Leadership and dominance shouldn’t be used to train horses

[DabDab]

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.

I like the logic and the general findings of the article, and agree with above comments. However, I still don't really understand what they're getting at in terms of the type of training that they think is harmful.....I would have expected a useful piece of behaviour research such as this to just state their findings in comparison to previous work. They do that, but then on top seem to be trying to make a point about a particular school of training, and it's a bit lost on me to be honest.

In general I find sweeping statements and overarching theories unhelpful when trying to accomplish something as nuanced as training an intelligent animal.

 

[fburton]

LOVE this reply!

So do I - it's a great summary.

 

[DabDab]

So what school of training are they getting at? I don't know one that bases their methodology around an 'alpha' theory. I've met the odd strange individual that has all sorts of funny ideas, but not encountered a school of thought as such. It's a theory I've heard far more often in relation to dog training than horses. I don't know a great deal about parelli...is that who they're getting at?

 

[Caol Ila]

So do I - it's a great summary.

HHO should employ me to summarize summarize scientific papers!

 

[MotherOfChickens]

So what school of training are they getting at? I don't know one that bases their methodology around an 'alpha' theory. I've met the odd strange individual that has all sorts of funny ideas, but not encountered a school of thought as such. It's a theory I've heard far more often in relation to dog training than horses. I don't know a great deal about parelli...is that who they're getting at?

Parelli and the other NHers that think this way.

 

[only_me]

You need to be a leader/boss of a horse. They need to respect and respond to you.

Every herd has it's leader!!

 

[Caol Ila]

So what school of training are they getting at? I don't know one that bases their methodology around an 'alpha' theory. I've met the odd strange individual that has all sorts of funny ideas, but not encountered a school of thought as such. It's a theory I've heard far more often in relation to dog training than horses. I don't know a great deal about parelli...is that who they're getting at?

I think they are getting at Parelli, among others. The alpha thing seemed to be pretty popular in the US in the '90s and early 2000s. Everyone and their dog were chasing their horses around round pens because they thought that's how horses show dominance and how you become an alpha horse. Other behaviourists have since shown that this isn't about "dominance" at all, but learning theory. The horse learns that the human stops chasing it when it shows certain behaviours.

But this paper more of a summary of observations from different studies; it's not a 'how to' paper for training. It's also saying there is no one "herd leader" in wild herds. The other side of it is learning theory, how you break training into behaviours and reward the ones you want in a way the animal understands. Horses want boundaries and clarity. If you want to know how you train a horse using the ideology hinted at in this paper, I'd look at Rashid, for a start. He doesn't dispute the idea of "leadership" but says a leader isn't aggressive, but calmly and clearly shows the horse what he or she wants from it. Not just him -- lots of trainers understand this, but his books are pretty accessible. Horses can learn both "bad" behaviours and "good" behaviours depending on how their humans interact with them. The trainer needs to understand how to shape the behaviour via conditioning, not bully and dominate.

 

[dulcie_dustyxx]

They obviously haven't met a cob.

or a connie

 

[PaddyMonty]

Horses want boundaries and clarity.

If you add on 'in a perceived safe environment' and you have the core of training horses. Miss any one of those three and the training will be unsuccessful. Safe environment is not compatible with bullying or dominance.
What I find sad is that these basic principles have been understood for a very long time but many of the revolutionary new methods have seriously muddied the waters.

 

[fburton]

I like the logic and the general findings of the article, and agree with above comments. However, I still don't really understand what they're getting at in terms of the type of training that they think is harmful.....I would have expected a useful piece of behaviour research such as this to just state their findings in comparison to previous work. They do that, but then on top seem to be trying to make a point about a particular school of training, and it's a bit lost on me to be honest.

First off, it's a "position statement" - a summary of where the the ISES organisation stands on a particular issue, citing relevant literature where appropriate - rather than an original piece of research. They've previously released position statements on other topics, like: "aversive stimuli in horse training", "alterations of the horses' head and neck posture in equitation" (prompted I suspect by the Rollkur controversy), "restrictive nosebands" and "Principles of Learning Theory in Equitation". If ISES can be said to favour one school of training, it would be that last one - learning theory - although "approach" is probably a better descriptor than "school of training".

