+R training only. Can it work?

Caol Ila

Caol Ila

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 January 2012
Messages
8,821
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
Another discussion for discussion's sake!

I was footering around on Facebook, as you do, clicked a link to a page that a friend had posted, then ended up going down an internet rabbit hole of trainers who argue that horses can and should be trained with positive reinforcement only. No negative reinforcement, definitely no positive punishment. Negative reinfocement, aka pressure-release, was presented as callous and cruel. Trainer insisted that if you can train various species of wildlife with only +R, then we should be able to do the same with horses.

I use quite a bit of +R, either treats or scratches depending on the horse and what I am doing. But I can't get my head around how you would train all the behaviours you would want from a ridden horse with +R only. If I went out to the barn and decided I would not use any pressure/release to communicate with my horses, I would be taking huge chunks of language out of my vocabulary, and I think the horses would be baffled. However, I am not the best at the clicker training. I am certainly nowhere near pro-dolphin trainer levels of skills with it.

If you have pro-dolphin trainer skills at clicker training, can you train horses using only +R and no negative reinforcement?

Does it only work with some horses, doing some things, some of the time?

Are clicker trainers unconsciously using pressure-release anyway? Horses are so sensitive that "pressure" can come from our body language, not just reins, whips, legs.
 
Do I think it can be done? Yes, very definitely.

Do I think it can be done, and then used exclusively, in a real world environment? Probably not.

As you say, there are many different types of pressure etc, there will certainly be times when the horse will have to wear some form of restraint in the real world.
 
It's a super interesting topic, I think. I come from the dog world, have trained 5 dogs upto agility champion/obedience Ch etc all entirely R+.
Super novice in the horse world (1st pony) and deferring to those who know much, much more than me. I find the way horses are trained is kinda like we trained dogs 30 years ago. Lots of "you must, because I said so" type stuff. I don't think my pony would choose to work if he had a choice whereas my dogs absolutely would. He is super food motivated and I try and use that to reward (carrots in my pocket and reward him when he /we do something well as he is little I don't have to get off, can reach his nose) but it's not the same. My trainer is used to me standing in the middle of the ring with carrots and saying "carrot break, please" when she is riding him. She tolerates it but think she finds it a bit irritating as he will look for me when she's riding him. I don't know how you would real life totally R+ train a ridden horse when riding and I'm not training him so I've mainly done it with ground work. But I do feel a bit guilty :(
 
Caol Ila said:
Are clicker trainers unconsciously using pressure-release anyway?
Click to expand...
From the local person I have the most knowledge of... yep. No pressure, no pressure, no pressure, give a little pull on the headcollar to encourage them to lower their head oh what's that? No, I gave a treat after, so that doesn't count.

Every time this comes up I just feel like its a basic communication issue. Adding leg to go forward, or as a lateral aid is pressure. A feel on the rein to ask for bend is pressure. Even if it is followed up with a positive reward so it feels like purely R+, there is still pressure and release involved.
 
It feels like making life difficult for the sake of it- after all, leg aids are pressure release, but also something that most horses understand very quickly and are not inherently unpleasant (assuming no pony club kicks!). I'd also say the line becomes blurred when the horse wants to go forward- he will welcome the leg aid as it becomes the release cue from the trained behaviour of standing still.
You could try training with only voice aids- but then tone of voice can be stressful for them and would start to come under pressure/release.
I think a better metric for welfare during training would be looking at the stress levels of the horse- but that requires more careful observation and is somewhat subjective.
 
I am sure it can be done.

However, the reality of using only R+ is not practicable or achievable for most people.

You also need to consider how aversive the pressure being used is - there will be different levels of aversiveness depending on what is applied and this will vary from horse to horse as well as situation to situation.

I train mainly with R+, however, I absolutely do use R- and I believe that, when well used, it has its place. I also need to be mindful that if anyone else who is a 'normal' horse person ever handles my two they need to understand the standard R- cues used within the horse world.

I am probably the sort of R+ trainer that the purists despise because I freely mix R- and R+ but, the way I see it, as long as the horse has clear signals and is not stressed by the cues I am using then that is what is important.

It is also worth bearing in mind that R+ training in itself can be stressful for some horses because they are so food orientated they find not being able to get it hard to cope with. (One of my horses was like this when I started using R+ and I had to spend a long time training him just to chill out.)

