Natural Horsemanship. Is it just a circus act?

[Alyth]

This would have to be one of the best discussions of "natural horsemanship" in any forum. Congratulations to all of you for maintaining a balanced and logical argument.
A special congrats should go to Andy Spooner and Amanda for their restraint!! Please continue!!

 

[amandap]

At a demo a couple of years ago I saw an NH trainer, as they described themselves, make a TB mare lie on the floor flat out and then stand on her belly "to prove how relaxed she is". There was thunderous applause but I was appalled as the mare looked clearly unhappy and then I saw her whacked in the face to make her get up again. Hardly unacceptable.

This sort of stuff is a personal hate of mine. It may well be my human values but I find standing on horses and especially teaching them to lie down to be stood on insulting, demeaning and degrading to the horse and I'm sure someone standing on your ribs isn't comfortable. I'm not a huge lover of trick training though but that's a foible of mine. Again how this stuff is trained is the important thing really I suppose but somehow humans standing on a horse speaks volumes to me about how the horse is valued as an individual being.

Thanks for the support Alyth, I take a back seat when swearing is an answer I'm afraid. Andy has made some great posts imo.

 

[PuddingandPie]

Thank you all so much for your continued balanced and restrained participation and I am extremely grateful to have had the honour of knowledgeable people putting forward their views. Now I woulld like to ask a question which many may feel is stupid but here goes!

If pressure, say on a halter, is negative reinforcement, is the release of that pressure then called positive reinforcement? To just work using positive reinforcement how would you avoid the negative in the first place?

I am trying to get my head around this! Thank you for keeping this discussion alive!

 

[PuddingandPie]

Thank you!

 

[mcnaughty]

Thank you all so much for your continued balanced and restrained participation and I am extremely grateful to have had the honour of knowledgeable people putting forward their views. Now I woulld like to ask a question which many may feel is stupid but here goes!

If pressure, say on a halter, is negative reinforcement, is the release of that pressure then called positive reinforcement? To just work using positive reinforcement how would you avoid the negative in the first place?

I am trying to get my head around this! Thank you for keeping this discussion alive!

What? Sorry, I am obviously feeling very stupid here but what on earth are you trying to get at? The basics of any horse's education stems from them yielding to pressure - they yield to the pressure and the pressure stops. This is not NH basics, this is old school basics.

 

[amandap]

You need fburton really for those questions PuddingandPie.
Very basically...
Negative reinforcement is the removal of an aversive stimulus. (pressure in this case)
Positive reinforcement is adding something of value immediately after a behaviour.

My simple explanation and understanding. In practice to ask a horse to step back for example. Touch and press lightly on the chest, as soon as there is a smallest of response, release. That's negative reinforcement. For positive reinforcement then give a treat the horse likes or scratch.

Hopefully fburton will explain more clearly and correctly.

 

[BonneMaman]

FFS! I know Easter is the time to think about the resurrection but why can't some subjects be put to bed - or event PSTS!!! This has been done to death!

LOL - I agree! What a complete load of old bow locks! Perhaps if we keep repeating ourselves over and over and over and over again the outcome will be different? Errr No.....

 

[amandap]

PuddingandPie, your question is not stupid at all in fact it's a very important question and something I've struggled to understand. Learning theory is a complicated subject to try and understand at first, all the terms have specific meanings for a start.

 

[PuddingandPie]

What? Sorry, I am obviously feeling very stupid here but what on earth are you trying to get at? The basics of any horse's education stems from them yielding to pressure - they yield to the pressure and the pressure stops. This is not NH basics, this is old school basics.

I understand what you are saying and use pressure and release but what confuses me is when some people say they only use positive reinforcement and not negative. I suppose what I am trying to say is how can you use one without the other? I always reward my horses when they respond in the way I am seeking although sometimes, when the herd panics about something, like noises whilst they are in the barn, I may get pushed about in their rush to get outside again...more usually the foals than their dams. Apologies if I am confusing the issue even more!