The organisation itself is a proponent of Equitation Science which they define in their Code of Conduct as providing "a means to promote an objective, evidence-based understanding of the welfare of horses during training and competition and uses a multidisciplinary approach to explain horse training. Equitation Science applies valid, quantitative scientific methods that can identify what training techniques are ineffective or may result in equine suffering."

Okay, so what are they saying about dominance and leadership in relation to training? As I read it, the last two bullet points are the important ones:

"* An incorrect belief that the person handling and training a horse must be in a top position of a dominance hierarchy (i.e. in an alpha position), or be a leader, may have a damaging negative effect on the horse, perhaps resulting in avoidance behaviour which is detrimental to training.

* Describing the training process and horse-human interactions within the context of a dominance hierarchy jeopardises the creation of a harmonious relationship with the horse and may compromise its welfare."

You are right that they are not explicit about the type of training they think is harmful. Clearly they don't want to name specific brands or practitioners, and maybe a position statement isn't the place to do that anyway.

I have encountered quite a few trainers who have said that the handler must be in an alpha / dominant position on the basis that this is how equine society is structured and we need to be seen by the horse to be part of that. Over the years the language has drifted from dominance towards leadership - possibly because "leadership" sounds less aggressive than "dominance", and more noble? I remember debates about dominance/leadership on this forum going back to 2011, and to the early 1990s on rec.equestrian and other online discussion forums. I think this way of thinking is less common these days, but it still gets promoted - although much more in the US than here.

The practical consequences of relying on the "alpha theory" is that misbehaviour is seen as a problem with attitude, and therefore the attitude has to be addressed as a priority over addressing the behaviour. This is done by "showing the horse who is boss". Although this may be taken by some to legitimize violence or rough handling, it also manifests in certain round penning procedures involving the trainer "moving the horses feet". Round-penning may be useful for other reasons, but why not address behaviour directly rather than trying to change supposed attitudes?

That's my take on it anyway. Don't know if any of it makes sense?!

 

[fburton]

You need to be a leader/boss of a horse. They need to respect and respond to you.

Every herd has it's leader!!

Precisely what the ISES position statement is arguing against. On what do you base your belief, and is there anything that could persuade you otherwise?

 

[fburton]

Actually, Dabdab, I think they could and should have indicated particular practices and scenarios that could or do compromise welfare. Maybe they thought everyone would know what they were talking about?!

 

[fburton]

What I find sad is that these basic principles have been understood for a very long time but many of the revolutionary new methods have seriously muddied the waters.

You're absolutely right - good horsemen and women have understood these principles intuitively and in a very practical way for, well, millennia. What the new methods have attempted to do is to explain how and why they work as well. In so doing, they may well have muddied the waters for some.

Yet knowing the "how and why" can be extremely helpful for some people because it allows new situations that haven't been encountered to be tackled effectively without needing an experienced or talented horseperson to help them or to say "when you encounter x, do y". The value of intuition and "feel" can't be overestimated, but in my opinion knowledge and understanding are important too.

However, problems arise if the how and why turn out to incorrect for particular new methods, even if they seem intuitively obvious to those teaching and learning the method. I don't think that means all the "new" explanations are wrong. For example, learning theory has a very solid underpinning and potential as a guide when tackling new situations - although I won't deny it may have a muddying effect for some (particularly its use of positive vs negative terminology!).

 

[DabDab]

Thanks for the context. I agree FB, if you're going to take a side swipe at particular practices then say what they are....I don't mean name practitioners, I mean describe popular practices and take the time to highlight the elements of those practices that make them negative/ineffective/harmful and then explain why.

Thanks for the tips CI, but I wasn't looking for a "how-to" guide. I had wonderful people teach me how to train horses, and many more wonderful horses. I am also not stupid and have a strong academic background in science - that was sort of my point....if I don't know what they're banging on about, then their angle probably hasn't been very well made, at which point it serves only as an in joke amongst people who already all agree, which seems a shame because there is obviously good sensible objectives behind it.

 

[fburton]

You need to be a leader/boss of a horse. They need to respect and respond to you.

Every herd has it's leader!!

