Positive reinforcement: Practical applications

D

Dry Rot

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2010
Messages
5,847
Location
Scotland
Visit site
Not wanting to hijack the other thread but if I was a novice trainer (which I am not), I would by now be totally confused by the theories being discussed.

There are any number of training problems being posted on this forum every day. How about applying this theory to solving these and then perhaps simple folk like me, who rely on experience and common sense, could decide whether it would be of use to us in practice and maybe learn something new?

Comments not limited to "positive reinforcement", of course. I've just used that title to link to the other thread.
 
I think someone mentioned getting horse to stand at mounting block on that thread?

So, positive reinforcement would be telling horse 'good boy/girl' and giving a pat/polo/click if clicker training etc when horse stands still for some time.

Can start by PR for walking close to it and then build up so it has to stand momentarily; stand long enough for a person to get onto block; long enough for rider to mount; or all the above with leader having time to pop around to block and get on for the PR.

I'm pretty sure you already know this/and probably use PR yourself though.

"Catch them doing something right" - and reward is the general idea as I understand it. (NOT an expert though!)
 
I used PR with Chloe for the following:

Catching - previous owner left her in a headcollar with baler twine on it. I got her home and immediately took it off. Huge leap of faith, but I wanted to force myself to 'walk the walk'. I started by just approaching her - click-treat, then her letting me scratch the side of her head - click, treat. After that I held the headcollar under her nose. If she touched it - click, treat. I use a bumbag for clicker training, so I had enough hands to hold headcollar and clicker. Had her shoving her head in there within 24 hrs. She's never been a problem to catch since.

Feet - previous farrier apparently couldn't do all feet. She refused to pick up hinds, particularly right hind and couldn't hold any up long enough for proper trimming, as she panicked. I started with the fronts, shaping the behaviour from me touching her foot and her not moving away to her picking it up. She was rather enthusiastic and was flinging it up, plus with the hinds I had to be quick to get to her head and give the treat, but it worked well enough that two weeks later my farrier forgot that I'd told him she was a 'project' over the phone. Balancing properly on three legs did take longer, but she solved that herself - no CT, just me ignoring the little hops or foot snatching and asking again when she'd had a few seconds to adjust.

For the acceptance of water on her back, there was an element of negative reinforcement. She was hardly going to put it on herself, so I had to apply it on a sponge (she came with wounds from sweet itch rubbing) and when she stopped fidgeting, I removed the sponge. These days she'll still move away if not tied or eating, but otherwise stands like a lamb-ish!!

To back her she's been trained with mimickry more than anything! Leading from Henry has shown her the worked outside and taught her what 'walk on' and 'trot on', mean. I'm combining negative reinforcement (for the aids) and positive reinforcement (asking her to walk on as a cue, then scratching her neck roughly as reward - she loves that!).

Am sure there's much more. I did do target training with her to teach her the clicker training principles, but I've done things so slowly with her, I can't say I've ever done anything intensive.
 
Ok, I have posted this more than once before, but I think it's a clear-cut case of where positive reinforcement was effective and even necessary.

Let me say first of all, I don't use a clicker for routine training - so I am a long way from being any kind of expert. However, I have used it successfully several times to address specific problems. Here's an example.

Some years ago, I knew a young Welsh Sec A pony stallion that the farrier insisted on being sedated for trimming because he misbehaved so badly. Fear caused him to detest having his feet touched, let alone held, pared and rasped. However, a few short clicker training (CT) sessions completely turned him around.

The pony had received minimal handling from birth and had never learned to accept people messing with his feet. Instead he would react aggressively to attempts to restrain him for hoof care - rearing, striking out and biting. The root cause of his aggression was fear, and the fact he was a stallion gave it an extra edge. He had already gone through a lot of unpleasantness in previous farrier visits. As far as I know, the routine sedation started at about age 3. Before that, physical force was apparently sufficient to get the job done - though I don't imagine it could have been particularly 'routine' or safe. I wouldn't rule out that he had been slapped or punched either, in response to his unruly behaviour and lack of manners.

