# Ask-Tell-Demand



## celestejasper13 (May 16, 2014)

If 'ask-tell-demand' is done correctly, I'd say no. Horses are creatures of routine and find comfort in consistency. If the 'tell' and 'demand' are fair and appropriate in their severity, and are delivered consistently, then there should be no reason to induce anxiety in the horse because it knows what the consequences of its actions are and how to avoid them.
A horse may know for sure it will get kicked if it disrespects the warnings of a more dominant herd member, but it does not live in anxiety as it knows exactly how to avoid the kick. 
For that reason, I think the 'tell' should just be a firmer version of the 'ask' rather than a correction, on the off chance the horse didn't get it first time. Anxiety can arise when horses are worried that making a mistake will result in a disproportionate correction, and will be unwilling to try new things - so it is important that the rider's timing and response is accurate and appropriate. 
In general, horses that know that the 'tell and demand' follow the 'ask' will be much more straightforward and cooperative and will have a much better working relationship with their riders than those who are either never corrected or corrected without a clear pattern of cause and effect.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Thanks for the response. Some comments have raised more questions in my ever inquiring mind.




celestejasper13 said:


> it knows what the consequences of its actions are and how to avoid them.
> 
> *Are you of the opinion that a horse's response should be based on avoidance of tell/demand? (A trick question*
> 
> ...


I'm really not attempting to start a conflab with this post, but just an open and honest debate based on reality.

With that, I'd ask an opinion from you and or others on this quote from Xenophon, 400 BC.

Begin Quote: What a horse does under compulsion he does blindly....The performances of horse or man so treated are displays of clumsy gestures rather than of grace and beauty. What we need is that the horse should of his own accord exhibit his finest airs and paces at set signals.....Such are the horses on which gods and heroes ride. End Quote.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

I like these questions - they are tricky - and I'd like to take a stab at them.

_Are you of the opinion that a horse's response should be based on avoidance of tell/demand? (A trick question_

Ideally, the correct response would give the horse release from the pressure of "ask". But yes, there is a coercive aspect to all training, the horse's as well as yours. The ideal would be to make the task to be performed a form of "enrichment" for the horse: it gets a kick out of trying to figure out what you want because (a) it's not unpleasant and (b) it gets rewarded.

_In the herd, the horse is free to make it's decision of whether to move away or make a go for a higher status. When interacting with us humans, the horse does not have that freedom. It can't just wonder off to the other end of the field if it isn't sure of what to do. The monkey is tied to the middle of his back. For this reason I question comparing human/horse interaction with horse/herd interaction? _

I would argue that a stallion herding his harem does not give the mares the option of disengaging.

_In general, horses that know that the 'tell and demand' follow the 'ask' will be much more straightforward and cooperative and will have a much better working relationship with their riders than those who are either never corrected or corrected without a clear pattern of cause and effect.

This to me smacks of aversion or aversive training. Are you ok with that?_

Again, I need to stress the importance of release. The "ask" is a form of pressure. The horse earns release from pressure with an appropriate response. The kicker is: Does your horse see this as an appropriate compromise? Let's say I go out with my horse who really likes to run. Sometimes it is not safe to run, because there are rocks or mud, so I need to apply pressure to hold her at a walk or trot. Does she resent me for this? I'd like to say "not by the end of the ride", because when we get to an open field or firm, smooth trail, she _can_ go at the speed she prefers. Yes, I am the leader; yes, I coerce her by applying pressure; yes, I make sure my demands are reasonable and weighed against her needs. I'd like to think that I'm the kind of rider who can juggle a give-and-take that the horse considers acceptable, so next time I put on the bridle, I again need to reach _down_ because her head is at my knees.


_Begin Quote: What a horse does under compulsion he does blindly....The performances of horse or man so treated are displays of clumsy gestures rather than of grace and beauty. What we need is that the horse should of his own accord exhibit his finest airs and paces at set signals.....Such are the horses on which gods and heroes ride. End Quote._

LOVE IT!!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Is the following true or false?
> 
> Depending on how aggressive the ask tell demand protocol is followed or pursued, and depending on the psychological make up of the horse, it is possible that the horse may come to regard an ask as in fact a threat, based on what will follow if the correct response is not produced by the horse.
> 
> In this case, the simple act of the ask may produce a degree fear, apprehension, and tenseness in this particular horse.


No, not done correctly
number one: the horse is first taught the cue, where you reward the smallest try , and the ask, ask louder then demand does not apply at this stage

Number 2: The mildest cue you use to first teach a response, will be the mildest cue that horse will ever listen to. THus, if you start out by kicking ahrose to get him to move off your, that is what it will take the rest of that horse's life to get that response. 

Number 3 : only once ahorse understands a cue, do you ever go to the 'demand', with that horse having blatantly ignored the ask, of a cue he understood perfectly well, with a 
make me attitude'
You then have to apply the golden rule of being as gentle with a horse as possible, but also as firm as needed, to make that horse a good citizen

Next time, you again use the lightest cue, giving the horse ALWAYS a chance to respond to that lightest aid,, with the understanding that if he does not, you will up the anty. This is what creates alight horse. You in turn must keep your part of that bargain, that if the horse responds to that light cue, you will never go tot he spur or whatever
Horses are perfectly fine, with using R-, in a fair manner, and pressure, plus most importantly, release of that pressure having been the solid foundation horses have been trained on for eons.

I really get perturbed when people just want to relate our interaction with horses totally on herd behavior. Yes, we recognize that the hrose is a herd /prey species, and use that fact in our training, but we DO NOT try to emulate herd dynamics.Herd dynamics change, but our relationship with our horse must not. We remain that leader, unlike in a herd setting, where age, introduction of new horses, changes that hierarchy 

Horses don't use ask, ask louder then demand, as in a horse suddenly, without warning, taking a chuck out of a lower down horse, so who cares as to what a stallion does-are you going to try and breed a mare also, to be like a stud??? Fight with another male horse? Nope. absolutely no relevance, JMO
We are a bit higher thinking, I like to consider, thus first teach a horse the rules, before ever enforcing them, and only use enough R- to get the desired response


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I disagree with the idea that what a horse does under compulsion, he does blindly. I think that sets up a false dichotomy, where everything is either the horse's will or ours. I think good riding involves a give and take, and compromise. My horse may decide he doesn't want to go down a given trail because it is too rocky. What I know and my horse does not is that EVERY trail home will involve rocks, and this particular one is the best of the lot. At a time like that, yes, he needs to do it my way because his way won't work.

But like @*mmshiro* , my horse's yielding to me then may allow me to let him have fun later. Or maybe we can compromise, and leave the trail to avoid the rocky spot while still making progress forward.

And while I sometimes expect him to suck it up and just do things my way sometimes, I also sometimes tell him, "_You aren't having fun today, are you? Tired? Too hot? OK, let's turn back early!_"

In many cases, I might use "Ask - Urge - Reconsider" - because I don't always have to get things my way. "Demand" is reserved for things like "_No bolting, no bucking, no biting, no spinning away!_"

I don't think horses become afraid of "Ask" unless the ask is irrational, impossible to understand or if they cannot guess what will follow.

BTW - my horses will kick the snot out of each other, or leave bloody bites. I have no desire to act like another horse to them.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Smilie said:


> so who cares as to what a stallion does-are you going to try and breed a mare also, to be like a stud???


I'm not sure if this is in response to my example, but I gave that primarily to refute the argument that a horse in pasture can always disengage, rather than comply, to avoid an escalation of pressure. My statement was to illustrate that horses are well familiar with the concept of compliance, nothing more. If they weren't, their response to pressure would always be flight, making them untrainable to humans.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I like the words "invite, suggesst, convince" as a better approach.

you 'invite' the hrose first. you are asking, basically, "how about we trot?" or "how about we go left?". 
if the horse ingores that, you suggest , more firmly, "I'd really like to go that way, "

and lastly, " going that way will be better than not going that way"


even at the so-called 'demand' level, you still allow the horse to choose his own way. you just make that choice less successful than what you had suggested.

really, because hroses are BORN to go along with someone, they are so trainable. so, they are born wanting to get 'with' something. it's being able to get that desire to be 'with' something , and working it to your advantage that makes the horse willing to go at the 'ask' , or as I say, "invite".

that isn't to say that I won't use a brisk application of a whip, a strap, a loud voice, a swat or a flick of the reins. those are all about waking the horse up. they are about breaking the horse out of his reverie, or his obsession, so that you have the place to use your 'invite' level again, and he might hear you.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I guess I posted this to say that while we think of coercing our horses to do things, we should, perhaps, not feel so guilty. the horse is always looking for a leader. so, if we ask them to accompany our directions, and think of it that way, even if we are firm in our asking, when they go with us, it's not as if this is a lose/win situation. the horse always feel like a winner when he has a good leader to follow. and if you can, by having a sweet hand, and a steady mind, make it feel like it was HIS idea to go along with you, . . well . . all the better. He think s HE"S showing you around the place!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Ask, ask louder then demand, is rather specific, and you really get out into la la land, if you relate it to never giving a horse input, but rather demanding blind and absolute obedience. Not at all what it means, JMO
What it means to me (all pain ruled out), is when I put a leg on ahorse, giving a cue he understands, but rather feels like not complying, because it is easier, way less effort to keep trotting ,for instance, then picking up a lope by making the effort to drive up, I will stop the horse from just trotting faster, set him up for a lope departure and then ask again
It has nothing to do with forcing a horse to go down a rocky trail, where he is un comfortable, totally disregarding any pain resistance on his part
Another example, and I will use trail, as it is one of my favorite events, and I often see people correcting their horse in a totally wrong way, this having the horse associate that object with the correction, versus the cue he failed to respond to
The gate is a god example. Many horses don't like to side pass up to a solid object, so when asked to side pass up to that gate, will instead sidepass away, against that outside leg on them, when they understand perfectly well that they should yield and sidepass off that leg
You do not correct the horse at that gate. The true thing you need to correct, is that the horse must always listen to that aid, and sidepass away from the leg that is on him,whether he feels like going in that direction or not.
Thus, I will take him away from the gate, and really get him moving off that leg-that is the 'demand'
I will then take him back to the gate, and give him a chance to do the right and easy thing, and that is to move off that leg with the lightest cue
You ask a horse to back, with soft cues, and the horse just ignors you, , makes a minimal effort.I will then use my legs, not hands, in incremental degrees until he backs up correctly, light in my hands.
That is the ask, ask louder , then demand. It is not,'go through that spot in the trail I myself am not sure off, ect


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@mmshiro FWIW, a stallion does not really herd his mares unless there's another stallion around, and then, yes, the mares do comply, depending on the strength and ability of the other stallion. The rest of the time they just follow a lead mare around which the stallion also follows.

RE: But yes, there is a coercive aspect to all training, the horse's as well as yours.

Comment: Are you referring to training as opposed to learning or consider both one and the same. Learning is one of my greatest joys and if handled properly it is also for kids. I am caring for one horse that is so investigative that I'm wondering if he enjoys learning.

But training a horse, as in learning the vocabulary of cues, there may be a little less joy there. But I just am very resistful of the notion that teaching that vocabulary has to requires any degree of coerciveness.

RE: Again, I need to stress the importance of release. The "ask" is a form of pressure.

Comment: Again, I am resistful that the ask need be a form of pressure. Xenophon speaks only of a horse responding to a signal to which I would think he means a vocabulary of cues. When the signal he speaks of becomes pressure to the horse, it would seem the horse is acting out of compulsion and the threat of increased pressure.

RE: I coerce her by applying pressure; yes, I make sure my demands are reasonable and weighed against her needs.

Comment: I may be wrong, but reading between the lines I don't see you as much of a coercer. I'm wondering if you are sometimes doing tinyliny's "invite" when you think you are coercing. 

@Smilie RE: Next time, you again use the lightest cue, giving the horse ALWAYS a chance to respond to that lightest aid,, with the understanding that if he does not, you will up the anty.

Comment: That's the point of my thread. That understanding can mean that from the horse's point of view, the very lightest of cues can be viewed as a veiled or not so veiled threat. And a threat can cause apprehension and fear and block clear thinking.

@bsms RE: I disagree with the idea that what a horse does under compulsion, he does blindly. 

Comment: My pay grade and background experience is not high enough to disagree out of hand with anything Xenophon says. Considering that he rode stallions (Arabians?) bareback into battle with sword, spear and shield depending upon his horse's training for his very life, Xenophon's definition of "blindly" may be a little more refined that what you have in mind. Just sayin'......



mmshiro said:


> My statement was to illustrate that horses are well familiar with the concept of compliance, nothing more. If they weren't, their response to pressure would always be flight, making them untrainable to humans.


I'm gonna have to sleep on this one. 




tinyliny said:


> I like the words "invite, suggesst, convince" as a better approach.
> 
> you 'invite' the hrose first. you are asking, basically, "how about we trot?" or "how about we go left?".
> if the horse ingores that, you suggest , more firmly, "I'd really like to go that way, "
> ...


I really liked your post except for the last paragraph. The day I use a whip or strap on Hondo is the day I will give up horses. Or a whip or strap on any horse really. With the exception of course of just a cue vocabulary. But when it involves punishment, there is no cue. Too often that is what happens and is why I will not carry one.

If I whip or strap is required, I think more one on one good time is needed.

Is there a Golden Rule about how to treat a horse? As in, Treat a horse as you would wish for the horse to treat you.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

mmshiro said:


> I'm not sure if this is in response to my example, but I gave that primarily to refute the argument that a horse in pasture can always disengage, rather than comply, to avoid an escalation of pressure. My statement was to illustrate that horses are well familiar with the concept of compliance, nothing more. If they weren't, their response to pressure would always be flight, making them untrainable to humans.


Actually, we re condition a horse , far as his response to pressure. A horse's natural reaction is to resist/move into pressure, until we teach him to yield to it, move away from pressure.
This concept is used in teaching a horse to lead, to accept standing tied, versus pulling back and resisting, to give to a bit, or a hackmaore, versus resisting,by pulling, ect
Ask ahorse that does not understand to yield his hind quarters when you place a hand where your leg will be when riding, and his first reaction is to lean into that pressure
It is teaching a horse to move away from pressure, that makes him trainable. but it is his acceptance of you as leader, gaining his trust,plus, repetition that dampens his in born flight response, so he learns to spook in place, to ride where you ask him to,trusting in your leadership and judgement, and has nothing to do with yielding to pressure, unless you are also using some ingrained body control techniques, like taking the head away, ect
Again, using disengagement as the specific example of ask, ask louder and demand, is just one example in a specific situation, and not the total picture.
It can at times have zero to do with disengagement, but can actually involve engagement, as in a horse heavy on his front end, where you ask him to track up with light legs, then more leg pressure, until he gets off his front end and is moving correctly-engaged


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo:
;omment: That's the point of my thread. That understanding can mean that from the horse's point of view, the very lightest of cues can be viewed as a veiled or not so veiled threat. And a threat can cause apprehension and fear and block clear thinking
Well, Hondo, I kinda think of it as non verbal communication, and I have never had ahorse become unsure, anxious , afraid, but rather remain relaxed, because they understand that cue, like clear and fair leadership- ie, everything is a okay in that horses world
On the other, wishy inconsistent leadership, causes a horse to feel in secure

I don't know about you, but while I have a very close connection with my horses, where they almost seem to read my mind, I realize it is actually their ability to tune into very slight body language,esp that of a familiar rider, that is at play, and not some mental telepathy, thus cues remain part of my communication with my horses. 
None of my horses are smart enough to read a training manual!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> [email protected]*bsms* RE: I disagree with the idea that what a horse does under compulsion, he does blindly.
> 
> Comment: My pay grade and background experience is not high enough to disagree out of hand with anything Xenophon says...


I don't think Xenophon was really all that great. He had some decent points that my horses taught me without his help. But he had no problems with punishment or using bits that were obscene by modern standards. And his horses were...ponies.










But I can't endorse a number of his ideas, for example:



> ...With a horse that has no experience what- ever in leaping, take him with the leading rein loose and leap across the ditch before him; then draw the rein tight to make him jump over. If he refuses, let somebody with a whip or stick lay it on pretty hard ; he will then jump over not merely the proper distance but a great deal more than is required. He will never need a blow after that, but will jump the minute he sees anybody coming up behind him...
> 
> ...Going down a steep place, the rider should throw himself well back, and support the horse by the bit, so that rider and horse may not be carried headlong down the hill...
> 
> ...In the first place you must own at least two bits. Let one of them be smooth, with the discs on it good-sized ; the other with the discs heavy, and not standing so high, but with the echini sharp, so that when he seizes it, he may drop it from dislike of its roughness. Then, when he shall have received the smooth bit in its turn, he will like its smoothness and do everything on the smooth bit which he has been trained to do on the rough. He may, however, come not to mind its smoothness and to bear hard upon it; and this is why we put the large discs on the smooth bit, to make him keep his jaws apart and drop the bit. You can make the rough bit anything you like by holding it lightly or drawing it tight...


He wasn't awful, but he isn't above anyone's pay grade. He really didn't go beyond '_Reward good behavior and punish bad_'.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Thanks for the response. Some comments have raised more questions in my ever inquiring mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love those quotes from Ancient Greece and elsewhere, without taking the entire picture into account, how horses were trained in those days, what 'demand/compulsion meant then, compared to now
Bits were used that had actual prongs that dug into a horse;s face. Do you really believe that horses rode into battle, hearing the screams of their fellow equines, slashed with swords, willingly?
Gods rode winged hroses, whose courage was as much a myth as their own reality.
How do you think those horse, performed their own paces at set signals, if they were not, like our horses, taught the response to those cues.
I think, a reality check needs to be done by those that just qoute some translated ancient books on horsemanship. A good place to start, is the History of BITs, and some actual translations of training techniques used back then


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Seems we have argued over that qoute before, so I will post my previous response:

'I have a book on the history of bits, that I admit to never having read that thoroughly.
Well, it is winter, and thus while looking for something to read, came across that book, which got me reflecting on Xenophon and other past horsemen, often held up as examples of 'enlightened' horsemanship, is just relative to the times,as bits used then could only be described as torture devises 
In the time of Xenophon, the bits used had discs and spikes, with Xenophon talking of a smooth bit and a sharp or rough bit, but with that smooth bit really not being truly smooth-just less sharp
Those additions to the bit were discs and echini or hedgehogs. Xenophon stated that the horse was trained to mind, using the sharp bit, and then ridden in the more humane bit, but put back in the sharp bit,as needed, to make him mind

I guess it is a testimony to the extremely light hands Xenophon must have had, as be believed ahrose should accept a bit, and that is the only way any horse could have accepted a hedgehog bit!

This familiar quote, from Xenophon, with comment, putting it into context:

'“For what the horse does under compulsion… is done without understanding; and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one should whip and spur a dancer. There would be a great deal more ungracefulness than beauty in either horse or a man that was so treated. No, he should show off all his finest and most brilliant performances willingly and at a mere sign.”

However these kind words might be balanced against a somewhat less than kind bit in the horses mouth. According to Anderson, “Xenophon divides his bits into two main classes, ‘smooth’ and ‘rough’. The latter have ‘hedgehogs’ (or ‘sea urchins’) which must be sharp spikes.'


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

From Xenophon, on training. A little bit of a reality check, far as assuming no harsh methods were used, that th ehorse just gladly carried Xenophon and his contemporaries in battle with way kinder then enlightened horsemanship today. Totally false.Sometimes words are just words, that need to be taken in context!