Following DabDab's comment, may I ask what this actually means in practice? Is it good enough simply to be in control - something I imagine we all want - as long as that goal is achieved in ways that don't compromise horse welfare? I believe it is possible to be in control and 'in harmony' with the horse without any reference to ideas about equine social organization or behaving in ways that are intended to convince a horse we are 'herd leader'. I don't think I'm alone in this.

However, if I and others are wrong in this belief, I'd like to know the reasons why - not just from you, only_me, but anyone else who has this viewpoint that ISES cautions against.

 

[only_me]

Following DabDab's comment, may I ask what this actually means in practice? Is it good enough simply to be in control - something I imagine we all want - as long as that goal is achieved in ways that don't compromise horse welfare? I believe it is possible to be in control and 'in harmony' with the horse without any reference to ideas about equine social organization or behaving in ways that are intended to convince a horse we are 'herd leader'. I don't think I'm alone in this.

However, if I and others are wrong in this belief, I'd like to know the reasons why - not just from you, only_me, but anyone else who has this viewpoint that ISES cautions against.

I'm keeping it brief, as have exam in morning.

Being a leader is complicated. You need to be able to teach, reward and reprimand at the right time. Personally I think it's all down to reading the situation/horse.
You don't need force to teach a horse. But you need to know when to "force" an issue and how far to go. And then being consistent.
But again, its down to feel imo.

I'd never use parelli or similar as a training technique. It just encourages bad behaviour Imo. When you say "comprimise a horses welfare" - I'd never hit a horse in anger but I have no problem in using a whip when needed, or even a good pony club kick. It's not necessarily the force used but the praising of the response at the correct time.

In practice - young horse stopping at a ditch. Has been over it many times before with and without a lead. At this point simply feels like trying it on. Big pony club kick and not allowed to turn away from it. It jumps it. Big pats and praise. Come down to it again. Some napping, but less. Repeat and praise. The next time jumps straight away - huge praise. Then stop the session.
Then jump the ditch for a few days after. At some point when horse feels "ok" i stop praising and start expecting horse to jump it. Horse accepts this job and knows that it's not scary because of his teaching. So something that was a big deal is now not worth thinking about and therefore is just "done"

It's really hard to write and explain what I mean, so apologies if it comes across garbled. It's kind of an instinctual thing!

 

[fburton]

Thanks, only_me - your input is appreciated. (Hope all goes well for you tomorrow!)

 

[MagicMelon]

I agree with this article. I dont think you have to "dominate" a horse. I feel I work with my horse, yes I think they look to me for confidence if they're unsure about certain situations which I guess make me their leader but its not forced upon them. Of course I wouldn't let them be naughty towards me just like I doubt they'd like me to be the same towards them. But I dont hit or scream at them like some people I see. All my horses Id say are chilled and happy

 

[Regandal]

Can I just ask - why is it ok to kick a horse? If you're seen kicking any other animal, you're liable to be done for cruelty. I abhor the 'pony club kick'.
Genuine question!

 

[DabDab]

I would guess the difficulty lies in different people's interpretation of what a 'leader' is. You see that in business people management too - some believe in a very domineering patriarchal type of leader who should be obeyed no matter what (and these aren't necessarily those who scream and shout), some believe in the 'lead by example' type approach, some believe that it is simply someone who can be relied upon to make good timely decisions, etc.
I assume (given the context provided on this thread) that ISES are talking about the patriarchal type of leadership, where situations are deliberately constructed by a human handler to test and reinforce what they perceive as unwavering submission no matter what. Now obviously this is daft, not least because it doesn't even work that well in humans, so is highly unlikely to work on an animal with even less ability to transfer abstract notions from one situation to another.

However, I would hazard a guess that most people who describe being the leader in a horse human situation, are more accurately referring to the 'relied upon to make decisions' type leader.

 

[sjp1]

Well I think horses are much like children - and I am totally prepared to be shot down in flames here!!

I think both horses and children like/need to have parameters for what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. Sometimes a smack says it - I am not saying a beating but a smack!

Mine is mega self opinionated - he is an appy! There are times he would prefer to do something else - like go out into the field NOW rather than having a rug put on or his feet picked out, which I completely understand - HOWEVER, there are times that we all have to do what we would prefer not to and sadly he doesn't understand me having a chat with him about it - a stern voice and a smack on the shoulder with my hand generally concentrates his mind.