 

[BonneMaman]

Is it not just a play on words? The negative is hitting and the positive is not hitting? I would just call it teaching. If the horse pulls back you are applying pressure to the halter - I would call it a negative reinforcement at that point because you are applying pressure but when they release and come forward it is positive because it is not applying pressure? Does it really matter what we call it? It is only words - I use training methods that work for me - I don't call it names, I just call it training. We are all being trained throughout our lives (horses and humans) - I don't need to give it a title to make it official, its just learning.

 

[mcnaughty]

Get a damn grip! Who made you the forum police?

People are discussing a subject, if you don't like that subject - don't open the posts - simple as!

LOL - read the title of the thread - I don't call that a discussion subject - I'd call that Divisive. I am also entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that this has been done to death and bring it up again and again for the sake of an argument is pointless drivel.

Why can't people stick to what type of training they enjoy and believe in and stop attacking other people's beliefs? And, no, I am NOT a NH advocate! I am actually very old school is most of my training methods but am open minded enough to use whatever works for any one particular animal and not just attack a method for the sake of it.

 

[Amaranta]

I understand what you are saying and use pressure and release but what confuses me is when some people say they only use positive reinforcement and not negative. I suppose what I am trying to say is how can you use one without the other? I always reward my horses when they respond in the way I am seeking although sometimes, when the herd panics about something, like noises whilst they are in the barn, I may get pushed about in their rush to get outside again...more usually the foals than their dams. Apologies if I am confusing the issue even more!

I agree with you Puddingandpie, those people who only use positive don't understand horses IMHO. Sometimes (not always) you have to have the negative before you can give the positive, left to their own devices in a herd this is how horses would behave themselves with the leader's lieutenant generally being the one to take action.

I would probably describe myself as 'traditional', however, I do keep an open mind and am surprised that some of the 'training' I use is exactly the same as those who support the 'natural' form of horsemanship

I think that the problem between the two is down to human frailty, the trads believe that all naturals are bunny huggers who never discipline their horses and the naturals believe the trads are all horse beaters who just want to dominate. Neither scenario is true and I am willing to bet that there are lots of 'trads' who use 'natural' methods without even being aware of it and vice versa.

Speaking for myself, I really dislike the circus element that surrounds many 'natural' movements, purely because I believe that many of the people who then go on to try the methods do not have the horse sense to utilise them properly, then you get confused horses and sometimes, unintentional abuse. The same can happen with traditional methods, I would not for a moment dispute this.

As I said, way back on page 1 good horsemanship is good horsemanship regardless, take a bit of everything, mix it all together, take the stuff that works for THAT particular horse and discard the stuff that does'nt, be prepared to alter your methods for the next horse, because what works for one will not necessarily work for another.

 

[amandap]

Is it not just a play on words? The negative is hitting and the positive is not hitting? I would just call it teaching. If the horse pulls back you are applying pressure to the halter - I would call it a negative reinforcement at that point because you are applying pressure but when they release and come forward it is positive because it is not applying pressure? Does it really matter what we call it? It is only words - I use training methods that work for me - I don't call it names, I just call it training. We are all being trained throughout our lives (horses and humans) - I don't need to give it a title to make it official, its just learning.

The reason to get the difference is that the horse 'coming forward' releasing the pressure is the reinforcement, so your example is negative reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement is adding/giving something the horse values such as a scratch or treat not the release of pressure. To me the release of pressure means 'yes that's what I want' to give a reward (positive reinforcement) I would need to add (give) the horse something to say 'thankyou', if you like.

I've realized it is important to see the difference so that I increase the amount of positive reinforcement (rewards) I give my horses. Seeing the release as a reward isn't truely correct and isn't a proper reward for the horse. The release is vital for saying 'yes, that's what I want' and then give a treat for eg. to say... and 'thanks', so the horse is even more motivated to perform and 'try' for you.

Hope I haven't confused everyone...

Positive means adding and negative means take away (release) in this context.
So if you hit you are giving positive punishment. Adding a hit/slap...

 

[Amaranta]

LOL - read the title of the thread - I don't call that a discussion subject - I'd call that Divisive. I am also entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that this has been done to death and bring it up again and again for the sake of an argument is pointless drivel.