(It would be easy to blame the 'owner' for not giving this pony the early handling experience that every horse deserves, except that the 'owner' was not one person and the whole situation was rather complicated and messy. The fact that he was not gelded early on, as he should have been in my opinion, is also due to this situation.)

Anyway, I wanted to see how useful clicker training would be in solving this problem, and to help the pony. Before doing this, however, I spent a little while just seeing how far I could get with gentle, sympathetic handling and 'advance and retreat'. The answer was not very far because he would quickly get upset as soon as any attempt was made to get close to his feet or lower legs. That clearly brought back bad memories for him.

[Added: I'm far more experienced with 'advance and retreat' than with CT, so would say that, if I wasn't having success with that, others would likely face a similar lack of success too. Indeed, others had tried and failed using 'sympathetic handling'.]

Teaching the pony what the click means -- always the first lesson -- took less than five minutes, as I have found it does with every horse I've tried it with. (I usually use a traffic cone for that.) Subsequently teaching him to lift each foot reliably to a cue using CT took three or four sessions of 5-10 minutes.

The cue for lifting a forefoot was putting my hand over the pony's nose in a particular way and pointing to the foot I wanted lifted; for a hindfoot it was putting one hand on the croup and pointing to the foot on the same side as me. I associated the cue with the behaviour once it had been produced and reinforced. However, to cause foot lifting initially I didn't even need to touch the foot or leg. In fact, I specifically wanted to avoid doing that. Simply moving my hand towards the leg in the act of pointing was sufficient mental pressure to cause a reaction. No physical pressure was needed or used.

It's worth emphasizing that what the pony felt wasn't merely relief from pressure. That would not have been sufficient to permit me to go beyond pointing to actually touching/cradling his foot, because physical contact would have constituted an even greater pressure. (This example illustrates the fundamental difference between 'relief of pressure' and true reward, and why it's incorrect to view them as the same.)

The clicker training dispelled fear. The fear that something bad might happen to his feet (and to him) was diminished by experiencing that good things were happening in relation to them. That's why acceptance of my getting even closer and touching them came so readily. CT effectively short-circuited this pony's bad feelings about people touching his feet and legs: he couldn't be happy and eager to do something and fearful about it at the same time. Once the pony had learned to lift feet on cue - to offer the behaviour himself - it was a straightforward matter to habituate him to having the foot held for longer and longer periods of time, manipulated, tapped, rasped and so on. The only reason he let me hold his feet in the first place was that foot-lifting had become an activity with positive associations.

By the way, targeting rewards is vastly more effective than simply plying a horse with food - otherwise one might expect (wrongly, of course) that plonking a bucket of feed in front of a horse will miraculously produce good behaviour. That is one crucial difference between rewards and bribes. Rewards are more meaningful for a horse when they are linked to specific behaviours. The pony thought he was in control of the situation because it was his own actions (i.e. lifting his feet) that made pieces of carrot appear. So there was no confrontation or struggle or upset, no need for ropes or restraint. The rest of the habituation process could then proceed from a new baseline of willingness that would not have been there, I believe, if I had simply used advance and retreat.

The outcome was a pony that previously needed to be sedated to have his feet trimmed had learned, without any fuss, to lift each foot to a cue and stand quietly while the foot was manipulated. He didn't need sedating for the farrier again (and he didn't start nibbling at pockets). I'd say that was pretty useful!

Incidentally, although I didn't use CT with this pony again, I found that in doing other things with him his general attitude had improved in the following days - he was a bit less fearful, touchy and aggressive.

I'm not saying there is anything special or 'magical' about this. It isn't rocket science. As far as I am concerned, it's just applying basic principles - as basic as (and complementary to) 'pressure and release'.

(I trust it wasn't too theoretical either!)