And he isn't scared of me - actually yesterday morning he was lying down in the field and decided even after I had put his headcollar on that he needed more of a snooze!! I would never force him to get up or get cross or beat him, just encourage him which did take some time!! So he isn't scared of me! Oddly an NH lady I had very many years ago was amazed that mine needed to be encouraged to get up and often lay flat out to snooze further even whilst his head collar was on. Hers apparantly leapt up the moment she arrived in the field - I would be worried if mine did that - I think human and horse relationships should be good - I would never not give mine a smack - either on the backside with a long lead rein if he won't move forward for whatever reason or a smack on the shoulder for pratting about - but I would not go the whole NH route where they are never allowed to rub their heads on you or have to constantly be backed up to not come into your space - if they take the mick they have a smack if not, and they have an itchy eye - fine, rub that eye on me!!

Regandal - I think sometimes a pony club kick is better than allowing them to be fearful of stuff really - if you kick them on or even use a crop they do feel safer in your hands than someone who allows them to be fearful - then there is no leader and they have to take matters into their own hands which isn't wiser for them or you. There are times when horses are fearful - be that over a waving dock leaf or different coloured tarmac - its up to you to take charge and say its OK to walk on. Whether that be via a pony club kick or a smack on the backside - they need to learn that you are the leader. Deferring to them is never helpful - for you or them - just an accident waiting to happen. They are prey animals and would therefore prefer to never engage with what they don't feel is safe. Only by making them engage and get through it without harm helps them learn. I can't imagine how you would ever make a horse pass anything it isn't 100% happy with get over it without either kicking them or using a crop - if you do have another way, let me know, but not going forward is seldom an option IMO

 

[Cortez]

A Pony Club kick is not OK, it's poor riding and exposes a horse that is not on the aids, not in front of the leg and a rider that doesn't have refined communication with their horse. I'm training a horse at the moment that has no clue what the legs are for: I have no idea how the owner managed to get it to do anything - well, actually that's why it's here, the owner couldn't get it to do anything! It's not the horse's fault, it was never properly trained in the first place. So am I "dominating" it by tapping it with the whip when it doesn't understand the leg? I don't think so, but I am insisting that it jumps forward when I say so and it is now quite happily going forward, also sitting back when I ask with the seat. That's just training.

Oh, and it's stopped spooking at every damned thing too now that it's going forwards.

 

[only_me]

A Pony Club kick is not OK, it's poor riding and exposes a horse that is not on the aids, not in front of the leg and a rider that doesn't have refined communication with their horse. I'm training a horse at the moment that has no clue what the legs are for: I have no idea how the owner managed to get it to do anything - well, actually that's why it's here, the owner couldn't get it to do anything! It's not the horse's fault, it was never properly trained in the first place. So am I "dominating" it by tapping it with the whip when it doesn't understand the leg? I don't think so, but I am insisting that it jumps forward when I say so and it is now quite happily going forward, also sitting back when I ask with the seat. That's just training.

Oh, and it's stopped spooking at every damned thing too now that it's going forwards.

good for you.

A pony club kick can work wonders in some situations. In my example the horse was "trying it on" by stopping at a ditch. Plus it was young. Habits are easily learnt, good or bad. The kick worked - never had an issue with a ditch after that.

And I don't ride poorly - I'm actually pretty good and have trained lots of young horses who have gone on really well. But in your terms you would say I'm a poor rider. I think the opposite - I'm a good rider as I know when a kick can help or not and only do so if it will help. Eg. With my own horse - I don't actually remember the last time i kicked him. Perhaps when he was 5 and scared of a lorry so was backing up into a deep road ditch which could have been horrible.

But can't be bothered tbh justifying my training methods as they work for me and produce the results with happy rideable horses!

 

[Cortez]

If you used a schooling whip properly then you wouldn't have to kick. It's supposed to be the lightest of aids, not a thump.

 

[only_me]

If you used a schooling whip properly then you wouldn't have to kick. It's supposed to be the lightest of aids, not a thump.

How often do you bring a schooling/dressage whip when you go cross country?

Lol you can be as sanctimonious as you like and always pretend to be the better woman, but at the end of the day not everyone trains like a textbook as horses don't read the manual. But again, why bother defending myself when no matter what I say it'll be wrong in your view!

