research is challenging that notion. The current studies seem to be disputing the theory that individuals have assigned roles. Instead, it's saying that researchers have documented different individuals in wild or feral herds initiating movement, leading them to surmise "leadership is not unique to a specific group member but that any horse of the group can initiate group movement."

What these researchers (and Mark as well as other trainers) are getting at is that we as trainers should not use the framework of horse A driving horse B away from a pile of hay as a model for training. They are asserting that what horse B learns from that encounter is *not* that horse A is in charge and should be respected, but rather he should be avoided. This is not the relationship we want with our horses.
 
Last edited:
Caol Ila said:
Read the actual paper that fburton posted. It's much more nuanced and makes more sense than the H&H article, which is a pretty poor rendition.

The paper is disputing the idea that horses have a linear social hierarchy where A>B>C>D and as trainers/handlers, we must be seen as A. Instead, it's saying that the relationship between horses is "bilateral," meaning the horse learns who can push him off the pile of hay, and who he can push off the pile of hay. But they are saying there is no evidence that the horse maps all relationships within the herd as a hierarchy. (it's not just horses -- behaviour science for many creatures is unraveling the idea of the "pecking order" and saying it's more anthropomorphism than science). He simply knows horse B will chase him off, but horse C will run away from him, and D is his buddy who will share the hay, while E might chase B but won't chase him, which means he can stay at the hay when E is around. In other words, each relationship is individual. And those relationships can change depending on herd dynamics and resources, i.e. the horse who's the most aggressive at guarding the pile of hay might not be the same one standing by the gate chasing the others off because it wants in first. It depends on how valuable the resource is to that particular animal, as well as its personality.

Mark Rashid, one of my favourite trainers, has been saying this for years. He has said that what looks like "dominance" behaviour in domestic horses has nothing to do with herd hierarchy, but rather resource allocation. Our horses (usually) have limited access to space, water, and sometimes food, hence conflicts over those resources. This type of aggression in the wild, where space is limitless and food is underfoot, is much more infrequent. The sort of aggression wild horses display will usually be among stallions fighting over mares, or a mare defending her foal.

I also thought wild herds had a "lead mare" who told the herd where to go, but apparently the research is challenging that notion. The current studies seem to be disputing the theory that individuals have assigned roles. Instead, it's saying that researchers have documented different individuals in wild or feral herds initiating movement, leading them to surmise "leadership is not unique to a specific group member but that any horse of the group can initiate group movement."

What these researchers (and Mark as well as other trainers) are getting at is that we as trainers should not use the framework of horse A driving horse B away from a pile of hay as a model for training. They are asserting that what horse B learns from that encounter is *not* that horse A is in charge and should be respected, but rather he should be avoided. This is not the relationship we want with our horses.
Click to expand...

LOVE this reply!
 
I have read the study, and agree with you Caol Ila. I've had large-ish mare bands (20+ individuals with occasionally a stallion running with them), and spent many unofficial observational hours just watching how horses organise themselves which was fascinating. However as far as actually training riding horses, I don't think trying to "be" a horse is particularly useful. It just comes down to parcelling training in a way that is clear and understandable to a horse. Frightening them or being aggressive doesn't work very well.
 
Cortez said:
I have read the study, and agree with you Caol Ila. I've had large-ish mare bands (20+ individuals with occasionally a stallion running with them), and spent many unofficial observational hours just watching how horses organise themselves which was fascinating. However as far as actually training riding horses, I don't think trying to "be" a horse is particularly useful. It just comes down to parcelling training in a way that is clear and understandable to a horse. Frightening them or being aggressive doesn't work very well.
Click to expand...

Definitely. The paper seems to be a response to the training fad contending that in order to train your horse, you had to convince him that you were the mythical "alpha" horse, the one who chased him away from the water hole. The paper disputes the notional alpha, as well as the idea that the trainer should "be" a horse at all, which is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top