Why can't people stick to what type of training they enjoy and believe in and stop attacking other people's beliefs? And, no, I am NOT a NH advocate! I am actually very old school is most of my training methods but am open minded enough to use whatever works for any one particular animal and not just attack a method for the sake of it.

McNaughty, if you had actually read the thread you would see that people have NOT been abusive, people have discussed, in a grown up manner, not one person lambasted either side, you are the only one who has been aggressive.

I am not NH either btw.

 

[AndySpooner]

Why would anyone think NH is new?

Very old school or classical is probably as NH as you can get.

The circus comparison comes from having the control and authority to direct where a horse puts its feet, so where better to demonstrate this than on a pedestal. It's a demonstration, that's all.

 

[amandap]

As I said, way back on page 1 good horsemanship is good horsemanship regardless,

This is so true imo. Sadly I'm not someone who instictively is a good trainer so I've had to work hard to learn how to communicate with and teach my horses what I expect and am asking of them.

 

[AndySpooner]

Amanda, excellent explanation for positive and negative re enforcement. I love the idea of adding a slap or blow as an example of positive. Kind of turns it on its head a bit, lol.

 

[intouch]

This is so true imo. Sadly I'm not someone who instictively is a good trainer so I've had to work hard to learn how to communicate with and teach my horses what I expect and am asking of them.

I'm enjoying this excellent, informative and balanced thread.

Amandap, I so agree, I think the bigest challenge any of us faces is learning to communicate with the horse - and to learn to first recognise then reward the try.

It's a pity that the expression Negative Reinforcement seems to be seen as "bad" - it's surely just the other side of a coin. Even with clicker training, you have to ask the horse to act (negative) before you reward (positive). Otherwise why do most CTs and behaviourists still need to ride with bits?


I would go further and suggest that the horse knows how to behave - what we need to learn from him is how we should behave so that the horse responds in the way we would like him to.

Sorry if that's a bit convoluted - basically saying that we learn from the horse, we don't really teach him anything he doesn't already know. And I accept it's idealistic.

Hoping to add to the discussion rather than stir, in this instance!

 

[better half]

Not that I've ever performed it but surely once again it's down to HOW it is done and with which horses and owners?
It's like saying round pens, advance and retreat, clickers or bridles are bad? It's not the tool it's the skill of the user that really matters surely?

You don't need a hammer to break an egg.

Between pressure and release is feel - read Tom Dorrance 'True Unity'

 

[Natch]

Negative reinforcement is endemic (if thats the right word) to ALL horsemanship, with the exception of clicker training. Most training involves the application of a negative stimulus (eg leg aid or other pressue) which is removed when the horse produces the correct response. Maybe people confuse it with punishment?

 

[fburton]

What? Sorry, I am obviously feeling very stupid here but what on earth are you trying to get at? The basics of any horse's education stems from them yielding to pressure - they yield to the pressure and the pressure stops. This is not NH basics, this is old school basics.

Do you think that it's better to teach manners and enforce boundaries by emulating a dominant mare, or some other way? Is it important to be seen as dominant? Can a person be in control of (and safe around) a horse without emulating the alpha mare? Or does everything come down to yielding to pressure?

That's what interests me in this discussion of Natural Horsemanship and I don't think it's been done to death before - at least, not on this forum. (If you know where it has already been hashed out in great detail, please let me know!)

 

[amandap]

Do you think that it's better to teach manners and enforce boundaries by emulating a dominant mare, or some other way? Is it important to be seen as dominant? Can a person be in control of (and safe around) a horse without emulating the alpha mare? Or does everything come down to yielding to pressure?

So do you equate yielding to pressure ('responding' to me lol) with a dominant mare scenario? Is the word yielding crucial here? lol ie. 'submit'?

Mta... all my poo picking ponderings have left my brain now! lol

 

[fburton]

You need fburton really for those questions PuddingandPie.
Very basically...
Negative reinforcement is the removal of an aversive stimulus. (pressure in this case)
Positive reinforcement is adding something of value immediately after a behaviour.

My simple explanation and understanding. In practice to ask a horse to step back for example. Touch and press lightly on the chest, as soon as there is a smallest of response, release. That's negative reinforcement. For positive reinforcement then give a treat the horse likes or scratch.