Dry Rot - I don't blame you for being totally confused by the theories in the other thread, especially after the waters were muddied (sorry Tonks! :o) by 'overshadowing'. However, I hope the example above will convince you that positive reinforcement, as something distinct from simply "good feel", is a valuable tool in horsemanship.
 
I wish I had the energy to go over what I did with tigger over the years but don't right now, hopefully will add to this thread when I do as clicker type training really worked for him, it gave him an incentive to trust. Another huge success was a pony at the training centre he would have contact but on his terms and you could not get near his legs and feet and strangers were a no no, clicker turned this pony around, giving him the time to work things out for himself and having the incentive changed him, took lots of time but that's what he needed.
 
I am in my 70's and have been training one thing or another all my life. Until recently, I'd handle up to 40 gundogs at the same time. I have this on videos which have got rave reviews. My speciality was teaching tiny pups to do what others could not do with adults. I've been a practising falconer for over fifty years, hunted hounds, etc. So, yes, I do understand training.

I've never tried clicker training and have assumed the click is a substitute for a verbal stimulus that the subject (I gather it works for more species than just horses) associates with something good. After all, "Good boy" said to an English horse in Swahili won't mean much until the horse is taught to associate the African words with something good! I don't pat my ponies when they have done well (though I do now!:D). A friend patted one of mine the other day and it jumped a yard because it had never had a pat in it's life before! So the youngsters have all had a crash course in desensitisation to patting!;):rolleyes:

I use the same techniques I'd use to train a hawk to accept the hood on a pony that is head shy. Ponies that don't like their feet touched get continually stroked with a long stick until they accept it. I pick up feet with a walking stick initially. I'd stroke a new hawk with a feather until they stop biting. That's probably called nervous exhaustion or something!:) Unrewarded behaviour will eventually be discontinued. Feeling a kick strike home must surely be quite satisfying to the kicker and act as a reward, so the stick is used lightly!

I use a lunge line (in fact, yachting rope) to train a foal to lead much the same way I would teach a puppy to lead. Pressure and release. But pressure on the rope with one hand and a food reward offered by the other. +ve or -ve? Or over shadowing?:confused:

Yes, I use edible rewards, but only as a reward for the completion of a particular behaviour. I believe random rewards, given for no reason, will result in random behaviour (e.g. nipping) from the pony. There are no free lunches here. I have an eight month old foal now who doesn't like me approaching him from a particular angle, so I make a point of approaching from that direction -- with the feed bowl in my hand!

I think the most important principle to be understood in training is the concept of threshold and how to erode it. A person has a fear of spiders. They can tolerate a spider at 25 yards but at 25 inches they will be in a state of terror. That 25 yards can gradually be reduced, or eroded, over time and with repetition. If you know you will succeed, it is not difficult to be patient.

I could ramble on. I do understand the reasons for the technical jargon but it is only needed when explaining a procedure to a third party, which I never need to do as I generally work alone. So I am afraid I get a bit impatient with all the long words! I do what works and what works can sometimes produce very quick results, what I call "one lesson learning". These behaviour often follow instinctive behaviour patterns. A horse can learn from one encounter with an electric fence. A gundog can completely change once its predatory instincts are awakened by the proximity of a fluttering bird. But whether that is +v or -ve, I haven't a clue.

I'm too old to ride young horses so I have a young sacrificial victim to do that for me, but I can train from the ground. We recently took two youngsters from being tacked up to being ridden in just three short sessions, so I suppose I must be doing something right.

I think I've written too much already!:)
 
Dry Rot said:
I've never tried clicker training and have assumed the click is a substitute for a verbal stimulus that the subject (I gather it works for more species than just horses) associates with something good. ...

That's probably called nervous exhaustion or something!:)
Click to expand...