'To begin with, you should possess two bits at least.2 One of these should be smooth and have the discs of a good size; the other should have the discs heavy and low, and the teeth sharp, so that when the horse seizes it he may drop it because he objects to its roughness, and when he is bitted with the smooth one instead, may welcome its smoothness and may do on the smooth bit what he has been trained to do with the aid of the rough one. [7] In case, however, he takes no account of it because of its smoothness, and keeps bearing against it, we put large discs on the smooth bit to stop this, so that they may force him to open his mouth and drop the bit. It is possible also to make the rough bit adaptable by wrapping3 it up and tightening the reins.4 [8] But whatever be the pattern of the bits, they must all be flexible. For wherever a horse seizes a stiff one, he holds the whole of it against his jaws, just as you lift the whole of a spit wherever you take hold of it. [9] But the other kind of bit acts like a chain: for only the part that you hold remains unbent, while the rest of it hangs loose. As the horse continually tries to seize the part that eludes him in his mouth, he lets the bit drop from his jaws. This is why little rings5 are hung in the middle on the axles, in order that the horse may feel after them with his tongue and teeth and not think of taking the bit up against the jaws. [10]


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Hondo said:


> I really liked your post except for the last paragraph. The day I use a whip or strap on Hondo is the day I will give up horses. Or a whip or strap on any horse really. With the exception of course of just a cue vocabulary. But when it involves punishment, there is no cue. Too often that is what happens and is why I will not carry one.
> 
> If I whip or strap is required, I think more one on one good time is needed.
> 
> Is there a Golden Rule about how to treat a horse? As in, Treat a horse as you would wish for the horse to treat you.



here are times when one uses a whip or strap: say the horse is about to run you over, is charging you, is swinging his hind to line up and nail you , is trying to bite your neck etc.
that gets a good hard whap. 
A whip or strap can be used to make NOISE, too, if needed to wake a horse up. it doesn't always have to actually hit the hrose. 
or, if it does, it can be mostly , as I said, to make some noise to get his attention.

I'm not out there to punish a horse for my jollies, but I have no qualms about striking a horse if he is about to endanger me, or, if he will not give me any of his attention, so that I many ask/invite softly.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Holy smoke - you guys have been up all night, it seems!

_FWIW, a stallion does not really herd his mares unless there's another stallion around, and then, yes, the mares do comply, _

I have seen a video where a stallion prevented a mare from staying with her foal which got trapped behind a fence. (The original video is down. I know that the commentator is contentious.)







_Comment: Are you referring to training as opposed to learning or consider both one and the same. Learning is one of my greatest joys and if handled properly it is also for kids. _

I can go as far as to say, both. We all have things we like to learn and others we don't, but are made to learn, or else. You may have learned how to fill out an income tax form, or else you'll need money to have someone do it for you, or else you'll go to jail. You hire instructors to guide your day-to-day learning process, because not all aspects of learning something thoroughly are "fun", so the instructor serves to issue the appropriate series of "asks" to guide your progress. If you join a military academy or make that your career, the "asks" are most definitely followed by "tells" and "demands". In fact, any job, any contract even, has a coercive element. But you enter into the contract freely because you get something out of it as well. 

Horses don't understand a "contract", but they understand "trust" (She made me do things, and each time it ended well!), and they understand "patterns", and that's probably the foundation on which you make them do things that they see no point in doing, like carrying a hairless monkey on their back. 

_Comment: Again, I am resistful that the ask need be a form of pressure. Xenophon speaks only of a horse responding to a signal to which I would think he means a vocabulary of cues. When the signal he speaks of becomes pressure to the horse, it would seem the horse is acting out of compulsion and the threat of increased pressure._

Those cues, are they not a form of pressure? A cluck is pressure. Your approaching the horse on pasture is pressure. Your looking at it intently (predator-like, not with soft eyes) is a form of pressure. 

I would state that in the learning phase, there is compulsion, but that it later turns into a habitual action. It's like a parent yelling at you when you try to cross the street without looking, or a driving instructor yelling at you for not doing a shoulder check before lane merging. Do you still fear your parents' wrath every time you cross the road and check for traffic? 

In fact, you may have internalized behavior that you were coerced into (like to clean up your room, or else) to an extend that you couldn't *not* do it by now. Much of your personal hygiene regime is probably a taught response to some pressure from your parents, unless you loved to explore brushing your teeth by yourself.

I would assert that we, too, create a habitual response in the horse to our cues which does not create a fear of punishment whenever it is asked to do it.

_Comment: I may be wrong, but reading between the lines I don't see you as much of a coercer. I'm wondering if you are sometimes doing tinyliny's "invite" when you think you are coercing._ 

I take that as a compliment, because I do, indeed, hate to put on significant pressure, but, if I lead her and she starts running her shoulder into me, and tapping her doesn't get her to back off, she will get a sharp whack with my elbow whenever she gets too close. If she plants her feet somewhere on the trail and refuses to go forward, I need to dislodge her. She needs to learn that when I ask her forward, I will never do so while putting her into a dangerous situation, and that sometimes means making her do something that she, at that moment, finds scary - like venturing into tall grass, past a parked tractor, or through the acid puddle of death.

*I'll keep going, even though the below are not responses to me anymore.*

_Comment: That's the point of my thread. That understanding can mean that from the horse's point of view, the very lightest of cues can be viewed as a veiled or not so veiled threat. And a threat can cause *apprehension and fear* and *block clear thinking*._

I would tend to agree that _fear_ will do that, but creating discomfort to the horse doesn't imply creating fear. It simply puts a stimulus out there it likes less than complying. For example, when you teach the horse to pick up his feet, you create discomfort, the response to which is his lifting up his foot. You work up to that by first applying the cue you would like to you use, like gently rubbing his lower leg. But do you really think that whenever you rub the horse's leg he starts thinking, "Oh no, if I don't pick up my foot _now_, she'll pinch my chestnuts!" And do you think the horse gets traumatized by initially getting his chestnuts pinched to _make_ him pick up his foot? 

I don't think the horse has the capacity for these kind of "What if?" scenarios in his mind, and ultimately offers a habitual response vs. a fear-based one.


_Is there a Golden Rule about how to treat a horse? As in, Treat a horse as you would wish for the horse to treat you._

If I can continue to tack up my horse in her stall, without cross ties, while her head is down, she blinks, and she cocks her foot, I know that this cue for "I'm about to ride you!" does not cause apprehension, and that I'm doing good by her overall. In addition, I'd like to think that, when I lollygag with her when I say Hi!, and she starts pawing the ground gently, she tells me to get on with it already.

My Golden Rule is that my presence with a horse with which I work regularly should visibly result in calmness and comfort in the horse.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@Smilie & @bsms

The only book I have of Xenophon is "The Art of Horsemanship". I just made a cursory flight through it and everything I read is the opposite of bsms's quotes.

So is there another book by him that I'm unaware of? Does anyone have page numbers for those quotes? The only reference I saw to using sticks to strike the horse was in reference to methods used by others which he disapproved.

@mmshiro

Lots of good comments and good points. And others I will of course lightly challenge. Such fun!

RE: My statement was to illustrate that horses are well familiar with the concept of compliance, nothing more. If they weren't, their response to pressure would always be flight, making them untrainable to humans.

Comment: Many, perhaps even all, herd or pack animals understand compliance to coercive pressure for certain. And I'm not at this point ready to refute the notion that it helps that a horse understands compliance to coercive pressure.

But I am unconvinced the horse would be untrainable without the experiences of coercive compliance. My notion is that the trainability of horses is mostly due to their psychological make up of being a highly sociable animal. @tinyliny detailed in one of her posts what I believe is the singularly important characteristics that renders the horse to be trainable and willingly compliant to our wishes.

RE: Compulsions in all of our lives and wrath of our parents when crossing streets.

Comment: Agreed, our lives are literally strewn with compulsions. Living in the social setting we live in it could be no other way, based on the make up of us humans. And as far as our parents being wrathful about us not looking when we cross the street, I would like to think they are more fearful than wrathful, and that we remember their fear and the source of that reasonable fear when whe cross the street at a later date.

All that aside, I reject that our lives and interactions consist only of coercive compulsions. When walking down the street with a friend and someone wants to stop and look in a store window at something the other is not interested in, a struggle does not necessarily esue. Normally the other will happily stop just because the other wants to. If there is some urgency in the other for some reason they may urge that they need to get going. Things like that. Just cooperation with no fear of retribution.

Since learning about the horse's continual secretion of digestive acids I have become very cooperative with agreement to Hondo's munching along the way on a trail ride. And sometimes I say, "C'mon, let's go". And sometimes he says, "Wait a minute, just a few more bites". Sometimes he will just make a small gesture toward some forage and I will direct him towards it, or if not, he will just continue on. Sometimes when there is something really delectable he will almost make a dive for it. Unless I have a good reason to argue about it, I just slack the reins. But if I really do need to keep going for some reason, he will default to my request. But if it is really really good forage he may ask, "Are you really really certain we can't stay a bit longer?"

RE: Those cues, are they not a form of pressure? A cluck is pressure. Your approaching the horse on pasture is pressure. Your looking at it intently (predator-like, not with soft eyes) is a form of pressure. 

Comment: They certainly can be but I do not believe they have to be. When I approach Hondo in the pasture he generally begins to approach me. Sometimes if he is really intent on grazing he may continue but never moves away from me. Same with three other horses in my care. Same with the horses in the herd of about 17 or so.

I have pledged to myself to never cause fear or pain in my horse and generally extend that to other horses except in extreme circumstances. After three years, I think Hondo has figured this out. And to some degree I think the other horses have also. They just don't fear me.

There are several highly experienced and respected trainers that do not believe coercion is necessary in training a horse, which I like to think of as simply teaching a horse.

RE: I would state that in the learning phase, there is compulsion, but that it later turns into a habitual action.

Comment: I think this is often true but am not convinced it has to be. Learning to me, just does not have to have compulsion proceed it. Many examples of both situations could be given.

RE: I would assert that we, too, create a habitual response in the horse to our cues which does not create a fear of punishment whenever it is asked to do it.

Comment: I find nothing to disagree with here. Horses do habituate. 

But let me get back for a second to the point I was thinking about when posting this thread.

There is a lot of talk about being soft with a horse, which I think is good. But if that softness is backed up with a threat of escalation into pain, the softness "may" be regarded by some horses as a fear or threat to which they comply, but in a stiffer way than they might otherwise.

The Godfather could speak very very softly yet the recipient knew clearly if they did not comply they might wind up in the morgue.

My thoughts on the thread were to put a caveat on what different horses may view softness.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I add the following quote to the fray, a quote which I'm certain some will feel compelled to disagree with.

The quote is from Lucy Rees's The Horse's Mind, page 167.

Begin Quote: ..., the deliberate use of aversion as a teaching method is unnecessary and seems an expression of the worst traits of human nature. There is little that is desireable in a horse that is frightened into dull obedience. End Quote.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Found this by Xenophon from On Horsemanship.

"But possibly you are not content with a horse serviceable for war. You want to find him him a showy, attractive animal, with a certain grandeur of bearing. If so, you must abstain from pulling at his mouth with the bit, or applying the spur and whip — methods commonly adopted by people with a view to a fine effect, though, as a matter of fact, they thereby achieve the very opposite of what they are aiming at. That is to say, by dragging the mouth up they render the horse blind instead of alive to what is in front of him; and what with spurring and whipping they distract the creature to the point of absolute bewilderment and danger.134 Feats indeed! — the feats of horses with a strong dislike to being ridden — up to all sorts of ugly and ungainly tricks. On the contrary, let the horse be taught to be ridden on a loose bridle, and to hold his head high and arch his neck, and you will practically be making him perform the very acts which he himself delights or rather exults in; and the best proof of the pleasure which he takes is, that when he is let loose with other horses, and more particularly with mares, you will see him rear his head aloft to the full height, and arch his neck with nervous vigour,135 pawing the air with pliant legs136 and waving his tail on high. By training him to adopt the very airs and graces which he naturally assumes when showing off to best advantage, you have got what you are aiming at — a horse that delights in being ridden, a splendid and showy animal, the joy of all beholders."


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

On Horsemanship: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1176/1176-h/1176-h.htm

How to get a horse to jump is in section 8.

From Section 7: "_When the horse has to be led, we do not approve of leading him from in front, for the simple reason that the person so leading him robs himself of his power of self-protection, whilst he leaves the horse freedom to do what he likes._" I've led my horses a lot. Admittedly, they are not stallions and two of the three were born in captivity, and all three have been part of a few thousand years of selective breeding for easy training. But if you have to worry about the horse attacking you while you are leading him, there is something odd - at least with modern horses.

In Section 3, on buying a horse: "_*It is also well to ascertain by experience if the horse you propose to purchase will show equal docility in response to the whip. Every one knows what a useless thing a servant is, or a body of troops, that will not obey.* A disobedient horse is not only useless, but may easily play the part of an arrant traitor._" He goes on to point out: "_And since it is assumed that the horse to be purchased is intended for war, we must widen our test to include everything which war itself can bring to the proof: such as leaping ditches, scrambling over walls, scaling up and springing off high banks._"

We tend to assume people from thousands of years ago were stupid. They were not, and Xenophon was experienced and had met and learned from professional trainers. Much of what he wrote is good. The tools he used were hideous...but then, this western rider find the bit section of catalogs billed with hideous bets - though not as obviously bad as what the Greeks used.



> My notion is that the trainability of horses is mostly due to their psychological make up of being a highly sociable animal. - @Hondo


I almost think the opposite. While horses can like other horses, and obviously feel comfortable in a herd structure, their social structure doesn't strike me as much fun. I think a big part of why Bandit likes me is because I like him...and the other horses do not. I make it clear I enjoy being with Bandit and doing things with him as a team - something other horses do not! 

I also liked Mia. While the other horses accepted Mia as Leader, she was aloof and nearly unapproachable by the other horses. I think she liked my company because I gave her relief from the role of Great Leader. I took some of that burden away, allowing her to relax in a way she never did around other horses.

Watching my three horses, Bandit is valued for his tail. The other two admit Bandit is excellent at swishing flies from their faces. They also accept he is smarter than they are, and they go to him and expect him to make decisions when things are scary. But apart from that...they don't like him. It won't bother them in the least if he is left outside the shelter in a hail storm - even when there was ample room. He had to FIGHT to get them to accept his presence.

*I can always offer two things to Bandit that he lacks: Very good judgment, and delight in his company.* The first provides safety and the chance to relax while the second is something he has come to enjoy. I can offer him a type of acceptance and interaction he never gets with other horses.

I've come to believe what the cavalry officer wrote in the 1860s: "_...There is another thing to be considered with regard to the horse's character - it loves to exercise its powers, and it possesses a great spirit of emulation; it likes variety of scene and amusement; and under a rider that understands how to indulge it in all this without overtaxing its powers, will work willingly to the last gasp, which is what entitles it to the name of a noble and generous animal..._"

I've been told horses are lazy. My experience is that horses are lazy when they see no purpose, but can work very hard when they see a reason. Visiting a ranch last June, we moved the sheep up 26 miles of paved road in uncommon heat. My daughter started riding their 'guest horse' a few miles before the pavement, so close to 30 miles that day. The next morning, before sunrise, I mounted the "guest horse' - and he was ready to go. EAGER to go. The sheep were anxious to move. I had to do figure 8s with the horse off to the side because he was too anxious to get started to be held back by the bit.

That wasn't lazy. That was a ranch horse who understood his work and who obviously wanted to go do it! All he needed was a human to enable him. My daughter riding him the first day in 90 degree heat and with very little water - hot, dry work:








​ 
I believe we have a symbiotic relationship with horses. Mutual benefit. Our corrections, on the whole, are much milder than what another horse would offer. Our judgement is better and our acceptance of the horse much more freely given. They are not zebras or truly wild horses. I think they have been bred to find completeness in man. 

Xenophon writes about horses making us feel like gods. I think we make horses feel like a god. Or we can.

*Or maybe we make them feel like PARTNERS to the gods.*​


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Horses live with aversion training every day of their lives. Or they do if they live with other horses. It is not "*an expression of the worst traits of human nature*", but the expression of EQUINE nature. Bandit has too many bite marks on him for me to believe otherwise.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

So, Hondo, going back to your perceived threat of pain, when a horse does not respond to a mild clue, lets look at your buddy Xenophon again
He states everyone needs at least two bits, the first, and the one used to train a hrose, being a very harsh bit, with prongs on it. Now, if that does not show ahorse being trained through pain, using a bit for that purpose, rather then a gradual education in a mild bit, as is now done by 'enlightened horsemen of our time, you will need to explain that to me!
The horse is then ridden in what he calls a smooth bit, but not by any definition today, and he also states that when the horses fails to listen to the smooth bit, the rider goes back to that rough bit.
Thus, pleassse , take off those rose colored glasses just taking translations and what they state, without any reference to the times and actual facts
Xenophon might have been on the enlightened end of the spectrum, in a day very cruel bits were used but still miles from what is considered good modern horsemanship


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Found this by Xenophon from On Horsemanship.
> 
> "But possibly you are not content with a horse serviceable for war. You want to find him him a showy, attractive animal, with a certain grandeur of bearing. If so, you must abstain from pulling at his mouth with the bit, or applying the spur and whip — methods commonly adopted by people with a view to a fine effect, though, as a matter of fact, they thereby achieve the very opposite of what they are aiming at. That is to say, by dragging the mouth up they render the horse blind instead of alive to what is in front of him; and what with spurring and whipping they distract the creature to the point of absolute bewilderment and danger.134 Feats indeed! — the feats of horses with a strong dislike to being ridden — up to all sorts of ugly and ungainly tricks. On the contrary, let the horse be taught to be ridden on a loose bridle, and to hold his head high and arch his neck, and you will practically be making him perform the very acts which he himself delights or rather exults in; and the best proof of the pleasure which he takes is, that when he is let loose with other horses, and more particularly with mares, you will see him rear his head aloft to the full height, and arch his neck with nervous vigour,135 pawing the air with pliant legs136 and waving his tail on high. By training him to adopt the very airs and graces which he naturally assumes when showing off to best advantage, you have got what you are aiming at — a horse that delights in being ridden, a splendid and showy animal, the joy of all beholders."




Again, look at the bits from Xenohon's times. There is NO WAY, those bits could ever have been used in a humane manner, and contact of any kind
He is also talking of riding stallions, as was common in those days, esp as war horses., and letting them show their natural stallion like behavior in the presence of mares-tail flagging, high head, prancing-all hormone induced.
Most of us now, don't need to get a macho fix, by riding stallions and letting them act like stallions under saddle!
My horses enjoy trail rides, I am quite sure, and I ride them on a loose rein, plus I don't have a bit with hedgehogs in heir mouth,but I rather not have them high headed, prancing, versus watching their footing


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> I add the following quote to the fray, a quote which I'm certain some will feel compelled to disagree with.
> 
> The quote is from Lucy Rees's The Horse's Mind, page 167.
> 
> Begin Quote: ..., the deliberate use of aversion as a teaching method is unnecessary and seems an expression of the worst traits of human nature. There is little that is desireable in a horse that is frightened into dull obedience. End Quote.


There is a spectrum, Hondo, when it comes to training horses, and neither end of that spectrum is ideal
One one end, you have harsh methods used, without any empathy, fairness, softness, and yes you create a fearful horse, one who works out of fear, versus trust
On the other end of that spectrum, you have a horse never taught boundaries, one spoiled, one who constantly tests humans, intimidates them, learns he can act aggressive towards them., all the while that human who never has shown the horse acceptable boundaries, tries to gain the horses 'love' with food
I think I posted on the topic of using 'balance', when training horses before.