Hopefully fburton will explain more clearly and correctly.

No, I think you've already done a great job, Amanda.

However, if anyone wants to read more, here's the link that was posted to the IHDG recently:

http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/

And something I wrote a long time ago on how horses learn in general, which introduces a few of the scientific terms:

"Horses learn in various ways. One simple type of learning is 'habituation', in which the response to a particular stimulus becomes less and eventually ceases with repetition. Thus a horse becomes quickly desensitised to frequent sights and sounds which are initially alarming but turn out to be harmless. The horse may react again to the same stimulus after a long time without exposure ('spontaneous recovery'), but typically re-habituates more rapidly. Habituation may be used to get a horse accustomed to unfamiliar objects or procedures (e.g. clippers).

In 'flooding', a horse is confined or restrained so that it cannot escape while being exposed repeatedly to the stimulus, until the horse ignores the stimulus and becomes calm again. A gentler alternative is called 'progressive de-sensitisation'. Here exposure to the stimulus is carefully controlled so that the horse never becomes fearful enough to precipitate the flight reaction. This approach takes longer, but is less likely to have secondary effects on the horse's attitude to people.

Other kinds of learning involve associating between two events. In 'classical conditioning', a horse learns that a signal or cue, initially of no significance, is followed by an event or stimulus which is significant (and which produces a response). For example, in the wild, the appearance of a predator may be preceded by the alarm call of a bird. By learning this natural signal, a horse's ability to survive may be increased. In the domestic setting, a horse may similarly learn to associate the sound of buckets with feeding.

In 'operant conditioning', also known as trial and error learning, the performance of a behaviour is changed by the consequences of that behaviour, which may be pleasant or unpleasant. When a newborn foal discovers where its mother's teats are located, it is immediately rewarded with its first drink. The foal's tendency to head for a dark under-surface may be instinctive, but the most efficient ways to obtain milk are learned through trial and error. In this example, suckling behaviour is learned through 'positive reinforcement': something pleasant occurs after the initial action of sucking which makes the action more likely to occur again on future occasions. The 'something' here is the ingestion of milk, which satisfies a physiological need.

'Negative reinforcement' also increases the likelihood of an action. However, in this case the action is performed in order to escape or avoid an unpleasant or aversive stimulus. Thus a horse learns to yield to pressure applied through a halter. By moving his head in the direction of pull, he is rewarded by an instant release of pressure and regaining of comfort. With good timing, lighter and lighter contact can be learned.

In contrast, punishment is an aversive stimulus given after an action with the intention of decreasing its likelihood. It may succeed in stopping an unwanted behaviour, but in general it is an antiquated approach not well-suited to horses. It may make a fearful horse more afraid or an aggressive horse more aggressive. These emotional states are not conducive to learning.

Alternatively, a horse might habituate to repeated, ineffectual aversive stimuli. Some 'punishments', such as shouting at a horse that kicks its stable door, may actually reward the behaviour because the horse has succeeded in getting your attention. In such cases it is better to ignore the offending behaviour completely until it extinguishes itself.

In training which relies on associative learning, timing is crucial. The reward or release should be delivered as soon after the desired action as possible. If it is delayed more than a second or two, it may be useless, or worse - you may be rewarding the wrong thing. For this reason, verbal praise, stroking or some other signal (such as a click) may be used as 'secondary reinforcers' which can be given in a more precisely timed way They may bridge the delay between the action and the primary reward (usually a treat), or may substitute for food if perceived as pleasant. Rewarding every time ('continuous reinforcement') is useful in the early stages of training. However, if the rewards stop so does the trained behaviour, a process called 'extinction'. By rewarding only once every few successful attempts ('intermittent reinforcement') extinction is reduced and the lesson retained for longer.

Teaching a horse a complex skill, such as jumping, is made easier by 'shaping'. This involves reinforcing successive approximations, a step at a time, towards the final goal. Sequences of actions can be taught by 'chaining' simpler actions together.

Horses may learn through imitation, though convincing scientific evidence for this is lacking. However, some learning, such as the location of water, may be facilitated by following and watching other horses. It is no longer thought that vices such as cribbing and weaving are acquired through imitation."