I think that the reality of the horse world means that it is simply not practical for people to use R+ all the time in every situation. Plus the stigma I've faced from other horse people because I train with treats means you need to have a strong spine and a lot of conviction in what you're doing. Add into that R+ goes against pretty much everything we are taught in the traditional horse world and that can be a hard thing for people to break away from. (Or even consider alternatives to.)

The way I see it though is that people wouldn't treat their dogs like they do their horses - so why is it acceptable to handle one species with treats and not the other? Similarly why is it OK to hit a horse for not complying yet most people would not dream of doing that to their dogs. It makes no sense to me.
 
It’s worth remembering that R- isn’t simply pressure/release: it’s aversive pressure which makes the release rewarding. The argument in some circles as well is that R- specifically requires escalating pressure.

Regardless, not all pressure is aversive. A scratch applies pressure to the withers, but that’s almost always a rewarding stimulus in itself. The squeeze of a calf into the side of a horse will often be aversive - especially to a horse who knows what happens if they don’t obey that pressure (the pressure escalates - they get a stick/kick/spur), or to a horse with ulcers who’ll find that pressure uncomfortable, and thus aversive regardless of how they’re trained. But, to a horse who hasn’t been trained like this and doesn’t dislike touch, then is that pressure still going to be aversive? If it isn’t, then you can train with R+ whilst using the traditional body aids.

If you wanted to be very ‘purist’ in your R+, you could train a horse only with voice aids, thus avoiding pressure. To ask the horse to lower its head, as in smolmaus’ example, you’d use a target as a lure then click when the head drops. This is how marine mammal trainers do it (an interesting video here highlighting the use of targets).

Realistically, you can train anything. Some routes may be less efficient, but anything can be trained with timing and consistency, whether you use R+ or R-. Yes, your horses would be thoroughly confused if you one day switched to only R+, but that’s because that goes against the language you’ve developed with them, and not because it’s impossible.

And then there’s also the growing call about moving away from only using operant conditioning or using behaviourism as your main framework, but that’s a discussion for another day.
 
I guess it would depend on what you're trying to train the horse to do & your definition of "pressure". Horses definitely are sensitive enough to respond to body language, eye contact & small changes in energy. Are seat aids pressure? What about rein aids? Cos you're going to need at least one out of two if you want reliable steering & speed control when riding.

Do I think someone talented with a clicker could teach a horse to respond to very light aids without having to use punishment? Probably yes but I think there would still have to be pressure based aids to ask for some behaviours, especially whilst ridden. (I don't think it would be enough to train left / right verbally as you need to be able to ask for exactly the degree you need & I just don't think that would be possible using verbal cues only... Following a target maybe? But then how practical would that realistically be?)
 
Honestly, I think we forget horses use negative pressure in their own training of other horses. It’s a language they do understand. Watching mares in a herd is fascinating as is watching foals who imitate their mother. I think I hate the term negative pressure as though I appreciate what it means, it could be anything from beating the horse to what I do which is applying pressure on a rope halter to move the feet or using a schooling whip to correct straightness by using it as an extension of my arm.

Tbh I cba with going so ridiculously over the top about using only +. Fine if all you care about is that. The TB had to have negative pressure applied at a ditch recently. He just didn’t get it at all so had to be walked through it in the rope halter and lunge line. I am pretty good with a clicker and use it a lot but it wasn’t a clicker situation. TB then comes back to ditch normally and gets what is now required. Ditto with loading.
 
Not really sure how I feel about this tbh but it's worth bearing in mind that some horses (and dogs) find some aspects of +R training more stressful than we might think. A dog or horse that is anticipating a treat (especially a high value food treat) has to be really carefully trained or ime there are levels of stress shown which are only released with a treat. Personally, I don't like to see that. I am not sure in my own head about the boundaries of partnership in animal training; it feels quite complex to me! Having said that, I have worked very hard to only train my dog with, not R+ as such, but purely praise for what is right. Food treats were and are involved but sporadically rather than predictably. It is easier and safer however with a medium sized dog with an impeccable temperament than a young horse, for example. My young horse has been trained with absolutely as much praise and a few carrots (which really make sense to her but I try to avoid them becoming a conveyor belt for communications lol) BUT I have also, at the early stages, carried a schooling whip - particularly for early in hand hacks, as a safety measure. I would absolutely use it, both as a visual aid and a physical one if safety called for it.