When one reads posts on this forum, the majority of posts, where people ask for help with ahrose, is due to the last end of that spectrum-horses refusing to go forward, horses charging people, horses biting, horses walking into people, horses pulling away when led.
Yes, those horses need some aversion training, making the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard.
It is also a fable that any aggressive horse has been abused,is acting out of perceived fear when that horse becomes the aggressor. Very often, it is the horse just being ahorse, taking up that leadership, higher 'herd' position, because their human failed to be a clear leader
"if you don't lead, the horse will'.
"We' the enlightened horse people, also use logic, unlike seen in a herd of hroses, where that dominant horse doe snot recognize the lower down horses can't in a particular situation, yield to him
Ever see a submissive horse, trapped in a shelter the boss horse thinks he owns, personnal space wise? That dominant horse will start to kick the snot out of that other horse, who is pinned against to wall, unable to comply
I like to think we use some reasoning power, in any situation where we need to correct ahrose, and also use only as much R- as is needed


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@bsms Did you like Mia when upon your own volition you chose from the smorgasbord of recommendations to smack her with double harness leather? Did that make her think you liked her?

Do you kick Bandit in the gut because you like him? Does that make him think you like him?

Until I read On Horsemanship this morning I did not realize Xenophon separated how to train a horse for war and for show or personal use. The war method is not used in the book I have.

If ever I decide to train a horse for war, I may need to reconsider and alter my methods. Otherwise I will stick to his recommendations for training a horse for show in which he recommends no use of whip or spur.

Henry Wynmalen's book Dressage, which I purchased at your mention advocates teaching a horse to lead while walking beside the horse and never in front. I have actually tried the method as he describes it on Dragon and by golly it works. I plan to use that on both Dragon and Star before I try to ride them. His explanation of why he recommends it makes sense to me.

RE: I almost think the opposite. 

Comment: Well, good for you. But with that, my comment is that you are mostly alone in the world on that one.

RE: Horses live with aversion training every day of their lives. Or they do if they live with other horses.

Comment: I would not call a horse's experience in the herd aversion training, but even if one chooses to call some of the herd experiences aversion training, that offers no support for the monkey on their back to resort to it.

Aversion training generated from a herd is a far cry from aversion training from the authority figure I believe they see in us humans.

The horse is on a somewhat equal footing in the herd. When interacting with a human, the playing field is nowhere near level. To pretend it is a level field may be why Lucy feels that brings out the worst expressions of human nature.

Horses don't have the ability to experience empathetic feelings. We do have that ability whether expressed or not.

@Smilie

See my comments above. My comments about my buddy Xenophon are limited to training a show horse. Ok?

RE: Thus, pleassse , take off those rose colored glasses

Comment: I'm wearing the glasses that I look at the three horses I've worked with to some extended degree and now the fourth horse.

Two birds sitting in a tree looking down at the same valley. One was a humming bird. What he saw was a valley filled with nectar bearing flowers.

The other bird was a vulture. What he saw was a valley filled with dead and rotting things.

I reckon everything in the end boils down in some ways to perspective.

I think if you see a horse as an animal that can be taught without coercion, then he can be.

If you think he can't be, then he probably can't be.

I like the old saying, "If you think you can't, you're probably right. If you think you can, you're probably right".

I could go on but I'm still interested if anyone thinks under some circumstances that a horse can experience the same fear and emotional trauma with a light cue as it can with a harsh cue.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> Horses live with aversion training every day of their lives. Or they do if they live with other horses. It is not "*an expression of the worst traits of human nature*", but the expression of EQUINE nature. Bandit has too many bite marks on him for me to believe otherwise.


Allow me to add: Three horses living on a small 2 acre dry lot do not display normal herd interactions and social life and no conclusions should be drawn or suggested from observations under those conditions.

Depending on the setup and and also whether they have free choice food can alter their behavior considerably. Those that are stalled develop what is called "stall vices" which are nothing less than symtoms of various types psychological breakdowns.

The four horses in my care have 60 acres to roam in and have both grass hay and natural forage free choice 24/7. The rest of the herd roams at around 600 acres although they have 28,000 they could access if they wanted.

I have not witnessed the behavior as you describe and i am with the horses much of the time.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

No, to your last question. If a horse has been trained in a fair manner, that he understands, that horse never fears alight cue.
Your job is not to lie to him. In other words, if he responds to alight cue, he never fears taht you will break your promise and go to demand.
Horses ridden correctly with spurs, do not fear that ride's legs
Now, if you wish to apply some dictionary term, and fixate on that, that is your prerogative
Even when Xenophon rode those horses on a loose rein, how do you think they were trained in the beginning?.Do you think he just threw a bridle, where even the mild bit was what we would consider severe, as decoration on the hrose, and the horse just rode from day one on a loose rein?I assume many of his contemporaries always rode with contact, and where a bloody mouth was an accepted part of riding a horse, so in that respect, he was enlightened
However, today, those of us who ride on a loose rein, have perfected that training, by starting out with a very MILD bit or a bosal. We then also ride on a loose rein, but done correctly, that horse's mouth was never abused.
Sometimes the past is just that, the past, and not always better, even when the ' Dorrance brothers', of the day were blazing a new idea in horsemanship Mildness, is subjective, as to standards of the times


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Allow me to add: Three horses living on a small 2 acre dry lot do not display normal herd interactions and social life and no conclusions should be drawn or suggested from observations under those conditions.
> 
> Depending on the setup and and also whether they have free choice food can alter their behavior considerably. Those that are stalled develop what is called "stall vices" which are nothing less than symtoms of various types psychological breakdowns.
> 
> ...


Even then, Hondo, your horses are not in true natural conditions. Do several stallions run with them, where those horses don't have fences that define their herd boarders, but rather the outcome of battles for territory
Are young mature stallion driven out of the herd, when they reach breeding maturity, forming bachelor groups?
Except for escaped individuals, how many geldings do you suppose live in a true herd setting? Zero! Are foals not by that stallion, killed by him, if he obtains that mare?nope, we intervene in our domestic horses.
How much natural selection occurs, through predators, winter kill off, in your domestic herds?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> No, to your last question. If a horse has been trained in a fair manner, that he understands, that horse never fears alight cue.


You need to re-read my question. I did not ask about horses that had been trained in what you consider a fair manner. I asked if there were any circumstances under which....etc.

Let me ask you this Smilie. Are you hardened into the notion that it is just not possible to train a horse to be willingly compliant without coercion and or punishment?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Even then, Hondo, your horses are not in true natural conditions.


Oh I agree 100%. But closer than a 2 acre dry lot and close enough to not develop many of the non-herd tendencies.

I spent the better part of 5 summers camping, hiking, and riding (a dirtbike) in the Nevada Pinenut Mountains where there were a few sure fire feral herds. I spent a lot of time sitting watching them. The stallion of one large harem would finally allow me to get within 100 yards or so of him. A beautiful horse if ever there was one.

One day about 1/3 of his herd seemed to be missing. Later I saw another young stallion with them. About two weeks later I saw my friend hobbling along on three legs. I felt so bad but there was nothing I could do but let nature do it's thing.

Later on I saw the young stallion with the entire herd.

So yup, I know the difference between feral herd and the domesticated herd that I'm around now. 

But still, that's a far cry from three horses in a small dry lot from which to draw conclusions.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> @*bsms* Did you like Mia when upon your own volition you chose from the smorgasbord of recommendations to smack her with double harness leather? Did that make her think you liked her?
> 
> Do you kick Bandit in the gut because you like him? Does that make him think you like him?.....
> 
> ...


Yes, early on, very early on, I followed advice concerning Mia and tried the "Get a Bigger Whip!" school. The harder I whipped her, the faster she went backwards, and she taught me an excellent lesson that day. 

But no, she did NOT hold it against me or show any resentment towards me over it. Maybe that was because SHE would have no problem double-barreling a horse who questioned HER authority.



> "_Do you kick Bandit in the gut because you like him?_"


We were running out of time to get home. Bandit was incapable of understanding something like my wife's work schedule. I wanted to take a short cut. Asked. He said no. I gave a squeeze, upping my request to a higher priority. Tell. He said, "No way in Hades!" But it WAS important, even if he was incapable of understanding, so I popped him hard in the gut and made it clear THIS TIME was no time for argument. Demand.

Why? Because I do know more about a lot of things than my horse does, and he doesn't always get to make the decisions. Like a kid, sometimes he has to be content with "Just because I say so." Not everything in life can be explained. Just as I will not accept bolting, bucking, biting or spinning and running away, I also sometimes reserve the right to DEMAND.

I didn't kick him in the gut because I liked him, but because it was needed at that time. It was IMPORTANT to me, and that needed to outweigh any of his feelings.

And no, it did NOT make Bandit resent me, hate me, reject me personally or as a species. He is a horse. He understands. He accepts. We remain friends. At my harshest, I've never made a mark on him. Right now, he has multiple bite marks on him. Hint: They didn't come from me!

I don't value "soft" because I want my horse to feel free to talk back to me. He is free to express opinions, and we often act on them. But sometimes...sometimes I need to take charge. Done fairly, I've never seen a horse respond with fear or resentment. A trained horse, who understands the requests being made, will not get too upset at ask / tell / demand. They live it.



> "my comment is that you are mostly alone in the world on that one."


I know. Almost no one seems to argue that humans can offer horses something they crave, something that has nothing to do with punishment or treats. Almost no one discusses the power of forming a team with a horse, or how being a valued teammate can motivate a horse.

Pity, because I am certain I am right. "..._it loves to exercise its powers, and it possesses a great spirit of emulation; it likes variety of scene and amusement; and under a rider that understands how to indulge it in all this without overtaxing its powers, will work willingly to the last gasp, which is what entitles it to the name of a noble and generous animal..._"



> Allow me to add: Three horses living on a small 2 acre dry lot do not display normal herd interactions and social life and no conclusions should be drawn or suggested from observations under those conditions.


You can draw any conclusion you wish. Or not. Like a huge number of other riders, I see a LOT of harsh treatment of horses BY horses. I see no sign it is limited to horses in my particular living conditions.



> Are you hardened into the notion that it is just not possible to train a horse to be willingly compliant without coercion and or punishment?


 You asked @Smilie, but I'll offer you my opinion: I do not believe you can train or interact with a horse and get willing compliance without EVER using coercion or punishment. Nor do I see any reason one would try. 

But do and ride any way you want. 

Me? Each month, I'm coming to value Bandit more and more as a solid horse. He acts VERY content to be with me. He is learning judgment and learning to also trust mine. He's nine now. I expect to have many years of fun riding with him.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

In my training experience, having to "demand" usually meant the horse did not understand the question. If I asked in a different way, they usually complied.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I hereby officially surrender. Can't wade through the heavy molasses of this discussion.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

greentree said:


> In my training experience, having to "demand" usually meant the horse did not understand the question. If I asked in a different way, they usually complied.


!!!THAT!!!

@bsms

Your horses are displaying abnormal horse behavior in your corral. I have no idea what the reason is but I completely believe there is a reason. I could give suggestions but I'll refrain.

So you fooled around in the desert and got late even though you knew about your wife's schedule which of course Bandit had no way of knowing and would not have understood if he did.

So because of your dalliance, Bandit got booted in the gut. As I recall, you expressed distress when Bandit came back from a ranch loan out with bloody spur gashes in his side.

So speaking in terms of The Horse's Mind, I wonder what was going through Bandit's when you were booting? Oboy, here we go again. Well, that wasn't too bad but he will kick like the other guy did. Maybe he'll have spurs the next time. I'd better be good or I'll be "asking" for it.

A horse that is nervous about the monkey on his back is more nervous about everything than he normally would be.

If it was that important to be back for your wife you should have made allowances rather than pile it on top of the poor horse.

FWIW, that's my take of the situation.

RE: But do and ride any way you want.

Comment: May I ask why you made that statement when you know ahead of time that is exactly what I will do? My take, which could be wrong but I doubt it, is that when I do what I want you will have told me to do so leaving you in control. Hallmarks of a control freak. Not saying you are, just that the way the statement was presented is a hallmark.

Glad to hear you've finally committed to never selling bandit. To me, that's at least a small step in the correct direction.

RE: Almost no one discusses the power of forming a team with a horse, or how being a valued teammate can motivate a horse.

Comment: This position seems almost if not contradictory to your position that a horse cannot be trained without coercion. Maybe I'm missing something but to use coercion to form a team with a horse just sounds strange to me. Sort of like, you better be my friend or I'll hit you.

Working cattle, cutting cattle, and many other ranch chores are a form of team work with a horse and one that many thoroughly enjoy. I know Hondo does. If I'm on a trail ride and he sees a bunch of cows in the distance it's like, "Hey, we gonna go get those? Let's do!" He looks and clearly asks to go there.

There's a lot of stuff that consists of teamwork with a horse that have reports of the horse enjoying them. It just seems that forming a team without an objective is the thing that is not discussed. I'm not sure it would have any meaning to the horse.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

tinyliny said:


> I hereby officially surrender. Can't wade through the heavy molasses of this discussion.


I'm getting there myself. I was just intrigued by the possibility that if a horse knew harse cues would follow a mistake or non-compliance of a soft cue if the horse even regarded a soft cue as soft.

This is starting to sound more and more like my old thread about willing compliance or aversive reflex.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

_Lots of good comments and good points. And others I will of course lightly challenge. Such fun!_

Yes, this helps me crystallize my own views on the matter.

_tinyliny detailed in one of her posts what I believe is the singularly important characteristics that renders the horse to be trainable and willingly compliant to our wishes._

And yet, horses are prone to testing their boundary, testing their place in the hierarchy with you, or just plain don't see the point. You don't have the benefit of a common language, other than body language, and they don't have the gift of reasoning and planning ("This is why I need you to move your butt *now*...!" when crossing a roadway). 

I truly love it when I bushwack with my horse and we go around the trees finding the safest path as though we were of one mind. (I need to think where her feet and my head and knees will go. She needs to nimbly respond to my leg pressure.)

I have also been in a roundpen with a young stallion who basically initiated his little stallion ritual of sorting out our relationship. Let the record indicate that, even though I put lots of _pressure_ on him, I did not touch him, and we left that session as friends. I achieved my goal of having him relax and wanting to be with me. That one was particularly interesting because you don't pick a _fight_ with a stallion, because a stallion will fight back.

When my horse wants to itch her sweaty face after a ride, I put my knuckles or the palms of my hands on her face and let her have at it, basically reciprocating whatever pressure she puts against my hands. Sometimes she actually creates heat from the friction, so this is not a gentle touch she creates for her own comfort. I think sometimes people confuse the sensitivity of a horse to touch with sensitivity to pain. You may well overestimate the traumatic effect your training cues have on the horse. I think it's much easier to make the horse apprehensive with an unstable, aggressive emotional state than with simple physical stimuli that go away upon "finding the right answer". 

_All that aside, I reject that our lives and interactions consist only of coercive compulsions. When walking down the street with a friend and someone wants to stop and look in a store window at something the other is not interested in, a struggle does not necessarily esue. Normally the other will happily stop just because the other wants to. If there is some urgency in the other for some reason they may urge that they need to get going. Things like that. Just cooperation with no fear of retribution._

That example is a bit off because the relationship with the horse is hierarchical, not peer-to-peer. If you won't lead, the horse will.

_Since learning about the horse's continual secretion of digestive acids I have become very cooperative with agreement to Hondo's munching along the way on a trail ride. And sometimes I say, "C'mon, let's go". And sometimes he says, "Wait a minute, just a few more bites". Sometimes he will just make a small gesture toward some forage and I will direct him towards it, or if not, he will just continue on. Sometimes when there is something really delectable he will almost make a dive for it. Unless I have a good reason to argue about it, I just slack the reins. But if I really do need to keep going for some reason, he will default to my request. But if it is really really good forage he may ask, "Are you really really certain we can't stay a bit longer?"_

Well - my horse is the same way about cantering. I'll let her whenever I can, but sometimes the rocks and the mud and the low-hanging branches just don't allow me to say yes all the time. Usually she can muster some patience after I give a few half halts and sit heavy in the saddle, sometimes I need to be more persuasive (especially after she's jacked up after a short gallop that was way too short to satisfy her). 

Just today, I came home after a trail ride which didn't nearly give her enough time to run off her energy, but there is a hill in front of the farm that is perfect for those times. When we passed it, she made it very clear that she was salivating over that hill, and of course we went up! So yes, I did coerce her into going at a slow pace on muddy, rocky forest trails that are hard to assess far ahead, but during all that time I knew she'd get in the run she craves at the end. So how would you tell the horse in the middle of the ride, when she's ready to break her neck and yours at the drop of the rein, "Not yet, but we'll run before we go home, I promise?"

_I have pledged to myself to never cause fear or pain in my horse and generally extend that to other horses except in extreme circumstances. After three years, I think Hondo has figured this out. And to some degree I think the other horses have also. They just don't fear me._

Are we working with the same definition of what constitutes "pressure"? It has nothing to do with causing fear or pain! A twisted strap on your backpack is "pressure". It causes discomfort, and you start to figure out ways to release that pressure. Being a logical human being, you straighten that strap. Being a horse, you would probably have more trial and error involved in that problem. If you need to escalate pressure to a point that you are alluding to, you made the problem too big for the horse to solve. Also, see my point above about the apparent differences in the pain threshold between humans and horses: what my horse finds comforting relief from itch would probably cause you quite some pain.


_There is a lot of talk about being soft with a horse, which I think is good. But if that softness is backed up with a threat of escalation into pain, _

Yeah, it seems as though we have found our middle ground here. *I accept that I should not escalate into "pain" territory, but I'm quite ready to escalate into "discomfort" territory.* I know that horses are comfort-seeking animals, so yes, they will seek to find a solution to the "I'm not comfortable right now" problem, but there is usually no reason for pain in the training. I will readily go to "pain" - fast, decisive, and ultra-short term - when my own safety is at stake. And fear precludes training and learning from happening anyway.


----------



## horseylover1_1 (Feb 13, 2008)

I just skimmed through the other replies because they were so long... :lol:

I do think it's possible. But I would say that 90% of the time, a horse will not develop fear being conditioned on this method. 

I will ask gently, usually without applying any "pressure" the first time, apply pressure the second time, and then finally the horse will get disciplined for not listening. And yes, it only reaches that point when they KNOW what I want and stick their tongue out at me and say "no." I would never discipline a horse for not knowing how to respond. I'm also slow to discipline in case the horse is trying to tell me something, like that they are hurt or afraid. I discipline/demand when/if the horse says "nope, screw you." The discipline can range from making them move their feet to a whack on the butt. I would never intend to hurt a horse. Just make the wrong thing difficult.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

whatever any one of us posts here, I can guarantee that a year or so after that, you/me will have learned enough that we'll have new ideas about things. Just as soon as we think we've got things figured out with horses, and now we are 'pros' , we learn that  much MORE about horses, and we'll have a new opinion. 

may we all keep that in mind.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> You need to re-read my question. I did not ask about horses that had been trained in what you consider a fair manner. I asked if there were any circumstances under which....etc.
> 
> Let me ask you this Smilie. Are you hardened into the notion that it is just not possible to train a horse to be willingly compliant without coercion and or punishment?


Come on Hondo, don'y insult me! I think you know by now what my horses mean to me, and anyone that knows me, would scoff at the idea that I train my horses with punishment and coericion- they would laugh at you!

At the same time I, have have no problem disciplining my hroses,any more then I did my children, and both grew up to be 'good citizens. I can also give you examples where both horses and children, given no boundaries, ended up being neither good human citizens nor horses that had value were spoiled , and through no fault of their own, were relegated to the un wanted segment of the horse community


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

greentree said:


> In my training experience, having to "demand" usually meant the horse did not understand the question. If I asked in a different way, they usually complied.