 

[fburton]

So do you equate yielding to pressure ('responding' to me lol) with a dominant mare scenario?

Absolutely not! I just posed those questions as being interesting and relevant to the NH discussion.

 

[amandap]

Absolutely not! I just posed those questions as being interesting and relevant to the NH discussion.

Ok then.

 

[Natch]

good post fb Interesting question though. Id say a dominant horse would require others to yield to his or her pressure. No matter how equal a relationship we try to have, we must have the greater say for safety's sake.

I dont think a passive leader (horse) would ask another horse to yield, but what do you guys think? Id say they are more likely to just be where the other horses would want to be too. Im very much for passive leadership but actually think we need elements of dominance at times too.

If we had to say pressure and release was most like either a dominant mare or a passive leader, I would class it as a dominant horse behaviour. I dont like classifying it as sucb because to me now it is just a learning style which all horses are adept at. Any thoughts?

 

[AndySpooner]

good post fb Interesting question though. Id say a dominant horse would require others to yield to his or her pressure. No matter how equal a relationship we try to have, we must have the greater say for safety's sake.

I dont think a passive leader (horse) would ask another horse to yield, but what do you guys think? Id say they are more likely to just be where the other horses would want to be too. Im very much for passive leadership but actually think we need elements of dominance at times too.

If we had to say pressure and release was most like either a dominant mare or a passive leader, I would class it as a dominant horse behaviour. I dont like classifying it as sucb because to me now it is just a learning style which all horses are adept at. Any thoughts?

Once again the question of dominance and leadership in relation to application and release of pressure is influenced by human perceptions of pressure and dominance.

If we take the role of leadership amongst horses you have to look at a wild herd because free from unnatural human influence is where this developed and without it the successful development the species would have become extinct. Therefore the role of the lead mare is vital not only in the survival of the individual horses but also of the species.

I would argue that because the lead mare is the prime mover in the success of the herd then she is not challenged, as challenges occur in human society, horses do not seek promotion, therefore she does not need to display dominance to maintain her position. It is a role fillies are born into and trained up for, they do not have to fight for a leadership role.

Horses will accept the leadership role of the mare and are content to follow as long as their basic needs are being catered for. Where dominance comes into play within a herd is the interaction between herd members competing between themselves to enhance their individual chances of preseving and expanding their own gene pool. ie. moving a less dominant horse from a more attractive grazing spot, or achieving a safer position within the herd.

Because humans find perceived benefits in being leaders, competition arises for that position where more dominant people succeed, therefore the dominated find it unpleasant which is the spur to compete. We then transpose these feelings onto our horses, feelings they do not have.

Because of the non verbal comunication between horses is so well tuned we perceive thier communication as pressure. The first faze being eye contact, a subtle pressure, which normally works in a herd situation and so is rarely increased. In a 24 hr period how many interactions must take place between horses based on eye contact alone which we are unaware of. It is only when the fazes become stronger, ie. ear positions, contact etc. when we actually notice things happening.

Our interaction with horses will no doubt be seen as crude, from the horses perspective, and the application of higher fazes of pressure, very crude. Compound this with a failure to release that pressure as quickly as a horse will and our lack of communication and understanding, it is little wonder that horses find it difficult to understand what we want.

 

[better half]