I don't think R+ is clearly defined enough to be honest, to be useful in discussion about training horses but that is just my view. Of course you would hope that such sensitive animals as horses, in this case, would be trained with empathy and respect which may be a different way of looking at R+ ideas. But horses are trained for many different things and individual horses have different experiences of what is 'positive'. I hate anything that tries to simplify our relationship with animals into a set of 'methods'; it makes me feel trapped and I am not sure it covers the level of sensitivity, understanding and flex that horsemanship needs. Waffly, sorry!!
 
Even only training using voice calmly you can certainly add unpleasant pressure to a horse that’s switched on to it. As a driving horse who’s fantastic with voice aids mine finds it much easier to ignore my leg (I’ve successfully…Taught him to be a bit dead) than my voice…!
 
palo1 said:
Not really sure how I feel about this tbh but it's worth bearing in mind that some horses (and dogs) find some aspects of +R training more stressful than we might think. A dog or horse that is anticipating a treat (especially a high value food treat) has to be really carefully trained or ime there are levels of stress shown which are only released with a treat. Personally, I don't like to see that. I am not sure in my own head about the boundaries of partnership in animal training; it feels quite complex to me! Having said that, I have worked very hard to only train my dog with, not R+ as such, but purely praise for what is right. Food treats were and are involved but sporadically rather than predictably. It is easier and safer however with a medium sized dog with an impeccable temperament than a young horse, for example. My young horse has been trained with absolutely as much praise and a few carrots (which really make sense to her but I try to avoid them becoming a conveyor belt for communications lol) BUT I have also, at the early stages, carried a schooling whip - particularly for early in hand hacks, as a safety measure. I would absolutely use it, both as a visual aid and a physical one if safety called for it.

I don't think R+ is clearly defined enough to be honest, to be useful in discussion about training horses but that is just my view. Of course you would hope that such sensitive animals as horses, in this case, would be trained with empathy and respect which may be a different way of looking at R+ ideas. But horses are trained for many different things and individual horses have different experiences of what is 'positive'. I hate anything that tries to simplify our relationship with animals into a set of 'methods'; it makes me feel trapped and I am not sure it covers the level of sensitivity, understanding and flex that horsemanship needs. Waffly, sorry!!
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree with this. I can't see how, if you are using exclusively P+ (edit, i think I meant R+) training with a horse, that you are not leaving it to the horse to guess or accidentally do what you want. I have met many horses who would be very frustrated or made very nervous by what they would, I think, perceive as this failure of leadership.
.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
Absolutely agree with this. I can't see how, if you are using exclusively P+ training with a horse, that you are not leaving it to the horse to guess or accidentally do what you want. I have met many horses who would be very frustrated or made very nervous by what they would, I think, perceive as this failure of leadership.
.
Click to expand...

Yes and that is also notwithstanding the very real fact that horses communicate with each other in ways that a purely R+ trainer may find frustrating; although body language is usually subtle before escalating to actual horrid faces, teeth and hooves, I would be astonished if all horse-horse communications were classed as R+. The discrepancy in our ability to communicate as softly and subtly at times must be difficult for horses who, often, it would seem actually prefer fairness and clarity to other perhaps, less easy to interpret signals. In any case, horses desires and ours are often distant so some would argue that any form of 'training' removes a horse from what they may naturally desire and so cannot be R+. It is the conundrum of our interaction with them!! R+ training seems like such a human construct to me - I am not sure how useful it is if you are truly trying to take into account the perspective of any other animal.
 
KEK said:
I don't think my pony would choose to work if he had a choice whereas my dogs absolutely would.
Click to expand...

palo1 said:
In any case, horses desires and ours are often distant so some would argue that any form of 'training' removes a horse from what they may naturally desire and so cannot be R+.
Click to expand...

I have little experience of pure R+ training, other than recently some friends (two different sets of friends in fact) who are inexperienced dog owners took that approach with new puppies and neither worked out well - one ended up going to a more 'traditional' working dog trainer and now has a beautifully behaved dog, and the other has sent the dog back to the breeder... It seemed to me that we essentially have two 'words' we can use in very early training (yes and no - either verbally, with treats, or with body language) and by using R+ these owners were taking away 50% of their ability to communicate with the dog.

Not withstanding those examples (which are poor examples as the owners were so inexperienced), I do think there's a big difference between dogs and horses and both KEK and Palo1's posts have made me think. I am most definitely not a behaviourist but it occurs to me that we have bred dogs in a way that has taken their natural instincts - be that to hunt, sniff out prey, look after a pack, defend their pack - and honed them to do a particular job for us. Whereas we have had to train horses to do something that they would never do naturally - carry a human - and while we have bred them to work for and with us, they will never actively choose to do the things that we expect of them. Therefore the 'trial and error' nature of R+ is less likely to be effective.