With regards to the click, it's used to mark the behaviour. Not so much because of language (although yes, it does help, but equally you could use a pen, fingers, a squeaky toy...), but because it is precise. This becomes especially important when you're shaping behaviour, such as the foot examples both Francis and I used. Technically it's called a 'bridge'. You're telling the subject 'YES! That's it!' and also that a reward will follow, effectively bridging the mental gap between behaviour and reward.

Your paragraph about how you handle feet is known as 'flooding'.
 
a benefit of using the clicker over a verbal 'good' or 'well done' is that its non emotional, the clicker cant have good/ bad days so it's a constant which allows more clarity in training.

* Not sure if the stick on feet is flooding. I would have thought flooding would be just picking up feet time after time until the horse gets used to it (or just emotionally shuts down through stress) I would have put that more towards systematic desensitization, as long as you aren't pushing them past their 'ok' zone at each stage? I think thats what dry rot is talking about when she mentions the spider threshold thing
 
It was me on the other thread that already mentioned about teaching the horse to stand by the mounting block - and accept a person on board.

I have also found clicker/ treat training particularly useful for teaching the Spanish Walk (and believe this can be done solely using +r) and for teaching the horse to go over/ past/ through scary objects.
 
Masmo said:
a benefit of using the clicker over a verbal 'good' or 'well done' is that its non emotional, the clicker cant have good/ bad days so it's a constant which allows more clarity in training.

* Not sure if the stick on feet is flooding. I would have thought flooding would be just picking up feet time after time until the horse gets used to it (or just emotionally shuts down through stress) I would have put that more towards systematic desensitization, as long as you aren't pushing them past their 'ok' zone at each stage? I think thats what dry rot is talking about when she mentions the spider threshold thing
Click to expand...

One particularly quiet yearling was a pain with the farrier this time. (It's funny, but I've noticed the "easy" ones sometimes have little foibles like that!).

The farrier asked if he could rope her. I don't like ropes but he is a good farrier and the pony needed her back feet done, so I agreed. He put a loop of rope around the back fetlock and a loop around her neck and tightened the rope between the two. If she kicked, she was therefore pulling against herself. She tried a couple of times, then completely "switched off", eyes half closed and apparently asleep. The feet were trimmed without protest.

I've seen a mare do exactly the same thing when three of us were trying to lift her onto a trailer! Of course, a horse is learning nothing when it is in this state. Mentally it's nervous system is saying "I can't cope with this, so won't even try". (Yes, I am anthropomorphising for the sake of the explanation, horses don't actually think like that, do they?). I do the same thing when confronted with form filling!:( That mare was eventually trained to load without problems.

I expect there is a technical term for that too, but does it really help anyone to understand what is going on?
 
Dry Rot said:
Yes, I use edible rewards, but only as a reward for the completion of a particular behaviour.
Click to expand...
Same here. Occasionally I will reward the expression of an attitude (e.g. relative calmness), or the absence of a behaviour (e.g. not shying away), but usually rewards are for something the horse just did.

I believe random rewards, given for no reason, will result in random behaviour (e.g. nipping) from the pony.
Click to expand...
Isn't that just common sense?

Actually, you tend to get the behaviours that you reward - so nipping isn't just random, it's the logical culmination of rewarding attempts by the horse to get at the edibles. And therein lies one solution to unwanted nibbling behaviour.
 
The basis of it all is that anything that gets positively reinforced is likely to be offered again. So the only limits to what you can train with it are your imagination and your ability to shape the behaviour from the basic being offered to what it is you want. Oh, and the ability to treat - does anyone have any ideas on how I can R+ my non forward going horse to obtain more impulsion. Stopping to turn his head to me for a treat isn't really helpful lol
 
I am not an expert, in fact I am very inexperienced, and have had to use trial and error with my sometimes difficult, intelligent spanish horse.
I have found that positive reinforcement has been the ONLY method that has turned my non-hacker into a pretty bombproof lone hacker. I couldn't use treats because he is greedy and gets bargy, but just lots and lots of praise and reassurance. Timing is key - the instant he does something good he gets praise and a rub.
 