You are confusing training ahrose, rewarding smallest tries, finding different way to make some thing clear to taht hrose, where you never go to demand, versus with a trained horse that just decides to say no.
A barn sour horse, that knows perfectly well the cue to go forward, decides he rather would not leave home, is one you use the 'firm as needed, in incremental degrees, until the horse complies, DOING SOMETHING HE Understands, and yes, the disclaimer-all pain ruled out.
Totally false that horses comply always, as long as the cue is clear. If that were so, we would not have barn sour horses, horses that bolt home, horses that balk and rear.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@mmshiro

Lots of good stuff in your post. I don't see anything that far off from where I am. BTW, all too often about the time I get my thoughts crystallized, something comes along and shatteres them to bits. But yes, finding out what we think is a big part of the back and forth.



I think you might call some stuff I do coercion where I don't. If I'm droving some cattle and one heads off to Jone's I use body/neck rein without really thinking about Hondo or what he is thinking. I'm just focusing on the cow and going there. But to me I'm not coercing, I'm just talking to my friend saying we gotta hurry befor the cow gets away. Same with crossing the highway. Gabbing the kids hand and saying lets hurry! (actually should probably wait a bit) But point being, exhibiting a cue that is part of a language to the horse does not HAVE to be coercion or pressure.

Yeah, I understand that increases of pressure are not to include pain, it's just that too often it segways into that. Applying pressure to a hip to teach a horse to move his hips to me is using pressure as body language to teach a language. Physically pushing on the horse. But I don't feel that is coercive and I don't really think the horse does either, unless someone jumps on a segway.

Some may wag their heads but I let Hondo scratch his face on my entire body. And I scratch his face with my fingernails. He has ultra sensitive skin. I finally have a fly sheet coming this week. May look strange on a ranch but he is the only horse with his degree of skin issues.

RE: That example is a bit off because the relationship with the horse is hierarchical, not peer-to-peer. If you won't lead, the horse will.

Comment: My relationship with Hondo is barely hierarchical if that.

I'm looking for a trail that we worked on together recently. Can't find it. Hondo keeps wanting to take the reins away. I give him the slack he's asking for. He cuts through the brush and we're soon on the trail I was looking for.

There's a nice smooth sandy area leading up to the waterfall on Spring Creek where there is a nice pool of water for Hondo to drink out of. This is three years ago when we first found each other. He resists. I continue urging in an insistent manner. Hondo says, ok, if you're sure. Pretty soon I feel his haunches sink and I instinctively haul the reins left toward the bank. Hondo leaps and lunges and makes it to the bank, barely.

Quicksand. I have been standing in three inches of sand and taken one step and went to my knees. Now-a-days, if Hondo sniffs the sand and doesn't want to go, we don't go.

I do not even consider telling or suggesting in any way whatsoever where Hondo puts his feet. I'm finally up to about 75-80% in guessing the line he will take. He ALWAYS chooses the best line. One that I didn't see or notice. I'm talking stuff that a flat land horse would kill himself on.

If the trail goes under a low hanging limb, Hondo will leave the trail to avoid the limb although there is plenty of room for him. I am so D*** lucky that Hondo is my horse.

There's lots of a nasty bush called cat's claw around here. I clear a lot of it from the trails. Hondo has learned this and If I don't notice one that is likely to scratch him he will stop, look at it, cast an eyeball on me, then look back at the limb. Yes Hondo, I see it. I dismount, clear it, and we ride on.

But I'm still in charge. Or at least he permits me to think so by cagley deferring to me at those times when I seem to really need deferring to.

So all this drivel is to point out that everything does not have to be a vertical relationship with a horse, there's lots of room for horizontal.

Someone helped me with the lyrics to one verse of a song. (to the tune of on top of old smokey)

I love my horse Hondo,
He gives me his best,
I point where his nose goes,
He fills in the rest.

Horses are comfort seeking animals??!! Hey, I'm a comfort seeking animal  Which is where I'm headed right now.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo, we also have feral horses, and I run into them each time I ride in the foothills
I actually got a foal to let me touch him. At the same time, I also have run into determined bachelor studs, and riding a mare, had to have hubby actually shoot over the head of one, who was determined to have my mare, with me being a minor inconvenience
I really don't get all this attempt to try and equate yourself with an equine herd member, to emulate horses, beyond understanding their innate nature , and using WHAT applies to help to communicate with them, understanding their flight or fight reaction, herd order, security and basic body language
It does not matter if herd dynamics change- and those dynamics are also why horses test us at times. Unlike a herd member, we must answer the horse when he questions us, that, yes, we are still the leader, one he can trust, feel secure with, but one which he can't displace. If you don't lead, the horse will


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> !!!THAT!!!
> 
> @*bsms*
> 
> ...


What was going thru Bandit's mind? Probably, "He's really serious about going this route". And if I am going to allow my horses to talk back to me, then I need to be able to also respond by telling them X is more important to me than they realize. He certainly didn't stress over it. But then, what do I know? I just ride him all the time...and no one has ever ridden him with spurs, BTW. Ever.

Apart from that, I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo, i hate to break it to you, but horses live in the here and now.Therefore, they do no rationalize |i better be good, or next time i'm really in for it|. 
That is also why we have the three second rule, or'immediate as possible, with any action on our part, beyond that time,not easily associated with the action
Why do you think some horses bite people, and I am not talking of an abused horse, with a fear reaction? What do
you suggest in that case-turn the other cheek?Me, I'm going to convince the horse that his teeth should never grab human flesh
No, you do not use fear based training, but neither do you use just R+ and food rewards.
You train with using balance

Perhaps, Hondo, re visit the thread I started, on using balance in training, from a good article l that I read. I hate re chewing the same subject over and over again!

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-training/horse-training-balance-735818/


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

What one has to be open minded about is the intelligence, the willingness and compliance of each individual horse. 

A good trainer will adapt whatever method they are using to suit each horse. When a young horse is asked to do something and they do not respond _before_ moving onto telling, a trainer needs to know whether that animal knows what is being asked amd what his response should be.

Years ago my niece had trouble adding 9 onto a figure. I told her to add ten and take one away but she couldn't get that. I could well have classed her as being 'thick' but, I then told her the number in front gets one bigger and the last number one smaller. For me that seems more complex but she got that and was fine with adding her nines.

If a horse appears to not understand, look inwards at how you are asking. The Ask, Tell Demand is all well and good for an animal that knows but is non compliant but not for a young horse that has never been taught. 

To answer your question Hono about whether it is possible to train a horse without the ATD method, yes it is. However, there need to be rules and boundaries for them just as there are for us.


----------



## Hackamore (Mar 28, 2014)

The level of assertiveness used during training is different with every horse, and becomes less assertive as a horse shows the slightest try. However in the hands of an inexperienced trainer attempting to mimic what they see others do you could certainly push a horse to the point they are reacting from fear if they did not have good timing & the ability to read a horse. This is where knowledge of horse behavior and having the experience to read a horse separates the amateur from professional trainers. Training is a balance of pushing a horse far enough out of their comfort level so they progress & learn to trust the riders request, but not pushing them to the point where you create a problem or fear of the rider.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Hondo, i hate to break it to you, but horses live in the here and now.Therefore, they do no rationalize |i better be good, or next time i'm really in for it|.
> That is also why we have the three second rule, or'immediate as possible, with any action on our part, beyond that time,not easily associated with the action
> Why do you think some horses bite people, and I am not talking of an abused horse, with a fear reaction? What do
> you suggest in that case-turn the other cheek?Me, I'm going to convince the horse that his teeth should never grab human flesh
> ...


Smilie, I hate to break it to you, but living in the here and now has nothing at all to do with having an ability to reason. Horses do not reason at our level simply because they have not evolved the brain area in which the action of higher reasoning takes place.

Even though they have an evolution span of ten times ours, it has been suggested that a more complex reasoning would have been a detriment to their survival. (may turn out to be ours also)

Horses do think about and consider what consequences their actions may cause. How far in the future they consider the consequences happening I don't know but it is much longer than the three second interval. They don't rationalize it's true, but they are clearly aware of consequences of their actions beyond that three second mark. Their "here and now" does not chop of their existence three seconds before and after the now.

They have memories much more advanced and detailed than our own. And they are constantly comparing the present with memories from the past and making decisions based on those past memories. That is a form of reasoning but not of the higher nature that we humans express. They do have a the part of the brain in which reasoning is performed, it's just not very large.

You need to do a lot more study in this area Smilie.

Why do I think horses bite people? There are a multitude of reasons which I need not list. 

@bsms Sorry, must have got your horses mixed up. Which one was it that came back to you with a bloodied side from spurs?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Foxhunter said:


> What one has to be open minded about is the intelligence, the willingness and compliance of each individual horse.


I am in emphatic agreement with this. Far too often the horse is short changed in the underestimation of all three of these attributes. And to regard the horse as anything less than noble is also a short change in my own view.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> anyone that knows me, would scoff at the idea that I train my horses with punishment and coericion- they would laugh at you!





Smilie said:


> I like to think we use some reasoning power, in any situation where we need to correct ahrose, and also use only as much R- as is needed


R- is also called punishment. "as much as needed" can vary dramatically from person to person based on perspective. And from some advanced trainer's perspectives, R- is not needed at all.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Child #5 and I went out riding about a week ago in an area we had never explored. The “trail” quickly turned into straight up bush riding. We encountered old fencing and impassible areas where we had to turn around in very tight quarters. I came back all bloodied and scratched up. 

Anyway, Oliver was generally pretty compliant throughout, even though he was quite nervous at times (I swear he knows when I am not sure where we are going). All went well until it came time to head back out onto the shoulder of the busy road we have to take to get home.

For some reason, my daughter’s horse, Caspian, would not step over the piece of fencing that was maybe 18” high to get back onto the road. Ollie and I were in the lead and didn’t realize at first that Caspian and #5 were still standing back at the fence. She called to me and I tried to turn Oliver around.

This is only the second time in the three years we have been riding together where he was like “Nope. Listen human, we have been wandering aimlessly in the forest in 100 degree heat. Home is that way and we need to go there”. Both times we had been "lost" at some point in the ride. He was really willing to fight about it. 

I got “mommy” emotional. Dang horse was keeping me from helping my daughter out. My temper started to flare (the horses weren’t the only ones hot, thirsty and tired). Game on!

I escalated from asking to telling and was about to “demand” out of habit (accompanied by a mental curse word), when I did something else instead. I changed my mental status. What separates us from animals is our ability to control our emotions. 

At one point, he offered to stand still. I accepted the offer. We compromised. Neither one of us got our way in that moment. Reset button.

I have long known that Oliver is on the sensitive side when it comes to picking up on a rider’s emotions.

I took a deep breath, he sputtered and relaxed, got myself out of mental Mommy Mode and asked again. 20 seconds or less. Wouldn’t you know it? He complied this time with a light ask and we got #5 back on the right side of the fence. Neither of us won the battle but, I “won” the war. 

Taking into account as @Foxhunter mentioned the individual intelligence, willingness and compliance of the horse worked well for us. The old saying it takes two to tango is true with him. I am finding to a remarkable degree, that tamping down and controlling my emotions, where he cannot, has allowed me to avoid having to reach the point of using punitive physical force to get him to do as he is asked. 

Give him a chance to regain control of his brain and the physical also comes back under control.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

So, where are any of these examples, discussions, differing from using balance, in training a horse?
No one who has ridden and trained many horses, is going to dispute not taking individual temperaments of a horse into account, or the situation.
The old phrase, ask ask louder, then demand , has to be taken in context , as to when it was meant to be applied, and is not an absolute maxium upon itself, fallowed blindly like some religious dogma!
If I am riding a horse, that understands a cue, but just disregards it, because he would rather go out the out gate, back to buddies, I am not going to just let him take me to that out gate.
Similarly (yes, all pain ruled out) I ask ahorse to pick up a lope form a standstill, but he would rather just try to trot into that transition, because it is easier, I am going to stop him, and ask for that transition more firmly
It does not mean that out on a trail,if I come to a bog, not sure how deep, and just ramp up to demand, force my horse into that bog
There are times though, that I will demand. Sometimes, you can't go around a bog, and though I try to avoid them, am not going to go back 10 miles or more, when it is getting late, esp when you see evidence that horses have gone through there, so not bottomless. The place when that bog, is known to have a good bottom, is also the place that has been ridden through, by those familiar with that trail,so churned up.
The area on either side of that travelled route, will look deceiving more solid, nice and green, (mossy), but I know, it is because that bog is very deep there, so avoided. A horse does not know this, and will try to head where the ground looks firmer to him.
You bet, I will demand he goes through that bog where I ask him to, as getting into deep bog is not a good experience for either you or the hrose
There are times to go to demand, times to weigh input from your horse, time even to give him that decision making, as when lost, knowing the horse will find the way home, BUt I reserve the right to hand over that role, and not have the horse demand to have it, as in ahorse recognizing atrail that heads back to where he wants to go, and then insist on taking it


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@Reiningcatsanddogs Good story. One of the books I'm currently reading is Finding The Missed Path-The Art of Restarting Horses.

Mark Rashid is just not real high on ask/tell/demand but he is pretty high on the rider/trainer taking a break to examine their current emotional state and says that's all it sometimes takes to fix things.

Sounds like you made it work.

I'd also like to mention that Lucy Rees/The Horse's Mind which I'm also reading does reserve a spot for R- but says it is always counter productive in training.

Quote: It can be useful in discouraging unpleasant behavior that the horse has thought up for himself, like biting, but useless when trying to teach a horse a new action in response to a new cue: punishing the 'wrong' response frightens and confuses the horse and makes him even less likely to cooperate next time. End Quote.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Horses have been trained for along long time, using pressure and release,learning specifically from that release. It falls into R- by definition
It is what we use to teach a horse to lead, to tie, to move off the leg, so how on earth is it always counter productive?
Sure you also use R+, and use a balance of the two.
Rashid should stick to martial arts, as his rant on a jointed mouth curb, removes all credibility for me, far as Rashid
There are times to compromise with a horse, knowing if you push him a bit further he might blow, but lets put a little different scenario on the entire situation
What if Reinin's daughter's horse was going to go completely out of control, and she needed to get her horse back to her daughter;s hrose, as in ' right now;, but the horse refused?
Yes, you use judgement, and truly scared horse just becomes reactive, stops thinking,, so if you have the time /circumstance to let his mind come back to you, then do so, other times, you might just need to use some body control, for that period where the mind leaves the horse
Let me give my own example
I rode Einstein out west one year, when the rivers were up, and he had little experience crossing them. I know to keep my eyes on the opposite bank, crossing fast water, but since Einstein had an area on one rear quarter of a back hoof, where he had torn out the coronary band, and which then remained vulnerable to injury, I looked down at the boulders we were crossing, trying to prevent him from hitting sharp one.
My husbands yell caused me to look up, and I saw that I had really drifted down river from the crossing, thus the bank in front of us was impossible to scale, and Einstein not listened to me, and instead tried to go up that bank, we would have flipped over backwards.
I only had to ask, not demand, as that is the trust and training I had in him, for him to fight up river, against that flow, to get back tot hat crossing.
So, you can label, qoute Rashid, Xenophon until the cows come home, as I know what kind of relationship I enjoyed with many horses, building that bond on feel, experience and not by reading abstracts, sticking labels on things
My horses did not work through fear or intimidation. I certainly used both R+ and R- in training, and R_ seems to be the new poster child of being politically incorrect when it comes to training horses 
Carry on!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I think everyone agrees to avoid using punishment to teach a new idea. However...release of pressure is still R- (I'm told), but it is also extremely useful in teaching new things. For example, I suspect this is considered R-...but it hardly qualifies as "punishment":






If I want Bandit to take a route, my "ask" is a neck rein toward that area. My "tell" is a kiss sound or a squeeze with the calves. My "Demand" was a single kick with my heels, something I've needed to do twice in the last 3 months.

If that is brutal intimidation of my horse, leaving him fearful of what my next cruelty will be...then so be it! He's not a Unicorn, and I'm not a Tolkien Elf Lord, so sometimes he'll crow-hop in frustration and sometimes I dare to use my heels. I don't get upset and neither does he.

Earlier today, he followed me around the corral as I cleaned up poo. In my ignorance, I thought he was begging for rubs, so I gave him plenty. He'd follow and ask for more...and get them. But it could be he was so overwhelmed by my Fearsome Awfulness that he was groveling in an attempt to live another day. I'll let the equine psychologists worry about it. I'd rather go ride...


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

This is all so philosophical . . .

Today, I led my horse out of the pasture toward the tack-up area, which I have done many many times. Only today she balked going through the outer gate. She had balked the past two times, too. Twice, I had patiently disengaged her front end and coaxed her to move again. This time, I just gave her a big swat with the end of the lead rope. It was not a cue. It wasn't raising-a-welt hard, but I meant her to feel it. Did she leap aside, pop-eyed and trembling? No. She just walked forward in a relaxed obedient manner, like she was supposed to, like she's done many many times. She was just trying on balking to see if she could get something out of it for herself, and got herself an answer: no. We both immediately stopped thinking about it and moved on.

If I didn't know my horse pretty well, I wouldn't have done that, but she is that kind of personality which just has to check every once in awhile to see who is running the show. In this mode, we are playing being horses together. Who moves who's feet? 

Then I rode over to my weekly riding lesson. It was Equitation Day. Notice how turning your thigh inward strengthens your whole core, and makes your leg cues more readable. Notice how riding with flexible elbows and still wrists (instead of the other way around) makes your rein cues more readable. Feel how tucking your tail bone and thinking about lifting your horse's shoulders lightens her forehand and allows her to lengthen her stride. Brooke is steady and forgiving, but sensitive. I can breathe her into transitions, I straighten her by being straight myself. We are not being horses together here. I don't know how I would "demand" anything from her in this context; far more, I am demanding things from myself. It is so physical that 'thinking', as I usually experience it, is not a primary function. It's mostly sensing. It's a physical dialogue which fills up the space completely, not leaving any room for training philosophies or theories about the potentiality of relationship between humans and animals. 

Trail riding is another thing again. Another good thing.

One can go around and around questions like equality, obedience, friendship, coercion, trust, fear. But if you ride with as much awareness as you can bring to bear, I don't think it is so important what your philosophy is. Or rather, the proof is in the pudding. I know people who talk tough but their soft hands and their horses' soft expressions call them liars. And vice versa.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Awright, I made a mistake. I was talking about punishment P+ and called R- which I of course know is release.

As far as Rashid Smilie, that you would aspire to be worthy of carrying his coat tails.

I have hit Hondo a few times in the past. Really did. And each time they were really effective in getting him to instantly do what *I* wanted him to do. Like a light switch. He became so instantly obedient that it made me feel bad. Plus he wouldn't look at me or express pleasure at my scratching or any offered reward. It was like, "You want me to be your horse, okay, I'll be your horse".

I may be accused or thought of as over dramatizing but I know Hondo pretty well and felt I was getting a very strong message from him.

Fact is, to me, Hondo is my pet. My animal companion. That is numero uno to me. Everything else, everything, takes second place. This horse carries me freely all over the place when I'm sure he would just as soon stay in the shade eating grass. I ain't hittin' him!

More and more it seems that my attitude towards Hondo and horses in general just doesn't fit in the larger horse world. Hitting a horse with abandon just because he didn't respond correctly is just something I cannot and shall never relate to.

I'm very much into horses and dogs, but not dog and pony shows.

FWIW


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Oh shoot @bsms, I "nudge" Hondo frequently with my heels. It's part of our vocabulary. At times, if warranted, particularly when droving cattle, I may neck rein, squeeze with my legs, and nudge with my heels all at the same time. That's just another part of the vocabulary that says emergency.

There is a considerable difference on how a horse relates to any of that depending on the emotional state of the rider. He may not be a unicorn and you may not be an elf, but he *does* know and is keenly aware of his rider's emotional state.