 

[Cortez]

Strange attitude: but yes, I do bring a schooling whip with me when I have horses out training. I'm not particularly sanctimonious, but I do think horses deserve to be properly trained, and riders too. As was mentioned up the thread (and what my comment was responding to), kicking animals is otherwise frowned upon.

 

[ycbm]

A Pony Club kick is not OK, it's poor riding and exposes a horse that is not on the aids, not in front of the leg and a rider that doesn't have refined communication with their horse. I'm training a horse at the moment that has no clue what the legs are for: I have no idea how the owner managed to get it to do anything - well, actually that's why it's here, the owner couldn't get it to do anything! It's not the horse's fault, it was never properly trained in the first place. So am I "dominating" it by tapping it with the whip when it doesn't understand the leg? I don't think so, but I am insisting that it jumps forward when I say so and it is now quite happily going forward, also sitting back when I ask with the seat. That's just training.

Oh, and it's stopped spooking at every damned thing too now that it's going forwards.

This is pretty straightforward to do if the horse is sensitive to being touched with the whip or using it on your boot, or a soft wipwop, or voice.

How hard would you hit the horse if it simply did not respond to any of those? In those circumstances, when I've retained horses that other people have spoiled, I try a pony club kick before I would give a real belt with a whip. I'm interested to know if you would avoid doing either, and what you do instead?

Serious question, not trying to make a point, just find a better way to train.

 

[Cortez]

This is pretty straightforward to do if the horse is sensitive to being touched with the whip or using it on your boot, or a soft wipwop, or voice.

How hard would you hit the horse if it simply did not respond to any of those? In those circumstances, when I've retained horses that other people have spoiled, I try a pony club kick before I would give a real belt with a whip. I'm interested to know if you would avoid doing either, and what you do instead?

Serious question, not trying to make a point, just find a better way to train.

Serious answer: I've honestly never had to go as far as actually belting a horse, never marked a horse either. I've no problem with a very sharp flick, repeated never more than three times if necessary. I used to specialise in problem horses, so have come up against some extremely difficult characters over the years. If horses are absolutely refusing to go forwards I have found that it's either a physical problem (but that would have manifested itself in the work anyway - owners often don't have the experience to notice), or the rider is hanging on to the reins and blocking the horse, mostly without being conscious of it, and has ineffective seat/legs. With the owner on board I have no problem helping a bit from the ground with either a long piaffe whip or lunge whip, but again not belting the hell out of the horse; that's not what whips are for. Oh, and I also take the little "poppers" off all my whips so that they don't sting the horses, the idea is to pinpoint the aid, not hurt them.

 

[fburton]

Can I just ask - why is it ok to kick a horse? If you're seen kicking any other animal, you're liable to be done for cruelty. I abhor the 'pony club kick'.
Genuine question!

The 'pony club kick' is just poor riding, imo.

However, since you mentioned kicking in this thread about dominance and leadership, some people (not me I hasten to add) might say something like:

"It's okay to kick and hit horses because horses kick and bite each other, and we could never do it as hard as they do it to each other."

I would say that it may be okay to kick and hit horses in certain circumstances, but it's wrong and misguided to justify doing it on the basis of what horses do to each other. We can see where this argument can lead in the following real quote:

"I have a 'violent welly boot' and will happily kick out at my foals if they kick at me... I have rarely needed to and if on a couple of occasions I have done this the foal concerned as never kicked at a person again... that's because if they kicked a more dominant horse in the field they would normally get kicked out at..."

Going further along the dominance road you hear (or used to hear) arguments like:

"Horses don't go to bite and kick, or otherwise injure whom they see as their alphas." (another real quote)

This is a very seductive argument because it promises that all you need to do is get horses to see you as dominant or their leader and then you will be safe from harm. In reality, being dominant doesn't guarantee safety because dominant horses do sometimes get kicked by 'subordinates', e.g. in situations where the 'subordinates' were unable to get away and tried to protect themselves. In any case, do we really want to rely on horses wanting to stay out of our way for our safety?

 

[scats]

As an instructor, I can't abide those who shout the words, "kick, kick!" at children on ponies. What a way to imprint into a child's mind that it's perfectly ok to kick ponies when you want them to do something.