JillA said:
The basis of it all is that anything that gets positively reinforced is likely to be offered again. So the only limits to what you can train with it are your imagination and your ability to shape the behaviour from the basic being offered to what it is you want. Oh, and the ability to treat - does anyone have any ideas on how I can R+ my non forward going horse to obtain more impulsion. Stopping to turn his head to me for a treat isn't really helpful lol
Click to expand...

JillA if you think outside the box of what is reinforcing for your non forward going horse that will help. Whats his favorite non food thing? Does he like a scratch, pat or verbal?

One of the (lazy) horses I ride likes a good canter around the school with me up out the saddle so if you got some nice impulsion work you could use verbal praise and then let him have a burn round the school. Or if he finds it more reinforcing to have a bumble round on a long rein that could be your reward for more impulsion. If you look into transfer of value (eg dog gets excited by a lead being picked up- the lead itself initially has no value but he knows whenever its picked up it will be followed by a walk- therfore eventually just the sight of the lead creates a positive value for the dog) he then should eventually find the impulsion itself more reinforcing. Also I am guessing youd want to use some negative reinforcment to get him going forward in the first place :eek:
 
Masmo, flooding is continued stimulus until the subject no longer reacts. That's how I perceived Dry rot's post anyhow. That she was stroking in one session until no reaction was given. One stroke, then backing off would be desensitization. Might have got the wrong end of the stick, though, no pun intended! :D
 
Fransurrey said:
Masmo, flooding is continued stimulus until the subject no longer reacts. That's how I perceived Dry rot's post anyhow. That she was stroking in one session until no reaction was given. One stroke, then backing off would be desensitization. Might have got the wrong end of the stick, though, no pun intended! :D
Click to expand...

I started this thread because I felt the other one was getting too bound up in definitions which I (personally) don't think are that important and can be confusing.

The important thing about training is that it should work. If you watch animals a lot, it soon comes across that they learn most of what they need to learn through play. So I believe that training should be fun -- for both the trainer and the trainee.

My approach to lifting feet is using something I've noticed. If an animal is given a stimulus it reacts. It will continue to react only so long as there is a result. Rattle a bucket and most native ponies will come running. Do that enough times with an empty bucket, the the pony won't even look up. Stroke the legs of a horse enough times and it will eventually give up kicking and accept it. I don't know whether that is flooding or desensitisation and I don't really care. It works and that is all that matters to me!;) "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...."
 
In this case I agree, no harm in the definitions. I was simply responding to a post directly aimed at me.

However I have come across high profile trainers who enhance their 'product' with the misuse of words such as 'positive' and 'reward'. I'm these cases I do think it's important, asthe students of these so-called gurus are taken in by pretty wording.
 
Fransurrey said:
In this case I agree, no harm in the definitions. I was simply responding to a post directly aimed at me.

However I have come across high profile trainers who enhance their 'product' with the misuse of words such as 'positive' and 'reward'. I'm these cases I do think it's important, asthe students of these so-called gurus are taken in by pretty wording.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I think I made a similar point on the other thread. Even the experts can't agree.

The mechanics of what is actually going on are more important than the words.
 
I've posted a clip here of someone I know called Marianne Florman, obviously she is into natural horsemanship, but in the film you can see a number of occasions when she uses +R. Obviously, these horses are not trained using +R exclusively, but what I like to think is a balanced approach.
Marianne touches on the use of energy in the training, something which I refered to in an earlier thread, but, which was met with no real comprehension or understanding by the majority.