I can call someone a bad name with a smile and it can be a term of endearment. But with a different emotional state it can become and invite to do battle.

A nudge as vocabulary is one thing. A nudge from irritation is something else. I'll leave it to you to privately determine which you do and when. The horse already knows.

Edit: I like that horse hair deal. I'll be trying that.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Awright, I made a mistake. I was talking about punishment P+ and called R- which I of course know is release.
> 
> As far as Rashid Smilie, that you would aspire to be worthy of carrying his coat tails.
> 
> ...


Hondo, why do you go, where nobody even suggested going, or con
dons here? Hitting a horse with abandon, in anger is not even on the table here!
Again, read about balance, and I think that term is pretty clear. It means you go to neither extreme.
Tom Dorrance is considered one of the fathers of NH, and his statement sums up things pretty well, when it comes to how we should relate /train horses

I know I have posted it very often, but it seems to require endless repetition, so here goes: 
"be as gentle with ahorse as possible, BUT also as firm, (note the next wording (as needed), to make that horse a good citizen'
It is also understood that we are talking of a horse that already understands a cue, and nOT one first being taught it

Pressure, however slight is termed R-, even that release, which I always thought was R+, until corrected by those taking formal behavioral classes
Far as Rashid;s coat tails, I can names a dozen or so trainers, whose coat tails I would feel honored to carry, but not his-okay!
Yes, horses are noble creatures, but do them the service of recognizing them for what they are, versus trying to endow them with human emotions and thinking
You said you have watched feral horses, so you must recognize that Horses, including Hondo, don't take any correction personal, as long as it is fair and also with consistent expectations. One horse will correct another, and a few minutes later they are grazing side by side
I am shocked that you ever hit Hondo, what came over you? He must have done something really aggressive!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

To make it easy, here again is some of the info on BALANCE< and not talking of Physical Balance. I don't wish to re type everything, and since links often are not clicked on, Thought I would post it as a re fresher, as I believe we chewed much of the same cud back in that thread!

'I read a good article recently, that sort of touches on quite a few subjects recently discussed here, and thought I would share some key points for thought

Most times, when the topic of balance comes up, in regards to horse training, it is physical terms that are the subject. Distribution of the rider's weight, the horse balanced between the front and hind end, balance between reins and legs. combined with timing and feel

There is another balance, just as important, and can be more challenging, also requiring timing and feel. That balance includes , balance between softness and boundaries, between kindness and rules, between discipline and fun, and between consequences and reward

The author acknowledges two main types of imbalances,when it comes to people.There are those that are all about rules, boundaries, discipline and consequences, and those who are all softness, kindness, fun and reward.

Somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum is a perfect balance that results in an emotionally balanced confident horses and humans who communicate clearly with compassionate understanding of who is in charge

The author encourages every horse owner to find that balance, even if it results in trial and error, summing up that concept with two quotes
The first is an Old cowboy one.

"Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad Judgement'.

The second is an old martial arts saying:
' The difference between a master and a beginner, is that the master has failed more times then the beginner has even tried'


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Dog and pony show- had to look that one up, so the definition would not be mis construed.

'Dog and pony show
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Dog and pony show (disambiguation).
"Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.[1]

Origins[edit]
The term was originally used in the United States in the late-19th and early-20th centuries to refer to small traveling circuses that toured through small towns and rural areas. The name derives from the common use of performing dogs and ponies as the main attractions of the events.[2] Performances were generally held in open-air arenas, such as race tracks or public spaces in localities that were too small or remote to attract larger, more elaborate performers or performances. The most notorious was “Prof. Gentry's Famous Dog & Pony Show,” started when teenager Henry Gentry and his brothers started touring in 1886 with their act, originally entitled “Gentry’s Equine and Canine Paradox.” It started small, but evolved into a full circus show.[3] Other early dog and pony shows included Morris’ Equine and Canine Paradoxes (1883) and Hurlburt’s Dog and Pony Show (late 1880s).

By the latter part of the 20th century, the original meaning of the term had been largely lost, however is still widely used in the Military in regard to unit or Command inspections.'

I don't know, but some of these training clinics, given by people like Rashid and other NH trainers, designed to teach people to train horses, could follow under that heading>


----------



## Unknown (Oct 2, 2016)

Hondo, Your horse doesn't carry you "freely" - he's carrying you around because he has no choice. He gets ridden when YOU want to ride. He has no say about it. And you can dress that fact up in as many eloquent self serving platitudes as you like, and it changes nothing. He might be your pet and animal companion, but you are not his. He is only with you for as long as you decide to be with him. Then you leave and are gone until you decide to show up again. 

And no, they do not have the ability to reason or consider the consequences of their actions. Do you really think if a horse understood the consequences of having a bit placed in their mouth that they would allow you to put one in?


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

I used to be really into these discussions... until I realized that an experienced horseman/woman's gut and instinct in a moment is far more pertinent, relevant, and useful than any philosophy or training technique ever will be.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Unknown said:


> Hondo, Your horse doesn't carry you "freely" - he's carrying you around because he has no choice. He gets ridden when YOU want to ride. He has no say about it. And you can dress that fact up in as many eloquent self serving platitudes as you like, and it changes nothing. He might be your pet and animal companion, but you are not his. He is only with you for as long as you decide to be with him. Then you leave and are gone until you decide to show up again.
> 
> And no, they do not have the ability to reason or consider the consequences of their actions. Do you really think if a horse understood the consequences of having a bit placed in their mouth that they would allow you to put one in?


In someways true, but not always. 

As for accepting the bit because they cannot reason not true. 

I have had horses that were difficult to bridle, they would throw their heads around and clamp their teeth shut. If that wasn't saying they didn't want the bit in their mouths I don't know what was. 

Get the correct bit for that horse and kind understanding hands and after a while that same horse would open its mouth to take the bit without being asked. 

As humans we are very inclined to state that animals do not possess the ability to reason or have any logical skills. Not true at all. 

Personally I never wanted to be a 'Horse Whisperer' but rather someone that listened to what animals have to say, then come to an agreement with them in the kindest way possible.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I've come to determine as a result of this thread that I absolutely reject the entire notion of ask-tell-demand. I've also come to the realization that almost the entire forum and likely almost the entire horse world does accept the notion of ask-tell-demand.

I've come to the realization that I do reject anything beyond the ask. Period. I do increase the ask in terms of becoming more insistent, but never to the degree that I would even call a 'tell'.

As to Hondo and my 'discussions' about stopping along a trail ride for a bite of forage, I think about a couple walking down the street when one wants to stop and look at something, say in a store window, in the store, or something along the way, whatever. The other is not interested but accommodates the other's interest. After a time perhaps one says, hey, c'mon, let's go. Okay, just give me another minute. Cooperative back and forth, push pull, and depending upon the insistence of each agreement is reached. But if one says, "Okay, if you're not coming, I'm leaving without you", that to me becomes a 'tell'.

In thinking back over say the last two years riding, I cannot recall ever reaching a 'tell' with Hondo. When that becomes necessary, I believe communication has broken down and there is a problem between horse and rider just as there would be with a couple when one decides to leave without the other.

I know I'm pretty much alone in the horse world in my thinking but that's how I feel about it. Even in the work world of humans it is becoming learned that a culture of horizontal relationships results in happier and more productive people in both quantity and quality than with a strictly vertical culture.

@Foxhunter Refreshing to see the word kindness associated with a horse.

@Smile You know I like and respect Tom Dorrance. However, "as soft as possible and as firm as necessary" can unfortunately be interpreted many ways by many different people. Those who will use child raising, herd interactions, or whatever they can think of to justify abusive methods of handling a horse will use that statement also.

@Unknown I just read your other 8 posts. I'll abstain from further comment.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

_Hondo, Your horse doesn't carry you "freely" - he's carrying you around because he has no choice._

No doubt about it. I think what is implied here is that, all other things being equal, many horse owners try to give the horse the best deal they can. No, the horse can't come and go or associate freely with other herd members as it pleases, but I'll create an artificial environment that supports the horse's evolutionary make-up as much as possible. No, she doesn't get to decide when she carries me, but I will do my best to let there be something in it for her: be a leader as well as comforter, acknowledge the horse's needs by not over- or underworking her, don't ask anything of her that causes or aggravates injury. 

I need to get out of bed and to work because I must eat. It's either that or growing and hunting my own food, building my own shelter, etc. I didn't ask to be part of that deal, but it can still have its perks. I do that 40 hours a week, my horse her job 3-4 hours a week, not including hanging out, petting, grooming, etc. We both enjoy a medical plan, and she lives at a barn that is very peaceful as it has nothing to do with ribbons, trophies, egos, and the likes. I'm not hyperflexing her for showy effects, I'm not riding her into battle as cannon fodder, she's not tied to a cart for 8 hours a day in midtown Manhattan. It wasn't her decision to be my horse, but I make an effort to make her look forward to what'll happen when I show up. 

_He gets ridden when YOU want to ride. He has no say about it. And you can dress that fact up in as many eloquent self serving platitudes as you like, and it changes nothing. He might be your pet and animal companion, but you are not his. He is only with you for as long as you decide to be with him. Then you leave and are gone until you decide to show up again._ 

Which is why it is so important that the horse has a horsey-like lifestyle at its barn: a peaceful, safe environment with herd buddies, room to graze and to play, shelter from the elements, water. My being there or not being there should not impact her quality of life, only bring some variety and enrichment.

_And no, they do not have the ability to reason or consider the consequences of their actions. Do you really think if a horse understood the consequences of having a bit placed in their mouth that they would allow you to put one in?_

Horses understand patterns. They cannot deduce what will happen by forming an abstract model of reality like we do, but if the same cause-and-effect chain occurs repeatedly, they'll catch on. That's how training works. That's how some people can't catch their horses on pasture, and some people catch their horses by showing up at the gate and waiting. Something similar happens to the horse _every time_ you show up, and the horse forms an opinion whether to take flight or come in.


----------



## Unknown (Oct 2, 2016)

Foxhunter said:


> In someways true, but not always.
> 
> As for accepting the bit because they cannot reason not true.
> 
> I have had horses that were difficult to bridle, they would throw their heads around and clamp their teeth shut. If that wasn't saying they didn't want the bit in their mouths I don't know what was.


You know as well as I do that a horse who does these things does so because of rough bitting AT THE TIME bridling takes place. Horses who are bridled correctly do not do this…even horses who are ridden by heavy handed people with severe bits. He is not objecting to the bit because he knows later in the ride that the bit may cause discomfort, he's learned to object because of what has/is happening AT THE TIME of bitting.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Here's an interesting (to me) article I just read.

https://equusmagazine.com/behavior/horse-55262


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I just read @Unknown 's 8 other posts and don't see anything wrong with them.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Avna said:


> I just read @Unknown 's 8 other posts and don't see anything wrong with them.


Ok. Apparently you think flooding is something that results from heavy rains also. Carry on......


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

mmshiro said:


> ...I think what is implied here is that, all other things being equal, many horse owners try to give the horse the best deal they can. No, the horse can't come and go or associate freely with other herd members as it pleases, but I'll create an artificial environment that supports the horse's evolutionary make-up as much as possible...


From my journal:



bsms said:


> There is a balancing act...
> 
> *Or maybe we make them feel like PARTNERS to the gods.*​
> As a GOAL, that is fine. But it is hyperbole, playing off of Xenophon's comments about horses making US look like mythical heroes. Truth is, my horse doesn't always make me feel heroic or important, and I certainly don't come close to doing that with him!
> ...


"many horse owners try to give the horse the best deal they can" - mmshiro​ 
Exactly. And just as I have often hauled my butt in to work at 3AM, my horse sometimes (most of the time?) has to live in the mundane reality, including sometimes doing things just because I want to do them.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Ok. Apparently you think flooding is something that results from heavy rains also. Carry on......


So he (or she) had never heard of it. Until a year ago I hadn't either. Big whoop.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Yes I agree, flooding is a very big, as you call it, whoop.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

HOndo, you are basing the ask/demand on one horse, an older gelding, and trying to apply it broad stroke to every horse out there.
There is a time to demand a horse stays out of your space, like a stallion who thinks it's okay to follow his natural reactions, and sink teeth into a human
NOw, you strolling along with Hondo, letting him decide when to eat grass, also does not apply to every situation, and when I am on a long ride, sure, I let my horse stop at intervals and grab some bites of grass, but I don't ride along, allowing a horse to pull on the reins, head for the nearest clump of grass, and insist on doing a walk and graze as I ride along.
There certainly is a time, with some horses, in some situations where you should go tot hat demand. If you only need to use ask, then no need to go there.
I take very good care of my horses. Horses don't work anywhere near what they did in the past, in most cases, just lightly recreation-ally ridden
In re turn, it is not un reasonable to expect good willing work ethics
yes, there are abusive trainers out there, who use harsh methods, have no empathy for a horse, but to try and group anyone who believes in using the ask and demand, in a situation that warrants it, into that group is plain slanderous.
Do you read any of the posts, that show horses who have become truly disrespectful, even dangerous? Most of those horses did not result from abusive handling, quite the opposite. They resulted from someone having treated that horse like a pet, afraid to ever discipline the hrose, as 'horsey will then not love them'


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> There is a time to demand a horse stays out of your space, like a stallion who thinks it's okay to follow his natural reactions, and sink teeth into a human


That has absolutely nothing to do with ask tell demand Smilie. That is a situation that I have made very clear that I believe swift and painful P+ punishment is both justified and demanded.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Here is the other end of that spectrum, you are drifting towards, Hondo. As I mentioned before, neither extreme end is correct, but a balanced approach, learned through working with many horses, developing feel, and then applying what is right for any partcular horse in agiven situation
At one extreme end, is the harsh , abusive person, and at the other end, is thew one that spoils horses, and neither is the friend of the hrose.

This paragraph is from a person that worked in a horse rescue, and wittnessed the fallout of horses that were allowed to become spoiled, as well as the truly abused hroses. Both types were 'abused' in their own way, by humans

'When a horse is spoiled, the owner has rewarded the horse for evading, resisting, or refusing to perform the basic functions that are required to be a safe, reliable riding horse. Instead of giving the horse leadership and clarity in boundaries, the owner will default to what they believe to be more gentle and humane treatment.

Thus they avoid any interaction in which the horse is corrected and redirected into more appropriate activity. Instead, imaginary emotions are attributed to the horse — and the owner responds to these pretend equine feelings (which prevents the misbehavior from even being perceived, let alone corrected).'

Entire article:

Good Intentions and Cruelty to Horses - LOPE


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Unknown said:


> Hondo, Your horse doesn't carry you "freely" - he's carrying you around because he has no choice.


Changed my mind. Decided to respond to comment even when coming from one who seems to care not one whit what flooding is nor what it can do to a horse.

I can promise that the day I become convinced that the quoted statement is true shall be the last day I shall ride any horse, including Hondo.

Just because some feel trapped in a 40 hour week that they do not enjoy it does not necessarily extrapolate to other humans nor necessarily to all horses.

Admittedly, I have not worked for compensation for over 18 years except for a one summer stint running a trail cat bulldozer in the National Forest in Idaho, which I would have done for free because it was so much fun, and that was a 10 continuous 10 hour days with 6 off. Hot, sweat, bugs, dust, fun!

I have spent several days here on the ranch doing roundups and working cattle through the pen, repaired flood gates, spent many hours running the ranch bulldozer repairing roads, all for no compensation what so ever. Just because I liked doing it.

Now I realize you may not consider it possible that the horse is highly evolved enough to enjoy recreational pursuits that involve physical outputs. I, however, remain unconvinced that they do not.

I am with my horse daily, and have been for over three years now. I interact several times each day. Mostly just for the interaction.

Strangely, after a ride, he tends to hang around the little 1/3 acre yard I call his pen much more than otherwise before ambling on out to the 60 acre field where the other three herd mates are. His affiliative behavior towards me seem to increase subsequent to rides.

But maybe my head is in the clouds. If ever I look down from said cloud and find I am wrong, I will leave my flesh and blood horse and return to the cold, dead, and unfeeling iron horse that I previously rode.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> That has absolutely nothing to do with ask tell demand Smilie. That is a situation that I have made very clear that I believe swift and painful P+ punishment is both justified and demanded.


Sure it does. It shows a horse where it is correct to go right to 'demand'
So, here is an example where you don't go to demand

Teaching a young horse a response, to a cues he does not yet understand fully
That is a case where you reward the slightest try, and if the horse does not get it, given him time over night to absorb, then again 
just use that light ask, and then if the hrose does not comprehend, try to find anew way to present that concept to him 

Lastly, a time to apply that ask, ask louder and demand.


A horse has been taught the cue to ride forward. He is not in pain. The horse has become barn sour, and refuses to ride beyond the end of the drive way
He was in fact, most likley created by someone who never asked louder, when they should have, so now has to have demand used on him, so he will learn to listen to that soft ask.

My horse knows how to move off a leg, but for some reason or another,decides to ignor it. No, this does not just apply to show horse expectations, far as lightness to leg, and transfers over to trail riding
i ride with people, whose horses have never been taught light response to a leg aid. Thus, we come upon a mud hole on the trail, which has a narrow bank on each side, next to thick trees
My horses will respond to light leg, stay between my reins and legs, and go through that mud hole, where they can't see bottom, but where my body language assures them there is solid bottom.
Some of those other horses, never taught light leg aids, respect of leg aids, will instead insist on sidling towards a bank on either side, running their rider;s legs into those trees, while themselves slipping and sliding on that narrow slick bank,in danger of going down.

On horses that have been taught lightest, by at the rIGHT time, using that ask, ask louder then demand, seldom if ever need to be asked using demand again, but un like a horse that was never taught lightness, respond to very light aids.
Those horses are just as happy, relaxed riding as the horse where the rider was afraid of ever going to demand, on a horse that did not respond to the light ask, and are way more fun to ride, JMO


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> At one extreme end, is the harsh , abusive person, and at the other end, is thew one that spoils horses, and neither is the friend of the hrose.


I do accept and very much believe that both conditions exist but am not ready to accept that they are part of a continuum.

Smilie, I spent seven years in the distant past, 180 days each of those years, working with around 180 teenage students in my math and science classes.

I am very aware of what spoiled means and what causes it. I was in a small town and knew every parent individually. And I fully and emphatically agree that spoiling is a form of abuse.

Upon this we agree. Upon much we do not.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Sure it does.


Well, we disagree. I associate ask tell demand with the application of cues only. Punishment for biting does not fall into that realm. JMO


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Gee , Hondo, I do ask my horses to be light, during the training process, at the correct time, and know what ,mine also greet me, are happy to ride out.
In fact, Charlie is dry lotted part time, and then out on grass part time. I often ride her, just after bringing her in from pasture, and she greets me with a nicker.
If I'm out fencing, my horses also hang out with me. Maybe it is the pail with staples they hope might hold some treat, or perhaps they just like hanging out ,or maybe they are just curious. 
At any rate, I don't over analyze , read into it, 'un dying love', just accept it for what it is, with each parties deriving some pleasure out of that association, based on their own needs/nature
Well, glad we agree on some things, as you apparently do not believe in the extreme end of that spectrum, where spoiling comes into play, and I can assure you that I do not believe in the extreme other end, and have no use for abusive training methods
I guess we have different views as to where that balance lies!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> Gee , Hondo, I do ask my horses to be light, during the training process, at the correct time, and know what ,mine also greet me, are happy to ride out.
> In fact, Charlie is dry lotted part time, and then out on grass part time. I often ride her, just after bringing her in from pasture, and she greets me with a nicker.
> If I'm out fencing, my horses also hang out with me. Maybe it is the pail with staples they hope might hold some treat, or perhaps they just like hanging out ,or maybe they are just curious.
> At any rate, I don't over analyze , read into it, 'un dying love', just accept it for what it is, with each parties deriving some pleasure out of that association, based on their own needs/nature
> ...