I may have entirely misunderstood how R+ works so I'd be interested in the thoughts of more experienced posters.
 
j1ffy said:
I have little experience of pure R+ training, other than recently some friends (two different sets of friends in fact) who are inexperienced dog owners took that approach with new puppies and neither worked out well - one ended up going to a more 'traditional' working dog trainer and now has a beautifully behaved dog, and the other has sent the dog back to the breeder... It seemed to me that we essentially have two 'words' we can use in very early training (yes and no - either verbally, with treats, or with body language) and by using R+ these owners were taking away 50% of their ability to communicate with the dog.

Not withstanding those examples (which are poor examples as the owners were so inexperienced), I do think there's a big difference between dogs and horses and both KEK and Palo1's posts have made me think. I am most definitely not a behaviourist but it occurs to me that we have bred dogs in a way that has taken their natural instincts - be that to hunt, sniff out prey, look after a pack, defend their pack - and honed them to do a particular job for us. Whereas we have had to train horses to do something that they would never do naturally - carry a human - and while we have bred them to work for and with us, they will never actively choose to do the things that we expect of them. Therefore the 'trial and error' nature of R+ is less likely to be effective.

I may have entirely misunderstood how R+ works so I'd be interested in the thoughts of more experienced posters.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is a really useful way of looking at it tbh. There are lots of training things that can be done with horses with R+ 'methods' but I am certainly not sure they are stress free or absolutely positive either. When we call a horse in, for example, for food, a treat or grooming, whilst that doesn't involve riding it may involve a horse leaving their mates, leaving their grazing etc in anticipation of something nice. I think it is REALLY hard to simply reward positive actions from a horse if we want to train horses to suit our needs and desires. I haven't met many horses that need encouragement to graze, roll, rest or play which are the key natural behaviours that horses show. It is possible to do some liberty training of course but even that has some compromise I think. Dogs just are different; they are fundamentally often very interested in what we are doing and many of their behaviours are the ones we want to train. I cannot imagine any scenario in which a horse could indicate that they would find it fun for us to clamber aboard on the other hand.

The fact that we can see this, doesn't to my mind mean we should entirely forget the long history of our relationship with horses. I think it should inform how we train for unnatural behaviours though (ie to be ridden, jump, compete, load etc). The case for R+training with dogs is also a bit holey too; we can do R+ all we like but most dogs genuinely would like to hang out in a large pack, hunt what they liked when they liked, breed freely etc etc. We can use R+ the entire lifetime of a dog but it doesn't necessarily mean, in my view, that we are providing the ultimately positive life. But yeah, really interesting topic @Caol Ila !
 
Regarding the comments on R+ being about trial and error: that’s what R- is about too. E.g., the horse doesn’t intuitively understand that more pressure on its side means trot. It may offer various behaviours instead (lifting the head, planting, etc.) and the pressure will be applied till the right behaviour is achieved. Besides, another training method that typically relies on R+ is the concept of “errorless learning” - the IAABC has some articles on its application with animals if you’re interested.

Secondly, some horses do nervous when they get the wrong answer. This is often a result of past training, and how they’ve been treated when they make a mistake. Should part of teaching an animal to be comfortable and engaged in their training not be teaching them that making mistakes is okay?

Finally, yes, R+ can be frustrating for the animal. It’s not always the right method, especially for horses who experience a lot of food-related anxiety. It can be made unpleasant for an animal if the trainer’s timing is off - but so can R-. Can anyone here say, hand on heart, that they’re never frustrated an animal with their poor timing when riding? Is a kid’s pony who’s getting pulled on the mouth even after it halted not experiencing frustration? That’s R-.

palo1 said:
R+ training seems like such a human construct to me - I am not sure how useful it is if you are truly trying to take into account the perspective of any other animal.
Click to expand...
This is both the beauty and the failure of R+, or indeed any operant conditioning. It’s not supposed to be building a bond, and it’s not supposed to be natural horsemanship. It’s a very simple method of shaping behaviour, that works with pretty much all animals (excluding some practical difficulties with species that rarely eat). Given this, does it need to take into perspective of the other animal?