Once again the question of dominance and leadership in relation to application and release of pressure is influenced by human perceptions of pressure and dominance.
If we take the role of leadership amongst horses you have to look at a wild herd because free from unnatural human influence is where this developed and without it the successful development the species would have become extinct. Therefore the role of the lead mare is vital not only in the survival of the individual horses but also of the species.
I would argue that because the lead mare is the prime mover in the success of the herd then she is not challenged, as challenges occur in human society, horses do not seek promotion, therefore she does not need to display dominance to maintain her position. It is a role fillies are born into and trained up for, they do not have to fight for a leadership role.
Horses will accept the leadership role of the mare and are content to follow as long as their basic needs are being catered for. Where dominance comes into play within a herd is the interaction between herd members competing between themselves to enhance their individual chances of preseving and expanding their own gene pool. ie. moving a less dominant horse from a more attractive grazing spot, or achieving a safer position within the herd.
Because humans find perceived benefits in being leaders, competition arises for that position where more dominant people succeed, therefore the dominated find it unpleasant which is the spur to compete. We then transpose these feelings onto our horses, feelings they do not have.
Because of the non verbal comunication between horses is so well tuned we perceive thier communication as pressure. The first faze being eye contact, a subtle pressure, which normally works in a herd situation and so is rarely increased. In a 24 hr period how many interactions must take place between horses based on eye contact alone which we are unaware of. It is only when the fazes become stronger, ie. ear positions, contact etc. when we actually notice things happening.
Our interaction with horses will no doubt be seen as crude, from the horses perspective, and the application of higher fazes of pressure, very crude. Compound this with a failure to release that pressure as quickly as a horse will and our lack of communication and understanding, it is little wonder that horses find it difficult to understand what we want.

I like your post.

Horses co-operate with each other for survival and it works for them as they are very good at it, we still have a lot to learn about how to get them to co-operate with us with out resulting to pressure halters and sending them away to make them feel vulnerable so they have no choice but to stay with us.

I think the original NH was about ‘making it their idea to do what we want’. This takes working with 100’s of horses to gain experience and develop a feel for them and understand their complex emotions. First know they have emotions ‘some zoologists are only just admitting they do have emotions’.

What if there is no dominate mare in herds and we have it all wrong, in the study on lactating mares maybe it was just that they needed to drink so they went to find water so the rest of the herd followed, as they know it is just for the good of the herd. If they have security, food and water they won’t want anything more so there is no need to fight most of the time the herd will be silent with no trouble.

Humans can be to abrupt with each other and cause conflict on many levels . Horses rarely cause conflict in this way and this is what we can learn from them as they usually get the balance just right in their relationships.

 

[PuddingandPie]

Our interaction with horses will no doubt be seen as crude, from the horses perspective, and the application of higher fazes of pressure, very crude. Compound this with a failure to release that pressure as quickly as a horse will and our lack of communication and understanding, it is little wonder that horses find it difficult to understand what we want.

I think the original posting is now being answered! What Andy writes above makes such sense and what has worried me in all "interactions and timings" with horses. But now it raises another question! I have a herd of mares who manage to kick eachother (except of course the herd leader!) for what appears to me to be purely to "bully" eachother..supposedly all dominant in their own way! I would also like to add that I only have to call the herd leader once and she will gallop over bringing the rest with her and she never knows why she is being called as I don't carry titbits.

Onto "pressure"..where does it leave the application of a direct rein against an indirect rein?

I feel another forum posting coming on!

 

[fburton]

I think the original posting is now being answered! What Andy writes above makes such sense and what has worried me in all "interactions and timings" with horses. But now it raises another question! I have a herd of mares who manage to kick eachother (except of course the herd leader!) for what appears to me to be purely to "bully" eachother..supposedly all dominant in their own way! I would also like to add that I only have to call the herd leader once and she will gallop over bringing the rest with her and she never knows why she is being called as I don't carry titbits.

I reckon that once it's accepted that, for horses, dominance and leadership are completely different things, the kind of interactions you describe make more sense.

Dominance is achieved and maintained through threats of aggression, and, if those aren't heeded, aggression itself. It can serve a useful function to stop horses actually coming to blows over some scarce resource that is valuable (and desirable) enough to be worth competing for. Unfortunately, the presence of something desirable - such as feed or a pile of hay to hungry horses - can provoke unnecessary and counterproductive aggression between individuals. This can sometimes turn into a habit of bullying. Viewed this way, dominance has nothing to do with leadership. Why would horses choose to follow a bully or dominant? If they do (which sometimes happens), it is in spite of , not because of, the dominant's aggressiveness.

Finally, it's worth noting that being dominant isn't an absolute guarantee of not being kicked. When threatened by a dominant, a subordinate horse will always try to move away, but if that isn't possible because there isn't space to do so (e.g. due to fencing and/or the crowding of other horses), they may kick out in defence. This has nothing to do with whether the subordinate 'respects' the dominant or not - it is purely down to self-protective instinct.