Smilie, I do agree with both ends of the spectrum as you describe, I am just reluctant to put them on a continuum or spectrum. I just view them as so different that I don't associate them even being on the same spectrum.

A very small philosophical point which really has little if any bearing on how I deal with either.

See, I don't look it as a balance. I look at other things than the two forms of abuse when thinking about the horse human relation. Again, small point, but rather than avoid the two extremes I would rather focus on what I believe and want without sharing my grey matter with the negative situations, well, when and if possible.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Think I posted earlier on this thread but haven't read all. Just wanted to commento on this...



Hondo said:


> I've come to determine as a result of this thread that I absolutely reject the entire notion of ask-tell-demand. ...
> 
> After a time perhaps one says, hey, c'mon, let's go. Okay, just give me another minute. Cooperative back and forth, push pull, and depending upon the insistence of each agreement is reached. But if one says, "Okay, if you're not coming, I'm leaving without you", that to me becomes a 'tell'.
> 
> In thinking back over say the last two years riding, I cannot recall ever reaching a 'tell' with Hondo. When that becomes necessary, I believe communication has broken down and there is a problem between horse and rider just as there would be with a couple when one decides to leave without the other.


As an analogy, the couple at a shop window thing is nice, the way it CAN be & IMHO SHOULD be, for the most part. But in the 'real world' it is not safe or reasonable to have a 50/50 'partnership' with a horse you're riding. It's about safety, among other things, and on that note, I think an analogy about a parent & young child walking along the street would be more reasonable... 

Kid might want to stop & look at all sorts & Mum will probably accommodate some of the time at least, as per your story. But if child runs off or on the road & refuses to come, or even just holds mum up when they're running late for something, surely you're not saying 'telling'/demanding/making the child do what they don't want to is wrong to you?? 

So... if you have never reached a 'tell' with Hondo, sounds like he's particularly well trained & obedient, AND you have never happened to get into any 'emergency' type situations. - I bet you wouldn't feel so adamant about not 'telling' him if he bolted on you, walked in front of a vehicle or even refused to listen to your 'discussing' when he had his head down eating. 

And also I think you're disregarding how well trained he may be, that this is likely conditioning from being TOLD what to do in the past. IOW, he has learned that there are consequences if he doesn't 'follow the leader'. If he wasn't, then I don't believe you'd be adamant about this view.



> You know I like and respect Tom Dorrance. However, "as soft as possible and as firm as necessary" can unfortunately be interpreted many ways by many different people. Those who will use child raising, herd interactions, or whatever they can think of to justify abusive methods of handling a horse will use that statement also.


THAT is the clincher. Not that it doesn't apply to virtually any other specific 'guidelines'. It comes down to people's interpretation. And I think it's so relevant to consider this fully. Eg. why I mentally wince when I hear people talking about 'demanding respect' - to so many, 'getting respect' seems to be about dominating the animal, forcing 'obedience' & subservience. Whereas to me, it is a '2 way street' & does not include fear, domination... but the person must have (& show) respect & consideration for the animal, in order to *earn* the same from them.

So... IMO, I do absolutely believe 'as gentle as possible but as firm as necessary' is a vital part of effective horsemanship & training. I do 'discuss' & compromise with my horses, as per your analogy, very frequently, and find that 'firm as necessary' is rarely very 'firm' at all, and more commonly, if you feel the need to get really strong, then there's likely something else amiss - your 'asks' aren't clear enough for eg. But at the end of the day, I NEED my horses to do certain stuff, and just as when I've had a child running off in a shopping centre or such, you betcha I'm not going to be discussing it with them, but doing what is necessary to make them 'do right'.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Exactly, far as interpretation, as as mentioned, on a horse that that has been trained with fairness, feeling, and the correct balance, you never need to go to demand. That is the entire part of teaching horses to respond to very light cues, giving them a reason to do so, and rewarding that response, by never asking beyond a whisper, if that is all it takes.
Horses are very content in these fair and clear boundaries
On the other hand, if you allow them , without giving them the permission to go for that green patch of grass one time,while riding, and the next time you get after them for the same action, because you are in a hurry, or whatever, that is confusing to a horse and builds resentment as inconsistent boundaries are not understood by horses.
I certainly stop to let my horses grab some grass on an extended trail ride, besides stopping at noon to let them graze, but I don't let them dive for grass, walking along, jerking at the reins, and stumbling in the process, more intent on that grass then watching as to where they are placing their feet
Statements like that by Tom Dorrance are subjective to interpretation, with the good horseman finding that balance.
I like another quote, that was I believe on Craig Johnson' site
Pictured were two old cowboys riding along, and one remarking to the other, 'you know, it is surprising as to how much I learned about horses, after I thought that I knew it all"!


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Hondo said:


> That has absolutely nothing to do with ask tell demand Smilie. That is a situation that I have made very clear that I believe swift and painful P+ punishment is both justified and demanded.


I don't get how you can say that is an eg that has nothing to do with the discussion...


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Hondo said:


> Well, we disagree. I associate ask tell demand with the application of cues only. Punishment for biting does not fall into that realm. JMO


So... you 'ask' the horse to get out of your space. He doesn't. So what then? If you don't make it clear by 'telling'/'demanding', but allow him to come and bite you, is punishment THEN really fair even??


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I do not have a parent/child relationship with Hondo. He is much to smart and knowing about his environment and what is going on for that. And much too giving and cooperative for that. The only time I will ever perhaps go beyond a normal ask with a cue is when he has become hysterical over something going on that he doesn't understand and frightens him, which he does under certain situations, most of which I can now anticipate. But even then I do not consider myself in a demanding frame of mind.

Bolting? Oh yes! There have been some dramatic episodes of that. And I lean heavily on his cross-under straps at those times but still do not consider myself in a demanding frame of mind but rather in the same frame of mind that I would be in dealing with a hysterical human friend. He is several hundred percents better now than 3 years ago.

If a horse presents aggression to humans out of dominance and not out of defense, you do not ask. You do not tell. The first reaction of the human should be to demand aggressively.

I have had exactly two riding lessons, which I requested for only learning to properly western tack a horse. The lady wanted me to ride some also and gave various pointers during those times.

One of them was ask-tell-demand. That was over three years ago. I can still visualize her body positions and visage when she spoke those words. I rejected it out of hand at the time and still do.

Herd dynamics are not simple top down hierarchical social structures. There are families, which we have here on the ranch. And there are buddies or partners, which I doubt a human could ever emulate unless they actually stayed in the herd 24/7, but those are the relationships that I choose to emulate rather than the dominant mare or stallion. That's just me.

Dominance works with horses. I know it does. If it didn't, I doubt the horse would be as popular as it is nor would it have been used as extensively as it has been in the past. I am just not a dominant person and at 75 YO I don't see any change coming in that real soon. And Hondo and I, plus the other three now in my care are all getting along just fine. And believe it or not, none of those horses make any attempt to dominate me.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> On the other hand, if you allow them , without giving them the permission to go for that green patch of grass one time,while riding, and the next time you get after them for the same action, because you are in a hurry, or whatever, that is confusing to a horse and builds resentment as inconsistent boundaries are not understood by horses.


Exactly. The importance of your sentence cannot be over emphasized, IMO. If there is anything a horse needs it is to be able to correctly predict the behavior of it's human companion, or rider. Otherwise, the order of his world can become shattered.

I'll also mention that if we are going somewhere when I have something to do, he will rarely even ask for a bite along the trail. But if I'm going out just for a ride to stretch both of our legs, he'll ask frequently and even stop without asking at something particularly delectable to him. He just knows what the ride is about and that it's ok. I may interrupt his eating earlier if I'm wanting to press on, but I never refuse his volition to stop on his own, and he seldom if ever does that unless conditions warrants it. I will however say 'no lets keep going for a bit more', sometimes when he just asks by turning his head and looking. I don't feel this is confusing to him because he is asking.

When I was hauling salt with Rimmey last year and Hondo would stop to dilute the acid in his tummy, Rimmey would look at Hondo, look at me, as if to say, does he get to do that? Even if there was good forage near Rimmey he would not eat. I began pulling him up close enough to give him a treat and after several trips began to get him to eat at stops. He had obviously been thoroughly trained not to eat on the trail.

Rimmey is beginning to display affection or at least affiliation towards me that I've never seen him display towards anyone before.


----------



## mkmurphy81 (May 8, 2015)

This is an interesting discussion, but I'll admit I haven't read every page. If this has already been said, I apologize.

What may be an ask to one horse may be a demand to another.

I'll give two examples. One horse I used to own, Prissy, was BROKE. I could ride her bareback with a neck rope, and the neck rope wasn't really necessary. I could turn her with a shift of my weight and a brush of my fingers on her neck. If she didn't respond, I would add a light leg aid. If she really didn't want to go, my demand was a soft tug on the neck rope. 

A few years after that, I saddle broke a 2 year old colt, Doc. When I wanted him to trot, I asked by clucking (the cue he knew from groundwork) and squeezing my legs (the cue I wanted him to learn). If he didn't respond, I would keep clucking and kick firmly. There was no demand because he was still learning. 

The softest ask I ever gave Doc was firmer than the demand I gave Prissy. I think the concept of ask-tell-demand is fine, but we have to customize it to each individual horse.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

mkmurphy81 said:


> The softest ask I ever gave Doc was firmer than the demand I gave Prissy. I think the concept of ask-tell-demand is fine, but we have to customize it to each individual horse.



Absolutely! 

but , I think it's important to clarify that when people use that ask,tell, demand strategy, I think they are , or at least should be, applying this only to a horse that already KNOWS what the ask cue means. If they don't know, then they shoulddo as you did; keep 'asking' until the horse figures out what that means. to 'demand' on a horse that didn't know would by like shouting louder to a person who doesn't speak your language; they still won't know what you are saying.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@mkmurphy81 I agree with what you say and also with Foxhunter.

It might be also noted that the differences in the horses that you mention could be either from heredity or previous training, or both of course.

The horse Rimmey I've spoken of comes from an abusive back ground and I could barely put my hand on his poll without him flinching. Hondo on the other hand I can knock around any old way. Sometimes I pull heavily on his tail as I walk by just for fun play. He does stuff to me also.

Rimmey's better now but I still can't approach him without regard as I can Hondo. Yeah, as Foxhunter suggests, one needs to slowly and cautiously feel out the horse before any serious discussions take place.

I prefer to work on voluntary cooperation and vocabulary. If those are successful, not much telling much less demand needs to ever be done.

If you haven't read the first of the thread, my motivation or idea for posting was the thought that if a horse "knew" ask would be followed by demand if the horse would actually perceive the ask as a demand with perhaps the related nervousness.


----------



## mkmurphy81 (May 8, 2015)

I did read the first couple of pages and the last couple of pages -- just not everything in between.

I don't think there's any way that Prissy viewed a tap on the neck to steer as a threat. She was well trained and obeyed her rider without really thinking about it. I think she enjoyed responding to tiny cues because she knew that I would never tell or demand if she responded to ask. In that sense, she was in control of what kind of cues I would give. That's my idea of cooperation. I decide where we're going, how fast we're going, and what we do when we get there. My horse decides how I give cues to communicate my decisions.


----------



## Fimargue (Jun 19, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Allow me to add: Three horses living on a small 2 acre dry lot do not display normal herd interactions and social life and no conclusions should be drawn or suggested from observations under those conditions.
> 
> Depending on the setup and and also whether they have free choice food can alter their behavior considerably. Those that are stalled develop what is called "stall vices" which are nothing less than symtoms of various types psychological breakdowns.
> 
> ...


Then you just have a mellow gelding herd. 

I should film you up some of our mares together, our main mare group consisting 22 mares and 6 foals at the present. During the day this whole lot stays under two big trees, and while I'm there they move a lot, partly because someone always wants to say hello to me and pass someone else's space which leads to pinned ears and charging. Kicking almost never happens, unless, usually, if new members get cocky. They also know what it means when I growl my warning - they know it because while I'm fair, I'm also very strict and not afraid to go after them for their behaviour. I also always defend the horses who I'm talking to. This lot has 64 acres 24/7, but they are pretty much always in the same spots when I go to see them during the day. 

I must say I often still find mares more reasonable, as the bullies are usually found in the big gelding group. So are the bite and kick marks if there ever are some. As a rule things get more tight when there is a bigger herd in a smaller space - and when food is involved. 

Not all horses just like each other and having a group of three in this case can make it even more clear. As my workplace has so many horses, they just basicly decide who they fancy to be with.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

> If a horse presents aggression to humans out of dominance and not out of defense, you do not ask. You do not tell. The first reaction of the human should be to demand aggressively.


I hope then you never come across a truly 'dominant' type horse, because with that attitude, well, violence very often begets violence shall we say. Seems very incongruent with the rest of what you say too.

I find it quite interesting how definite & one eyed many people can be, and want to lecture people on with these sorts of matters, especially when theyve had little experience. The saying sure goes with me, that the more you learn, the more you realise you dont know.


----------



## Fimargue (Jun 19, 2015)

Hondo said:


> !!!THAT!!!
> 
> @*bsms*
> 
> ...




I personally think you think way too much. You are putting way too much human train of thought on horses. 

We are a team with my horses, but I will still always stay number one team member - which means I value their opinions, but I decide. Horses like boundaries - if I never would have applied boundaries to my Arab mare, she would still be a bolting bag of nerves. 

You can do an activity that the horse enjoys and still be a leader. 

*"Sort of like, you better be my friend or I'll hit you."*
Horses do not think like that. Friendship and leadership are two entirely different things. Horses have a first taste of this when they are foals. Colts nip, strike, charge, try to push you down with their head... How much they try this will depend on the correction and the individual nature of the foal. They are born wild and get first the friendship, when they get more comfortable with you, they will start testing you - that is in their very nature. If a colt nips me, I will correct them, and then continue scratching, if they try that again, I will add pressure on the correction. Of course it is often innocent at first, they just would scratch you with their teeth like they would do another horse, but the message of this not being accetable must enter in a language that they understand.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes, we are starting to be repetitive, going over the same territory already covered, far as when you apply that ask, ask louder, then demand, the nuance of what those words actually mean to different people, that you don't use that sequence on a horse still learning response to a cue, and that you always, after having gone to demand, ask again with the lightest cue, giving a horse in turn a reason to be light
Far as herd behavior, I think we have gone through that also. My stance is that it does not matter how individual hroses in that herd often have their position change, as they age, as other horses are introduced to that herd, or that the dominant gelding or mare are not the ones other herd members always hang out with .
What matters is that you remain the leader, ;top horse', one which none of the herd members think of running over, biting, and when you are out with that herd,, they also do not show aggression to each other
This might be a small detail, with one or three hroses, but when feeding a herd of 20 or so, in the winter, makes a big difference. I know of people killed, accidentally kicked by a horse, who was showing food aggression with another horse as his intended target.
Herd dynamics change-that is true. Our position with our horse must not.
This does not make fearful horses, horses that don;t want to be with you, horses you don't develop a bond with, quite the opposite, done correctly with that balance I posted about. It creates horses that feel secure, safe in strong fair leadership, and a horse that does not constantly question as to where he will or will not ride, knowing that you are 'looking out for the lions', for him
I in fact, while looking at herd dynamics, like to think that we impart a much more fair application of that demand, having hopefully higher intellect and reasoning power.
Anyone who has horse shelters, knows how a dominant horse considers that shelter his, allowing other member in, if he feels like it, or at times, having the attitude of 'get out of my space. Now, if I have a horse between myself and a wall, there is no way I would correct that horse for not yielding space, but I have seen a dominant horse light into kicking a herd member who failed to get out of that horse's space fast enough, when he had no place to go, and certainly not reasoning that the horse was between a rock and a hard place-as he could not go through the wall, nor over the dominant horse , thus often would cower against that wall, while being kicked, until he could escape without running over that dominant horse
Thus, we take out of herd dynamics , how horses communicate and the fact that they are a prey species, and use and, even modify what applies to our relationship with the horse in training him, such as dampening his inborn flight response
We do not try to be a herd member, be a horse, try to emulate as to how horses relate each other far as changing herd dynamics,,but to understand the basic nature of the horse, so we can 'talk ' to him in a language he understands and take into consideration what drives him as a prey herd species, while remaining the herd member, who when asked, 'are you still the leader', assures the horse that fact has not changed.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Dominance works with horses. I know it does. If it didn't, I doubt the horse would be as popular as it is nor would it have been used as extensively as it has been in the past. I am just not a dominant person and at 75 YO I don't see any change coming in that real soon. And Hondo and I, plus the other three now in my care are all getting along just fine. And believe it or not, none of those horses make any attempt to dominate me.


Well, maybe you are just lucky in your horses. My mare would be the boss if I let her. She is a bossy little horse. She would show me her evil mare face, and if I backed down from that, the next time she'd threaten to kick me, and if I backed down from that, she'd be happy to aim a kick at me next time. She doesn't do any of this, but she would if she thought she could. No experienced trainer who has ever worked with her has ever considered her anything but an easy, steady, amiable horse, which she is. But I'm the one who keeps her that way.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mkmurphy81 said:


> I think she enjoyed responding to tiny cues because she knew that I would never tell or demand if she responded to ask.


Just to be certain I am understanding you, it almost sounds like you are saying that she enjoyed responding to tiny cues _so that you would not tell or demand._ It sounds like she enjoyed responding to the tiny cues in order to avoid tell and demand.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

loosie said:


> I hope then you never come across a truly 'dominant' type horse, because with that attitude, well, violence very often begets violence shall we say. Seems very incongruent with the rest of what you say too.
> 
> I find it quite interesting how definite & one eyed many people can be, and want to lecture people on with these sorts of matters, especially when theyve had little experience. The saying sure goes with me, that the more you learn, the more you realise you dont know.


Well, maybe I worded it wrong loosie. What I was getting at, or trying to, is that I do leave room for a demand under certain circumstances. But not with a cue, but that's me.

I was thinking about the one time I really got after a horse, and that was the lead horse Molly, when I was turning Hondo loose with the herd and from about 10 feet away she pointed her behind at Hondo and feigned a double barrel, while I was still at his head petting him. I had Hondo's halter and lead in my hand and I chased her and repeatedly threw it at her. We'le good friends now.

Now I was looking at a trailer at a horse rehab place once and there was an aggressive horse that they said to stay away from his fence, he would attack and bite. Well, needless to say I didn't jump in there and start attacking him or I would likely not be responding to what I view as almost an attack on me from you.

So does that sound a little better? If not I'll try again. I'm trying my best to use both eyes, such as they are.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Im a bit lost on your reply harold. Not even 100% sure if we're taking about horses or people...


I suppose it was in saying 'the more you know...' That was meant to be a reminder that youre NOT omniscient, and the more you experience, the more you tend to realise that(if youre open minded & rational). So lecturing & judging & being disparaging to others with different views is not... the best approach IMHO.


----------



## Unknown (Oct 2, 2016)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Unknown* View Post 
_Hondo, Your horse doesn't carry you "freely" - he's carrying you around because he has no choice._



Hondo said:


> I can promise that the day I become convinced that the quoted statement is true shall be the last day I shall ride any horse, including Hondo.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now I realize you may not consider it possible that the horse is highly evolved enough to enjoy recreational pursuits that involve physical outputs. I, however, remain unconvinced that they do not.