Modern-day R+ is much more aware of emotion and thresholds than Skinner initially designed any operant conditioning to be; if you’re acknowledging and working with their emotions, is the animal going to suffer because you’re not communicating by their language (keeping in mind that nothing a human does with an horse will ever be 100% natural or 100% their language)? Sure, an ethologist wouldn’t use R+ for the reason you mention, but they wouldn’t use R- either because any behaviour shaping fundamentally prioritises the human perspective over the animal’s.
 
stangs said:
Regarding the comments on R+ being about trial and error: that’s what R- is about too. E.g., the horse doesn’t intuitively understand that more pressure on its side means trot. It may offer various behaviours instead (lifting the head, planting, etc.) and the pressure will be applied till the right behaviour is achieved. Besides, another training method that typically relies on R+ is the concept of “errorless learning” - the IAABC has some articles on its application with animals if you’re interested.

Secondly, some horses do nervous when they get the wrong answer. This is often a result of past training, and how they’ve been treated when they make a mistake. Should part of teaching an animal to be comfortable and engaged in their training not be teaching them that making mistakes is okay?

Finally, yes, R+ can be frustrating for the animal. It’s not always the right method, especially for horses who experience a lot of food-related anxiety. It can be made unpleasant for an animal if the trainer’s timing is off - but so can R-. Can anyone here say, hand on heart, that they’re never frustrated an animal with their poor timing when riding? Is a kid’s pony who’s getting pulled on the mouth even after it halted not experiencing frustration? That’s R-.


This is both the beauty and the failure of R+, or indeed any operant conditioning. It’s not supposed to be building a bond, and it’s not supposed to be natural horsemanship. It’s a very simple method of shaping behaviour, that works with pretty much all animals (excluding some practical difficulties with species that rarely eat). Given this, does it need to take into perspective of the other animal?

Modern-day R+ is much more aware of emotion and thresholds than Skinner initially designed any operant conditioning to be; if you’re acknowledging and working with their emotions, is the animal going to suffer because you’re not communicating by their language (keeping in mind that nothing a human does with an horse will ever be 100% natural or 100% their language)? Sure, an ethologist wouldn’t use R+ for the reason you mention, but they wouldn’t use R- either because any behaviour shaping fundamentally prioritises the human perspective over the animal’s.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. For me, it just feels a bit reductive because my own interest combines an interest in what an animal is thinking/experiencing and how best to communicate and connect with that animal. I get why people feel it is a worthwhile approach but it lacks the sense of 'connection' and mystique which has always tied me to and maintains my interest in animal experiences of us and our world. Daft though it may sound, having lived with animals my whole life I do think there is far more to our relationships than any manual or method might suggest. I can't quite bring myself to reduce things to a purely scientific or even ethological approach. But I probably don't know enough about those things really. For me, at any rate, it feels more complex...
 
stangs said:
Regarding the comments on R+ being about trial and error: that’s what R- is about too. E.g., the horse doesn’t intuitively understand that more pressure on its side means trot. It may offer various behaviours instead (lifting the head, planting, etc.) and the pressure will be applied till the right behaviour is achieved.
Click to expand...


That's just bad training though, isn't it?

You don't press and press until the horse moves forward (or more likely explodes!). You teach it to move from a voice aid before the leg aid, or you get a human or a horse to lead it off, or you turn the horse slightly so it moves a foot to rebalance and praise the movement mightily so that it connects the movement with the feel of the leg. The pressure can be minimal. (I've also found that most horses do come with some response to the touch of the leg factory installed :) )

I'm not really very interested in analysing that using two letters of the alphabet and a plus/minus, for me it's about a conversation that the horse and I understand. I think I'm on Palo's hymnsheet with this one.
 
Surely the whole relationship with horses works best just by being present? Adapting to how the horse is and having lots of tools in the box. For me that is the joy of horses, every single one is different and requires a different thing at a different moment.
 
This is an interesting thread. Early-mid 2010’s Horseblr (Tumblr horse subculture) was very big on training only with R+. They eventually got caught in a purity spiral of their own making which led to two main splits; one taking the view that asking anything of horses (even for their own good - vet, farrier, etc) was unethical as you could never do it without causing negative emotion, and the other that it wasn’t possible to achieve their aims through R+ as it’s not how horses naturally communicate so why bother using it at all.

It’s funny seeing the same discussion points playing out here nearly a decade later :D.

Most of the people that I followed from those days now either don’t have anything to do with horses or have returned to traditional ‘aversive’ training methods. You might be able to still find the Tumblr posts from that era if you search, @Caol Ila .

* what can I say, it was Tumblr, there were a *lot* of nutso’s.
 