I hope this film helps demonstrate some of the points I try to make on occasion.:)

http://youtu.be/SvRfQCmMofA
 
Dry Rot said:
Exactly! I think I made a similar point on the other thread. Even the experts can't agree.
Click to expand...
With one or two exceptions, the professionals and many 'amateurs' (I would include myself in the latter category) most certainly can and do agree on the definitions of basic things like positive and negative reinforcement. There is excellent consensus around the terminology. The people, mentioned by FranSurrey, who willfully misuse the terms - hoping perhaps to generate an impression of scientific rigour or verisimilitude - are not experts.

The mechanics of what is actually going on are more important than the words.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, if people are going to use words to describe and explain what they do, they should at least try to be clear and unambiguous and, if they use technical terms, they should use them correctly.
 
Pale Rider said:
I hope this film helps demonstrate some of the points I try to make on occasion.:)

http://youtu.be/SvRfQCmMofA
Click to expand...
Thanks for the pointer, Pale Rider - I enjoyed watching that. Yes, Marianne Florman uses +R well and quite a lot - not just food treats but rubs as well. I particularly liked how quiet and soft she was, even when using 'energy' to move the horse. Although she did treat the horse at the end of the sequence starting at 2:01 in the video, one can do exactly this sort of thing using just horses' natural desire to coordinate movement and their willingness to 'be' with people (though obviously this won't work if the horse is fearful, untrusting or dislikes you in any way), 'withness' being its own reward.

I reckon the Parellis could learn a few lessons from Marianne Florman (seriously)!
 
Dry Rot said:
My approach to lifting feet is using something I've noticed. If an animal is given a stimulus it reacts. It will continue to react only so long as there is a result. Rattle a bucket and most native ponies will come running. Do that enough times with an empty bucket, the the pony won't even look up. Stroke the legs of a horse enough times and it will eventually give up kicking and accept it. I don't know whether that is flooding or desensitisation and I don't really care. It works and that is all that matters to me!;) "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...."
Click to expand...
I agree this approach works well in most cases. It would be the first thing I tried with a horse that objected to having its feet handled. Would you agree though that sometimes taking this approach would lead to escalating fear and distrust? I'm talking about horses that you can't even get close to stroking their legs safely without major ructions, or explode when someone attempts to do so. Instead of the adverse reaction getting progressively less and less, it gets wilder and wilder - to the extent that one would have to leave the stable to begin to restore calm (or if you attempted to do this in open space, the horse would be long gone). When fear - and, with some horses (esp. stallions), aggression - escalates due to the phobia, the horse may then start to react even when he perceives the intention of the handler to do something. Think of how some needle-phobic horses go loopy if they even suspect someone has a needle. This kind of extreme fear has its root in previous bad experiences.

With such horses, I think that progressive desensitization is feasible on its own but can take a long time and require great patience and sensitivity.

One alternative is to somehow restrain the horse enough to allow repeated exposure until it gives up and accepts the feared thing. There is a significant downside to this 'flooding' - quite apart from the fact that it is much more unpleasant and stressful for the horse - there is the risk that the suppressed behaviour may re-emerge suddenly and unexpectedly at a later date. Just because the horse has stopped responding to an aversive stimulus, which is presented in a way that does not allow avoidance or escape, doesn't necessarily mean the horse is no longer fearful. All it may take is a slightly different situation for a full-blown fear response to reappear.

Another alternative is to use rewards to facilitate and accelerate the process of getting the horse used to, and accepting of, something feared. This is what I did with the Welsh pony stallion. You haven't said what you think of that particular bit of training. Is it an approach you consider worthwhile, or would you prefer to use desensitization alone, even with such extreme cases? If the latter, I'd be interested to hear the reasons why!
 
A lovely video! But I can't help wondering if those horses would have the same rapport with a different handler?

Here (below) is something similar. But Highland ponies this time. The title is misleading. It has nothing to do with The Royal Highland Show!

But the trainers in these videos are professionals and they can devote a lot of time to the training. Most amateurs do not have that time. It is a matter of achieving the best they can with limited resources. When things go wrong, it can be incredibly frustrating, as demonstrated by many threads on here.