Ok Hondo…what choice does he have? How would your horse tell you no? He can't dominate you, which is what saying no is. He can't kick, bite, barge, strike or swing his rear towards you as those are dominate behaviors that you yourself say you would treat aggressively and not allow. Nor should you allow it. He's an obedient well trained horse. If you want to ride, he won't object and that has nothing to do with his choice to be ridden or not. You are the dominate one, the one in charge, and as long as you are he won't go against your wishes. It's not his job to tell you what is going to happen or not happen that day. That's your job. Your choice, not his. 

And, nowhere have I ever said horses don't "enjoy recreational pursuits that involve physical outputs". Horses are powerfully built for movement ie "physical output". My horses love a good trail ride and so do I, but I am the one who decides when, where and if we ride. Same as you.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Unknown said:


> He can't kick, bite, barge, strike or swing his rear towards you as those are dominate behaviors


What if I had said Hondo 'willingly' carries me rather that using the term 'freely' carries me, would you challenge that also?

Do you believe if your horse could avoid carrying you by kicking, biting, barging, striking, and or swinging his rear towards you that your horse would do that? Assuming that he had the ability to at least gradually figure that out?

Edit: PS: I do not think any horse is naturally aggressive towards a human. When they are, I believe they have been taught to be that way, taught by humans, inadvertently of course.


----------



## mkmurphy81 (May 8, 2015)

Hondo said:


> Just to be certain I am understanding you, it almost sounds like you are saying that she enjoyed responding to tiny cues _so that you would not tell or demand._ It sounds like she enjoyed responding to the tiny cues in order to avoid tell and demand.
> 
> But maybe I'm misunderstanding.



Please excuse the personifying. Like I said, my horse obeyed without really thinking about it. My point was that I used ask-tell-demand to teach Prissy (a teen-aged dead-broke horse who knew her job) to go off of feather-light cues. I think if you could have asked her, she would have agreed that she would rather be cued with a tap on the neck rather than "normal" rein cues and voice commands rather than kick-to-go. Also remember that her "demand" cues would be considered "ask" cues by most horses. We got to that point by gradually lightening the ask cues. Ask-tell-demand gave the horse a choice.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

As for my horses though - if you've never seen a more dominate horse refuse to allow another horse under shelter...you haven't seen much horse behavior. I've argued for years that dominance in horses is NOT strictly linear, and involves more complexity than what many assume. I have been told, for example, that horses are constantly seeking to get above us in the pecking order, just as they constantly seek to get above each other - and that is bogus. The fact that Bandit is regularly chased away from food, yet can take charge any time he wants to, suggests a more complex scenario. The fact that he is ALWAYS #1 to eat horse pellets, but #3 of 3 for anything else, including shelter, suggests a more complex scenario.

But the idea that horses never dominate each other or use brute force to get their way is ludicrous. Some horses are bullies. Some are loners. Some are very dominate about one thing and can't care less about another. But yes - Bandit has too many bite marks on him for me to believe horses live in simple peace and harmony.

And yes, Bandit is usually the instigator. He's the one who tries to get the older horses to chase him. And sometimes they get irritated with him. Bandit also loses his temper at times - with other horses and with me.

I have never met a horse, anywhere, under any circumstance, that supported the idea that horses never dominate another, never use force, and never try to impose their will on another horse.

I remain convinced that one of the big things we can offer a horse is our own sense of fairness, and our own relatively non-judgmental acceptance of a horse. There are undoubtedly humans who abuse and intimidate horses, and who treat them both harshly and unfairly. But that has nothing to do with Ask - Tell - Demand.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> What if I had said Hondo 'willingly' carries me rather that using the term 'freely' carries me, would you challenge that also?
> 
> Do you believe if your horse could avoid carrying you by kicking, biting, barging, striking, and or swinging his rear towards you that your horse would do that? Assuming that he had the ability to at least gradually figure that out?
> 
> Edit: PS: I do not think any horse is naturally aggressive towards a human. When they are, I believe they have been taught to be that way, taught by humans, inadvertently of course.


Oh Harold, you need to work with more horses, and not make blanket statements! There certainly are aggressive horses, that have never been abused, or taught to be that way, other then they were never corrected/convinced that a human could not be dominated.
My horses 'willingly carry me, and yet have been introduced to the 'demand, at the correct time, and so that they is the happy un spoken agreement between us, that if they respond to the lightest 'ask', I will never go to the demand.
This does not cause a horse who is fearful, because of that un spoken agreement, but one who feels secure in clear and fair leadership, and one who is a joy to ride, responding to the lightest leg or rein aid , versus a horse that will ride , perform, as long as you never ask him to work out of his comfort zone, do something he rather would not.
Ambling along, grabbing grass here and there, is really not asking anything of ahorse, and if that is all you want, then go for it.
I want a horse to enjoy his job, but also not one when I put a light leg on him, ignors it, moves into it, if he does not wish to go in the direction asked.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Moderator's note:

Please remember to not use a member's first name here, unless that person has said he/she is fine with that.
we have User Names to assure our anonymity. Please respect that.
If anyone named directly here wishes their name removed, please PM me.



AND

This thread was devolving into personal spats, and that is just a shame , because the premise of the thread is really VERY interesting, and most of the posts have been thoughtful and thought provoking. As such, many posts had to be editted. I cannot PM each and every one of you who had an edit. if you want an explanation, you can PM me.

Please, folks, let's return to that frame of mind.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Sorry< I only followed other posts where a name was used, by the person himself also, versus a user name. I will gladly edit/change that, but it is past the time allowed
I have no personal spat, and I think Hondo and I have agreed on enough points, where we also allow our individual comfort level to differ in some points
Just thought I would clarify, if the post was directed at me


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> As for my horses though - if you've never seen a more dominate horse refuse to allow another horse under shelter...you haven't seen much horse behavior. I've argued for years that dominance in horses is NOT strictly linear, and involves more complexity than what many assume. I have been told, for example, that horses are constantly seeking to get above us in the pecking order, just as they constantly seek to get above each other - and that is bogus. The fact that Bandit is regularly chased away from food, yet can take charge any time he wants to, suggests a more complex scenario. The fact that he is ALWAYS #1 to eat horse pellets, but #3 of 3 for anything else, including shelter, suggests a more complex scenario.
> 
> But the idea that horses never dominate each other or use brute force to get their way is ludicrous. Some horses are bullies. Some are loners. Some are very dominate about one thing and can't care less about another. But yes - Bandit has too many bite marks on him for me to believe horses live in simple peace and harmony.
> 
> ...


Well, I actually agree with much if not most of what you have just said. I forget exactly the context, but you were saying that every morning when you went out and saw the bite marks that was enough to convince you of something or another. Seeing bite marks every morning is not normal in my view and should not be used to conclude anything other than that there is a problem somewhere.

I am sooo much about the complexity of horse's social interactions. Hondo appears to absolutely detest Dragon. I've come up with various reason, Hond really is very jealous and Dragon is all over people but I think there is more to it. I have finally just thrown up my hands and decided to trust Hondo that he knows more about what's going on than I do and may be justified. He pins his ears and sometimes bares his teeth but does not bite, and least doesn't leave marks.

One thing I would question is that we have fairness to offer above what can be found in the herd, if that is what you said and meant.

I do believe those relationships are there in the herd and believe I have observed them.

Just to be certain, it is obvious to me that some horses do use brute force to get their way. But even though I fully understand and appreciate that fact, I would not go so far as to label someone as ludicrous if they happened to not be aware of that fact and said otherwise. That's being unfriendly IMO. There are more friendly and productive ways to enlighten others.

As far as horses being a loner, if you're talking about one grazing near but off from the herd a little, yes, but if you're talking about a loner in the wild, I respectfully but completely disagree. As you've heard, a lone horse is a dead horse.

I'll also mention that I do not accept the idea that horses are constantly testing the pecking order. Everyone that has made serious studies of wild herds conclude the social structure is very stable with only some testing going on, but certainly not all the time by all members. Rimmey is slightly dominant over Hondo and I've never seen Hondo test him other that, hey buddy, you're pushing a little hard there, to which Rimmey always backs off. They are very good friends.

I'm really puzzled about some of the behavior you report your horses engage in and really do think it is a huge mistake to extrapolate those behavior to horses in general.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mkmurphy81 said:


> Please excuse the personifying. Like I said, my horse obeyed without really thinking about it. My point was that I used ask-tell-demand to teach Prissy (a teen-aged dead-broke horse who knew her job) to go off of feather-light cues. I think if you could have asked her, she would have agreed that she would rather be cued with a tap on the neck rather than "normal" rein cues and voice commands rather than kick-to-go. Also remember that her "demand" cues would be considered "ask" cues by most horses. We got to that point by gradually lightening the ask cues. Ask-tell-demand gave the horse a choice.


Well, I'm still a bit puzzled about the concept of using ask-tell-demand to teach softness, but I'm going to leave it right there and stay puzzled for now.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Going back to the OP's very first question, basically, if a horse learns that he will get a soft Ask, and then if he does not respond, a harder Tell, and a very hard Demand, will not become anxious about the simple/soft Ask itself, knowing that there is more to come after it?
and, is that a good thing? bad?

(isn't that the basic concept, Hondo?)

If that were the case, then horses would be in practically a constant state of anxiety with any interaction with humans, since most of us do train them by first asking softly (the cue which we hope will become our go-to norm), and then utilizing firmer cues if horse understands but refuses to comply ( and we have to use our own judgement as to whether or not the horse has any justifiable reason to refuse, such as pain or genuine, deep fear).

I don't think the horses that I've ridden, and I've leased about 9 different horses over the years, are perpetually anxious when I 'ask' them to go , or stop, or turn . . . etc.

in concept, I can see how one might think that, but it just doesn't happen. I guess it's because I have been fair about my ask - demand progression. I've 'offered' the good deal, and they know it.

and, like I said way back, I approach it as suggesting, inviting, convincing. 

or, inviting them to join ME on my idea, re-inviting them, if they think they have a better idea, and if they still won't consider MY idea, I BLOCK their idea. 

now, that may sound as if they have no choice, and ultimately, they have only one choice: to continue arguing or to accept my invitation. it's tough, but them's the breaks.
What I do do, in order to help them settle into the idea that maybe they are ok with accepting my 'invitation' is to let them have a bit more rein, let them move a bit more freely, do something that get's them to let go of that small, ugly interaction. By doing that, they sort of line up their mind with mine, and commit to my pathway, and the FEEL BETTER . I guarantee it. they do.

Horses always feel better when they are aligned with something/someone. 
That is the part of them that we humans need to study, and emulate!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Actually, if a horse is not responsive to a light ask, he is also obviously not concerned about a harder ask, for two possible reasons. The ask, ask louder and demand was not done correctly, so the horse is indifferent, or he was never rewarded correctly, given the chance each and every time to respond to the light ask, so then has no reason to be light.
Used correctly, no, the horse does not get concerned with the light ask, as he has the confidence and trust in his handler/rider that if he responds to that light ask, nothing comes after it, beyond removing that light pressure


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Here's my dilemma. We attempt to develop a vocabulary of cues and then communicate certain things with those learned cues.

Now most of the cues are physical in nature involving the sensation if feeling on the skin, mouth, or whatever of the horse.

Now if that proverbial horse can feel the proverbial mosquito land on his proverbial behind in an 80 mile windstorm, he has must have pretty good body language hearing.

So if the horse hears our whisper cue, do we assume he's hard of hearing so we speak louder. Which to "some" (not painting with a broad brush here) means to advance to really really loud shouting (body language wise) when the horse has already heard us.

So what does asking louder do if he's already heard us? I can't see how it would do anything unless it entered at least some realm of minor discomfort, which "could" be regarded as a minor (or soft if you will) form of punishment.

So if a horse is as accommodating as some say, if everything is in place, all learning is done, the horse is ok, why do we get louder when he has already for certain 'heard' us.

This is really getting to the heart of my troublement. I'm just trying to understand in terms of calling a spade a spade.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Hondo said:


> Here's my dilemma. We attempt to develop a vocabulary of cues and then communicate certain things with those learned cues.
> 
> Now most of the cues are physical in nature involving the sensation if feeling on the skin, mouth, or whatever of the horse.
> 
> ...


The horse sensing your touch does not mean it can interpret what you want it to do. If you are a teenager, your mother may give you the evil eye, and you may well perceive it as such, but you won't be able to figure out from that that she wants you to clean up your room or take the trash out. A trash bin placed in your room, however, is much more uncomfortable for you, but it also sends a clear signal about the task to be performed: room okay, trash not.

So when I place my finger on my horse's side, she can feel it, but doesn't know what to do about it. If I tap her on her butt, it's less comfortable, and I make it just about uncomfortable enough so she starts looking for a solution. If I see a solution attempt, the discomfort ceases and praise ensues. Next try, I put my finger again against her side. She won't know what that means. I start tapping at her in the air - maybe she caught on, maybe not. In any case, I'll escalate again to the minimum amount of discomfort that makes her look for a solution. She will never be in pain, because if I have to use pain to make my intentions "clear", well - I haven't, and I have failed. So the worst-case scenario my horse would anticipate is just enough discomfort for her to want to make it stop...like if I were to poke my finger at your sternum. You'd look for a way to make it stop because it's really not comfortable to be poked, but you wouldn't writhe in pain. Ideally, the way I apply pressure already contains a hint for you (or the horse) as to _how_ to make it stop quickly. Both horse and trainer are happy when the lesson goal is achieved quickly, with as little escalation as possible. That's for _learning_.

Once I know the horse does know what I want with my super light aid, but doesn't give the desired response - absent any indication of pain or fear - it's time to get louder. Like if you were the above-mentioned teenager and won't take the trash out, and instead choose to live with it in your room, your parents would also get "louder". (The family does need a trash receptacle, after all.) Still, they probably wouldn't resort to forcing your face into it or beating you with the trash can. They would most likely not resort to a response that induces pain or fear in you unless you live in an Oliver-Twist-esque family.

The point being: you can make a horse pretty uncomfortable without inducing pain, fear, or apprehension of pain. You see, a horse that tries to get out of a pain stimulus stops trial-and-error and simply takes uncontrolled flight from the stimulus, because pain means its safety is at risk. This helps no one.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

1 - The proverbial fly cannot always be felt. Certainly not in an 80 mph sandstorm. A horse focused on something other than his rider - due to fear, or excitement, or boredom, or just wanting something - may not notice his rider at all.

I used to own a dog who loved chasing rabbits. So much so that he would regularly run full speed through teddy bear cholla. I cannot imagine the pain. He didn't seem to feel it - until later:










Assuming your ask IS soft, such as a minor shift in seat, then the horse can easily miss it or mistake it for something else. When Bandit is focused on me, and in the mood, we can switch to a canter on what seems like common consent - it just feels right to me and he does it. Not sure WHAT he is using for a cue then!

A more normal cue, at a trot, would be a "kiss". Often quite soft. But when he is looking around, enjoying himself, paying attention for possible werewolves, chainsaw-carrying mass murders, etc - he might well miss it.

The slightly louder cue, the "tell" is given in case the horse just missed the first. Couldn't hear the cue because of background noise. So you make sure the cue is loud enough for him to hear.

But that might not get the job done either.

2 - "_So what does asking louder do if he's already heard us? I can't see how it would do anything unless it entered at least some realm of minor discomfort_"

Depends, and A-T-D can be done differently. In terms of showing, for example, if you are supposed to canter once you reach the letter X, then the demand is a form of punishment. You cannot win a dressage competition or a WP competition if your horse only canters when he is in the mood. You don't win a jumping competition if your horse only jumps the fences and in the order that feel right to him.

So for deliberate, intentional and knowing disobedience, if you are doing something that requires obedience, you punish. And since horses have been bred for willingness and submission for a few thousand years, that works. Works with humans, too. Ask any military drill instructor.

When I was in the military, I preferred to get people to do things because it made sense. But not everyone accepts that, and the job still needed to get done. I had people under me at times whose ONLY reason for obeying ANY order was the threat of punishment. Not my choice. Theirs.

But since the horse understands, and ALWAYS has the option of obeying at the ASK, they don't get afraid.

----------------------

A second form of escalation is more normal to my riding. I don't expect or demand regular obedience. I've come to feel safer and more secure on a horse who can tell me no. 

We then enter negotiation. "Tell" then becomes "This is pretty important to me!" And if he still says "No, I don't want to!", then...it depends. He may have a reason: the trail is rocky, his feet hurt, and cantering here is just too hard. Or he may be genuinely afraid, deeply afraid, that the trash can ahead will kill us both.

So if "Tell" doesn't work, I will reassess. How important is it? Are there alternatives that will keep BOTH of us happy - moving 50 feet to one side to pass the scary garbage can, or trotting past, or waiting until the trail is smoother for a canter, or check his feet for rocks, etc.

But sometimes my horse is wrong. Mia was willing, once she got running, to veer off-trail into the cactus to try to pass another horse. I thought we were going to die. Literally. Got her back on the trail and I was NOT gentle or considerate! I used a Pulley Rein stop with her once, very harshly. I'm certain I hurt her mouth. She was galloping and the trail was ending. I didn't want to die.

Or sometimes...I'll assess that my scared horse isn't really very scared. I've had him refuse to go forward at an Ask & Tell, but then move forward at a Demand - and still be calm enough mentally to realize the scary thing didn't do anything. I've also had HIM respond to MY demand with a demand of his own: "_I've got four feet on the ground and you have zero, and nothing you can do will make me go forward!_" That can be powerful logic, particularly after you go sideways 100 yards.

That was something Mia taught me: If the horse really, truly CANNOT do something...then I could not MAKE her. Same with Bandit. And when I started riding Bandit, there were lots of things too scary. Over the last two years, very little remains that is just too scary. I've developed a good track record. Hundreds of times in a row, I've said it was safe - and it proved to BE safe. We now have enough trust in my judgment that I can usually get him to go past scary things.

But that is trail riding, and it is a type of negotiation that not everyone values. That is OK. I like having a conversation with my horse as we ride. I don't mind telling him, "_You don't understand, this is important to me!_" He doesn't mind telling me, "_YOU don't understand, this is CRITICAL to me!_"

For US, ask-tell-demand is a form of negotiation. The payback, for me, is that if I want to tackle a tough spot of trail, or there is a genuine threat (loose dog, for example) ahead, and WE decide to tackle it...then Bandit becomes an outstanding companion. If the loose dog tries to attack, he'll be met with hooves and teeth. If the trail gets tough, Bandit buckles down. If a cactus grabs hm part way, he won't buck, bolt, spin or try to get away - he just keeps on with the task.

This became the basis of how I got over my fear of riding. I adored my Arabian mare, but years of riding her left me sometimes so afraid that mounting up made me feel like puking. It wasn't her fault. What she taught me formed the foundation of what I did with Bandit. Maybe it would have worked with her - if I had tried it. I'll never know for certain. I was certainly moving in that direction with her. But it was a couple of weeks after swapping her for Bandit that I decided to use negotiation with my horse as my basis for riding.

Now? I cannot conceive of a different way of riding. That doesn't mean I will never push my horse, but he has the option of pushing back. For me, safety on a horse has come to mean a horse I can negotiate with so as to come to a common, acceptable compromise which WE then carry out. And yes, our negotiations can get heated at times. That is OK, because Bandit and I both cool down fast. We also have developed the trust in each other to listen.

A good horse, started right, should be taught that sort of trust from the beginning. I haven't had that luxury. If I ever sell Bandit, I'll probably take out an as: "_Arabian mare wanted. Spooky is fine, but must like people._" 10 years after taking up riding, I think I could make that work. What I don't want is a horse like our horse Trooper, who just does what he is told without much question. Trooper works fine for my daughter, but isn't what I want in a horse.