LEC said:
Surely the whole relationship with horses works best just by being present? Adapting to how the horse is and having lots of tools in the box. For me that is the joy of horses, every single one is different and requires a different thing at a different moment.
Click to expand...

In my own training, I pretty much do exactly what LEC says. I gather lots of tools and do my best to adapt them to that horse, that day. They are all different. And even the same horse needs different things depending on the day and the questions you're asking. A lot of it is just getting them to believe you. Today, I rode Fin past a herd of cows who had been moved into a new field and weren't happy about it. Consequently, they were doing a lot of agitated mooing. He'd lived with cows in a previous life so he was concerned that the agitated mooing indicated a problem. I was pleased that I talked him into keeping it together and believing me when I said that it wasn't his problem. I don't know if it was +R, -R, or talking a lot of shite, but Skinnerian behaviourism never has been good at describing fuzzy wuzzy bond/trust stuff that transcends pure operant conditioning.

I use a lot more treats (bribes?) with Fin and Hermosa than I ever did with Gypsum because it seems to really help them, whereas Gypsum would get so stressed out and frantic about getting the treat that she would lose sight of your cues. Good old pressure-release was far more chilled and effective.

I love a good rabbit hole, though, and this trainer's FB page and website made such a strong case for only positive reinforcement. That's why it got me thinking - how would that work? And absolutely, you (consciously anyway) lose that whole 'horsey' level of communication where controlling space is exactly how they 'speak.'
 
Then there's the fact that horses are big. Unlike chihuahas.

If one tries to run over me, I might very well give the lead rope a sharp jerk and use energy/pressure to move it back.

I realize that orcas are even bigger, but using the same methods to move one out of your space that you might use on a horse are likely to lead to you getting your arm ripped off. But I don't train orcas. It's totally reductionist to assume all species are the same, especially apex predators v. prey.
 
A mix of both gives the best results - in dogs, horses, children…

Good training though - that links with the natural behaviour of the species. To get best results from training a horse, you need to basically be the lead mare in the herd - confident, decisive, clear in your instructions and expectations. You need to be in control of their movements, not the other way around, and you need to tell them off if they disobey (but only if they actually knew what to do and clearly decided not to). There’s an element of listening to them in that too - none of mine will cross me, but they feel confident enough in my leadership to tell me when something is wrong, knowing I will do my best to figure out what it is. So I get told when a plank has fallen off a fence, or the stable upright is wobbly, or that there’s a loose plank in the stable and my daughter has been climbing through (her pony is very protective of her and insisted I come look!).

It is important to remember that horses are rarely actually violent - there’s plenty of threat (my mare particularly will lunge for the others if they upset her) but it’s mostly posturing and threat, not actual hurt. They expect the same from us.

My son’s pony for example, arrived nervous of people and still can be. Doesn’t mean I don’t tell him off on the rare occasions when he decides to do something he knows he shouldn’t though. Interestingly, actually being told off, knowing he won’t be hurt but that the discipline will follow the rules of the herd that he understands, has made him much more settled and trusting.

My daughter’s very clever pony has figured out how to apply herd rules to a human- if my little girl has a moment and isn’t being particularly helpful, the pony will deliberately stand on her foot, just long enough that it hurts a little, then get off. Made me laugh so much the first time she did it. Clever pony knows she can’t bite (like she would her own filly) ‘cos humans are fragile, so she figured out her own discipline method for the little girl she has adopted along with her own foal. I have to say it worked, she’s only had to do it twice ?.

I think too many people forget, when discussing training methods, that horses are actually intelligent animals who will work with you if they respect and trust you. When I moved mine off a livery yard for the first time, they opened up so much more now their herd was settled. Over the years since then, on numerous occasions I have seen them actively help me - not just out riding. They have protected my children from perceived danger (physically blocking them from a fox while another chased it off; guiding them back to me in the field if they wandered off; telling me about the loose plank and the need to fix it because the little girl shouldn’t be climbing through) and have helped me with the young ones (lead mare disciplined one so strongly for ditching her rider and running home without that the next time he fell off, she started for home, remembered not to, turned back and was the most submissive, apologetic pony you could imagine; both current mare and old SJ pony used to help me teach young ones to lead - biting at them if they went too far ahead, keeping an eye on their speed so we were always right next to them; NF mare will herd little Welsh pony back onto the track with little input from me). Being ‘the boss’ isn’t about blind obedience but about respect and trust - without that, there is no training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top