Surely it is better to learn the techniques rather than a new vocabulary?

[youtube]MrneMTBrGV4[/youtube]
 
Just posting to back up what Francis said. The people I'm talking about are not behaviourist experts by any stretch and quite often are corrected on their use of terms, much to the uproar of their ego and disciples. You'll find in many cases that this is why people get uppity about misuse of terms. ;)
 
So whats the general consensus of opinion. Are we advocating that +R is to be used as the major training tool, or that a combination of -R and +R is better. What about punishment and reward?

My own view is that it very much depends on the horse that presents itself on the day, and that there are not, and never can be hard and fast rules. The skill must be in being appropreate throughout the whole contact with the horse.
 
Pale Rider said:
My own view is that it very much depends on the horse that presents itself on the day, and that there are not, and never can be hard and fast rules.
Click to expand...
I'm with you there! :) I think most people will use a mixture that they consider appropriate for the situation, with more or less emphasis on +R/reward. Some people eschew food +R altogether, believing that it necessarily leads to mouthiness and other problems. Others use it in an untargeted way - semi-random treating. Yet others recognize it as a powerful and useful training tool, so use it in specific ways.
 
fburton said:
I'm with you there! :) I think most people will use a mixture that they consider appropriate for the situation, with more or less emphasis on +R/reward. Some people eschew food +R altogether, believing that it necessarily leads to mouthiness and other problems. Others use it in an untargeted way - semi-random treating. Yet others recognize it as a powerful and useful training tool, so use it in specific ways.
Click to expand...

Another who agrees! As I've said elsewhere, I've also trained working dogs and hawks for over 50 years. One of my favourite books was written by a 16th century hawk whisperer. In that, he pointed out that most novices assume that their hawks won't come when called because they are not hungry enough.

His explanation was that they would not return when called because the reward was not sufficient. It is a small point but absolutely spot on! My hawks would fly hundreds of yards from the tallest trees to come to me because, after reading this, I always made sure the reward was consistently proportional to the task.

I am not talking about the popular Harris Hawk here, but goshawks which can be difficult and temperamental. I learnt a lot about training ALL species from that book, horses included. There is nothing much new in training, it has all been done before. So, yes, in this example +ve reinforcement, but in sufficient degree to be an adequate reward for the task performed.
 
fburton said:
I'm with you there! :) I think most people will use a mixture that they consider appropriate for the situation, with more or less emphasis on +R/reward. Some people eschew food +R altogether, believing that it necessarily leads to mouthiness and other problems. Others use it in an untargeted way - semi-random treating. Yet others recognize it as a powerful and useful training tool, so use it in specific ways.
Click to expand...

I think that food can be very powerful, but, using it in an untargeted or semi random way is a mistake. It can lead to mouthiness, invasive behaviour and a lack of concentration for the horse. I suppose the attempts to buy affection from the horse with food are the most ineffectual uses of this training tool.

Withness, is an interesting concept and is perhaps the acid test of a relationship. The horses willingness to remain with the handler when the head collar comes off in the the field demonstrates how successful the training regime has been, and exactly how strong the relationship is.

If the horse will stay with you in 20 acres, without being bribed with food, and if you can draw the horse from 100 or 200 meters, without a food bribe, shows that you're getting something right. These are the yard sticks I like to use to measure the effectiveness or not of the training in building the relationship.
 
Dry Rot said:
Surely it is better to learn the techniques rather than a new vocabulary?
Click to expand...
Surely it's not either/or? Ok, if I only had limited time to do one or the other, there's no question I would choose technique over vocabulary. But it doesn't take long to learn new words and the ideas behind them, and it can be done when one is away from horses.

I realize that theory isn't for everyone - you've made that abundantly clear. :) Others find it useful, both to explain and to predict and plan. If theory killed "the art, feel, creativity, individuality" of interacting with horses, I would dump it in an instant. But, for me, theory coexists happily alongside practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top