< / rant >

Long, but the concepts are important. I'm not in any way telling people they should NOT train a horse to obey first and foremost. It just isn't what I'm interested in. But I think it also works very well for many horses, done by fair and caring people.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@mmshiro Sure, I fully comprehend that method of training, really I do. One little caveat with me is that I suspect the horse at some point does learn enough about learning that he is thinking, "he wants me to do something, i wonder what?" Sort of as in a game. I'm not certain it always needs to be a feeling of discomfort at that point, but maybe in the beginning.

And there is just something about calling my horse or a horse "disobedient" that doesn't sit well with me. But I know that's just me. I also can't relate to comparing my horse to a "disobedient" teenager. Takes more time to root out and treat the cause, but there is always a cause, unfortunately the symptom is often all that is treated. And it returns.

My thoughts are that if he knows the cue, he hears the cue, he doesn't do the cue, we may have a communication problem somewhere.

@Unknown You're making me think. I appreciate that. In case you come back, I have another question.

Horses are believed to have some one on one affiliative needs and desires within the herd. At least some say so.

Nothing like the affiliative needs of most dogs, but affiliative needs never the less.

The question is: Can a human fulfill even a small part of the equine affiliative need?

Or #2, do you disagree that the equine has any one on one affiliative needs at all?


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

Hondo said:


> I'm really puzzled about some of the behavior you report your horses engage in and really do think it is a huge mistake to extrapolate those behavior to horses in general.







If that is not normal horse behavior, I don't know what is. You can be sure that if I caught a human knocking a horse viciously to the ground like that, there would be **** to pay for the human. I have never, on my worst day, done a correction/punishment/NR anywhere close as severe as the horse above did.

Generally in domestic horse keeping, you separate the bullies and the bullied. My mare has come in contact with a few horses she could not stand and would beat up on a regular basis if she got the chance.



Hondo said:


> Horses are believed to have some one on one affiliative needs and desires within the herd. At least some say so.
> 
> Nothing like the affiliative needs of most dogs, but affiliative needs never the less.
> 
> ...


My mare displayed severe separation anxiety from me, a human, when I came back from my several month out of state business trip. She had her gelding buddies clearly visible, a nose touch over the fence. She heard my voice, saw my DH so knew I was there, and heard me working with another horse. She went absolutely bonkers, rearing, galloping around, neighing frantically. As soon as I came over, she stopped freaking out, stopped galloping, and clung to my side like a foal to its dam.

I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't witnessed and experienced it myself.

So yes, humans can fill a horse's social need. But human companionship alone is _nearly always_ not adequate in most cases.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@bsms I'd like to understand more about how to be certain a horse in engaging in deliberate, intentional and knowing disobedience.

@horseluvr2524 Nice video. Thanks. Looked like they finally got every think worked out. But do you suppose they do that ever single night? I certainly hope not and as a matter of fact seriously doubt it.

And as always, IMO and many others also, what horses do to and with each other does not apply to human horse interaction. That's a whole different ball game and it's a mistake in my opinion to act or believe otherwise.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Here's my dilemma. We attempt to develop a vocabulary of cues and then communicate certain things with those learned cues.
> 
> Now most of the cues are physical in nature involving the sensation if feeling on the skin, mouth, or whatever of the horse.
> 
> ...



Well, he might have heard us, but decided not to respond, and that is why we get louder, so next time he will respond to that whisper.
If you wish to take that fly as an example, the horse would rather shake that fly off, before he bites, so he is motivated to respond, soon as that fly lands
So, if you wish to call it punishment, versus talking loud enough in the language of Equus, to get that response, that is fine I like to think of it as re enforcement to non compliance to that whisper.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo said:


> @bsms I'd like to understand more about how to be certain a horse in engaging in deliberate, intentional and knowing disobedience.
> 
> @horseluvr2524 Nice video. Thanks. Looked like they finally got every think worked out. But do you suppose they do that ever single night? I certainly hope not and as a matter of fact seriously doubt it.
> 
> And as always, IMO and many others also, what horses do to and with each other does not apply to human horse interaction. That's a whole different ball game and it's a mistake in my opinion to act or believe otherwise.


Can I answer the question also that you directed to bsms?
Deliberate intentional disobedience, certainly occurs, with some horses, and often with all horses to some extent at one time or another. Some horses are more prone to engage in that, then others that are more mellow, and actually, usually not as smart.
I think I gave at least one example before, but here goes again, along with all the disclaimers.
The horse knows how to side pass off a leg
He is asked to side pass back up to agate, to close it, is not afraid of the gate, but buddies are leaving, or he is in a hurry to get home, whatever. Thus, instead of side passing up to that gate, moving off that leg, a cue he understands 100%, he sidepasses away from the gate, against that outside leg, in the direction he would rather go.
In that case, my ask, ask louder, is more of making the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard, and also making sure the horse associates the correction with the action, and not the gate
The obstacle is not the obstacle. Thus, I will take that horse away from that gate, and , yes, ask him loudly to move off of that leg
I then take him back tot he gate, giving him a chance to do the right and easy thing, by once again asking him softly to side pass up to that gate.

You want a trail example, so I will repeat that example also.
One area we ride, has an old reclaimed logging road, that goes through thick forest. In several places, it has wide muddy water holes, perhaps three feet deep or so, with solid bottom. I know there is solid bottom, as I have ridden those trails many times. On each side of the hole, is a narrow slippery bank,with tree branches sticking out
My horses have been trained to stay between my legs and reins, and I also have their trust and respect, so that they will go through the middle of that water hole.
I have ridden with others, where the horse disregards the rider;s attempt to make him go through those water holes, and instead ignores reins and legs, and takes his rider up onto that bank, ramming the rider;s leg into branches, slipping off that bank with one foot or another, in danger of going down
There is a time to have a conversation with a horse, on a trail ride, listen to your horse, when you are not sure of something, even give him permission to decide the route, trusting his better instinct, that that does not mean that when a horse argues with you on a trail, he is always right, nor that you should let him assume control. I always reserve the right to veto his decision, when I KNOW it is WRONG.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Just to be clear, no one that is a decent horse person wants blind obedience where a horse will walk off a cliff, rather then question the rider who might not have seen that drop off, through thick brush. 
In fact, you want a horse with some brains and smarts, riding on trails. There have been more then a few times, where mu horse has brought me safely back to camp after dark, by me giving him his head, and thus in fact telling him, 'take us home\.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

I have an example of where I knew 100% that a horse was deliberately doing something I was asking them not to do. Even though horses can be well trained and good friends with us, they also are subject to hormones and emotions that might make them feel like trying something on for size that they know you won't tolerate.

My example is with my mare who hadn't been out in awhile and was feeling very energetic, plus probably was in heat. I do make serious allowances for these types of things, and don't set a horse up for failure. For example, in this case I'm not going to ask for my horse to walk quietly with her head low until I've given her the chance to burn off some energy first. But I still am not going to knowingly let her just buck me off and gallop away because she feels feisty. 

So on this particular ride, we were heading up a hill and I let her gallop for about 1/2 mile. When I asked her to trot, she trotted but was still energetic so she kicked her leg out and her butt came up a little. I ignored that, hoping it was just extra energy. Then she threw in a crow hop. I smacked her neck with my palm and told her to quit it. Now she knows what that means, and she knows she's not supposed to buck. She has bucked on rare occasion, and I've done this same reprimand and she's stopped. On this day, after I smacked her she thought about it for a few seconds, and then she bucked again, bigger and harder. So I gave a hard pull back on the reins, got very loud and said "QUIT!" and smacked her harder. Which did make her arch her neck and just put a little more power into her trot but stop bucking. 

This wasn't some nebulous thing such as I was asking her to follow a cue that may not have been clear, and she didn't understand it. This was a horse feeling full of beans and wanting to express it in a way that was not safe for me, and me telling her to stop it. Then, even though she understood perfectly well that I was saying to stop it, she upped the ante. There was no anger or actual pain involved, she was just saying "no," and so I had to tell her that no was not an acceptable answer at this time. 

Sometimes a horse might just want to buck. A horse isn't going to think about how if she bucks me off, I might get hurt and then she'll miss out on the good brushing sessions and walks that she enjoys. She's just going to have an impulse to blow off some steam, and might just go with it. So sometimes we have to stop that kind of thing. But it's not personal, and the horse will always view deserved punishment as fair. Just as if he stuck his nose into someone else's feed bucket and got kicked.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Not having read more than Hondo's reply to me, . . .. here's my response to Hondo :

there is a difference between "hearing' and "listening". and "listening " and "answering".

you may apply a cue that is as light as the mosquito. It is the lightest thing you can do to access your horses mental awareness. But, if the horse 'hears' that, but does not respond, he is NOT listening. AND , he is certainly not 'answering'.

It's a DIALOGUE, @Hondo! that means that when you speak, be it a whisper or a shout, your horse must listen. Listening means that "hearing" has some meaning to it, and requires a response. just plain 'hearing', as to the wind , really requires little response. We humans ask our horses to give us their ears, their minds, and their feet. we know this can work becuase the horse WANTS to enter a dialogue with either ONE or the HERD. (sorry, too many caps here . . . )



So, yes maybe he hears our soft 'ask', and ignores it. that's becuase he has what he thinks is a better idea. we need to re-ask, a bit firmer. this is to get him to choose between his idea and ours, . . . . and if he still stays with his own idea, we then must block that, so that he comes back to the place of looking for an alternative. . . . in which . . we find ourselves in the position to softly aske again.

it's really about setting up things so that we have the chance to ask softly , again.

Is it slavery? I don't know. I doubt it. the horse enjoys unity with a leader. So, maybe we offer them solace. or security. isn't that a GOOD thing?


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

Hondo said:


> And as always, IMO and many others also, what horses do to and with each other does not apply to human horse interaction. That's a whole different ball game and it's a mistake in my opinion to act or believe otherwise.


So you would go up to a Chinese, or Japanese, or French, or German, or whatever kind of ethnicity, and they only know their native language, and expect them to understand you when you speak a completely different language they've never heard?

Sure, OK, you could get a form of communication after quite some time. However, you would make a lot more progress, and make the other person a lot less frustrated, if you would meet them halfway and try to learn their language, rather than just making them learn yours.

The same holds true for horses. A good horse person HAS to learn how to speak the horse's language. 

Your above statement is faulty in several ways. Horses do, with each other, constantly, many minute body language signals. Starting out, I had no idea how to speak to a horse through body language. But the horses taught me, they were my greatest teachers! And now I am a very effective, and for the most part very quiet, communicator with horses. I'm never loud except when I need to be. Not to be cocky or proud, but because of my ability to observe and listen to horses and understanding how to communicate in their language, I have been able to work in several instances with a variety of difficult horses that the people with "20" or "30" years experience could not handle, could not communicate with.

Every day that you interact with your horse, you are doing the same. You are communicating through body language, and likely a few other signals to create a unique language with that specific horse. The bond, the understood communication, the unique language, are the exact reasons why a horse and human who have had time to get to know each other make a far better team than two that are just thrown together.

If you state that "what horses do to and with each other does not apply to human horse interaction", you are, IMO, stating that horses have nothing valuable to teach. Why? Because all a horse knows is life in a herd. The fundamental, basic life of a horse is their interaction with other horses. And we shouldn't use that? We shouldn't try to understand and use their communication, their life, to communicate and teach them?

As @tinyliny stated, it's a dialogue. Horsemanship is all about creating a unique, workable language with a thousand pound majestic animal that may not always understand that a playful kick your way can seriously injure you. They have to be told no at times. At @gottatrot said, as long as you are fair, they understand. Why? Because that is their language, that is exactly how horses communicate with each other.

Whew, that got lengthy. I think the conclusion that I have reached is that if you are not willing to use the horse's language (yes, using what horses do with and to each other in the human horse interaction), then how can you call yourself a horseman? That's as ludicrous as saying you are a translator, yet you only know one language.

End Rant.

ETA: The sentence would have been better worded as "the violent interactions horses do to and with each other does not apply to human horse interaction". That, I could probably agree to, so long as the speaker was not advocating never saying no to a horse.


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

A bit of a continuation...

I just wanted to mention that these 'black stallion' philosophies are very dangerous to new horse people, especially young ones. I became victim (yes, victim) to believing in these philosophies when I was a teenager. I never wanted to be harsh to my horse, never say 'NO you CANNOT do that', always wanted to be kind and harmonious and Flicka and The Black Stallion.

Well, let me just mention several situations as a result of this: it nearly got my horse hit by a car (she didn't want to load in the trailer and I didn't want to force her. Her alternative to standing in the trailer was to tear the lead out of my hands and run into the road). I was embarrassed in front of the farrier as my horse belligerently tore the line from my hands and ran off. I could not control my horse, or her fear of other horses, and this resulted in other horses and riders getting kicked by my out of control mare who would literally run up and kick them. I got a lot of tears, a lot of heartbreak, and a lot of frustration.

Guess what happened when I finally learned to DEMAND that she stop a dangerous behavior: she became a nice, pleasant horse. She stopped being so anxious and uptight about everything. She started to trust me. Now, I can do all the things with her that I always wanted to as a teenager. I'm finally getting to enjoy my horse, rather than being the scourge of the local horse community and being told I should sell her.

If I hadn't had such a strong willed horse, I'm pretty positive I would be of 'the black stallion' philosophy. I can definitely imagine that, if I'd had a horse like my mother's. Mom's mare is so sweet and easy going, and a correction for her is a vocal cue 'belle, no.' She is one of those Black Beauty types.

I so long to put one of these 'black stallion philosophers' with my Shan for a few hours. I'm sure they would come away changed, but probably not unscathed. Don't get me wrong, she's sweet and well behaved now, in competent hands. But she can pick up in two seconds flat if someone is capable of telling her no. If they aren't, she does as she pleases, and that's not always a pretty sight. If someone bought her (not that I would ever sell), she would be the horse of the person who comes on HF and posts "help! my horse isn't the same one I bought two weeks ago!". No, she's not. You didn't learn her language. You didn't learn to communicate with her. So she will do as she pleases, and I can assure you it's not what you want her to do.


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

One last end note (I think I found my can of worms):

"Ask-tell-demand" is a chapter in the 'horse language textbook', similar to a chapter in the 'learn to speak french' book. It is a tool that teaches newcomers how to speak to their horse initially, not a be all end all rule for those that already speak the language. You learn to speak the formal language before you learn the abbreviations and slang terms.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

horseluvr2524 said:


> So you would go up to a Chinese, or Japanese, or French, or German, or whatever kind of ethnicity, and they only know their native language, and expect them to understand you when you speak a completely different language they've never heard?


Why would you even say this to me when you certainly must know that I would never do as you suggest. To ask me if I would do this I regard as a slight towards me and somewhat offensive. In some ways even an attack.

Since you already know I wouldn't do that, I would think your response would be to inquire what I mean, or or what basis I'm saying it.

For now, I'll skip on to the next poster as the way this post has begun has me a bit miffed.

I will say this before moving on, horses do not regard humans as horses. Our interactions with them mean different things to them than from a peer horse. We are not on a level playing field with them and they know that. An aggressive act from us is a whole different ball game than an act of aggression from a peer.

When we interact with the horse we need to keep in mind how the horse sees us rather than how the horse sees another horse.

I'll move on and come back when I have more time and read the rest of your post.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

horseluvr2524 said:


> That's as ludicrous as saying you are a translator, yet you only know one language.


Are you calling me ludicrous? It sure sounds like it. If so, I don't think that meets the guidelines that the owners of this forum request that we follow.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@horseluvr2524 Guess what. May surprise you, but I have never read the book, Black Beauty. I was raised with draft horses up to the age of 14.

From what I've seen you write now and in the past, I have sort of gotten the idea that as you say, you fell into the trap of Black Beauty which does cause so much trouble and has undoubtedly sent many horses to slaughter.

So yes, as you know, that was the wrong tack. But then you went from way too weak to, I think IMO, too strong by adopting the traditional training from a trainer you went to.

And those method work, obviously, by the number of horses successfully trained in that manner. But I do not believe it is the one and only way.

I rejected the tenant of ask tell demand a few months before I started with Hondo. I've been with Hondo for three years and our interactions continue to grow in a very positive manner.

I understand that ask-tell-demand has almost holy grail status as do the concepts and attitudes towards horses that it fosters. But in my opinion that holy grail all too often (not painting with a wide brush here) fosters a too top heavy dominance attitude toward the horse that does not promote as healthy a relationship as it could otherwise.

I recently recieved a copy of Dancing With Horses. Now the author believes that dominance must be complete and total and says so in so many words. His initial action with the horse is much the same as snubbing or chasing in a round pen until the horse submits and begins to follow him. He then claims to use the body language of horses to push the horse farther and farther into the total submission that he believes is required.

I reject all of that out of hand and much of what you say as well.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

When I first started with Hondo, he had not been ridden in a few years and was also very herdbound. On our daily ritual walks in search of a hidden pan of pellets he was very very balky which since he was fully trained at that point could be considered to be a refusal to comply with a cue to come forward..

I tried many things to interrupt his balks. What worked best more often than not, I learned, was to go back to him, give a good scratch on top of the mane, and then a big ole hug squeeze around the neck, with a soft "C'mon buddy". He would most often begin to follow on a loose lead. At least for a while.

Anything that I tried that could be interpreted as the slightest punishment would only result in his increased resolve to balk.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Hondo said:


> When I first started with Hondo, he had not been ridden in a few years and was also very herdbound. On our daily ritual walks in search of a hidden pan of pellets he was very very balky which since he was fully trained at that point could be considered to be a refusal to comply with a cue to come forward..
> 
> I tried many things to interrupt his balks. What worked best more often than not, I learned, was to go back to him, give a good scratch on top of the mane, and then a big ole hug squeeze around the neck, with a soft "C'mon buddy". He would most often begin to follow on a loose lead. At least for a while.
> 
> Anything that I tried that could be interpreted as the slightest punishment would only result in his increased resolve to balk.


I'll add that at these times I would be experiencing positive visceral feelings or sentiments towards Hondo and that I do believe that at least on some level horses do sense those feelings and that it has a positive effect on them. I'll add that the true visceral feelings can likely not be faked with the horse as they sometimes can be between humans.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ...But then you went from way too weak to, I think IMO, too strong by adopting the traditional training from a trainer you went to...
> 
> ...I rejected the tenant of ask tell demand a few months before I started with Hondo...


I think you interpret "demand" as "you will submit totally to my will".

It can be used that way. *And needs to be for some activities*. You cannot perform a series of required movements if the horse has been taught he can negotiate everything. Even if he had the moves, Bandit could never compete in a reining competition, or WP, or dressage. Not without FIRST learning that his behavior in the arena MUST differ from how we ride trails. 

Outside the arena, you don't do these sorts of things with horses without first teaching the horse that man's will is, if not irresistible, at least extremely important:








​ 



































​
Our modern riding tends to blind us to the fact that horses have been selectively bred for teamwork and submission for a few thousand years. The Fire Departments developed a dropping harness. When a fire was announced, the horses would go to their position in front of the fire carriage, and harnesses suspended in the air were then dropped onto their backs. This allowed the horses to be harnessed very quickly. It also required horses to go to their spot within inches, and wait quietly while people ran around shouting. At the fire, they needed to stand quietly while a building was burning next to them.

*This ability and this sort of thinking is just as much bred into them as anything people watch mustangs (feral horses) do in the West*. Using it is just as "natural" as the NH taught by people watching feral horses. The circus used teams as large as 80 IIRC to pull equipment. 80 horses cannot negotiate squat with the driver!

There is nothing really wrong with requiring submission. @tinyliny pointed out all of us change our opinions as we learn more, and that is an area where I have changed. Arabians and other hotter breeds are not the end-all of riding or life with horses. Just my personal preference.

------------------------------

But "demand" is not always "_Do X or I'll kick your butt!_" It is also, "_Doing X is not acceptable to me_", or "_My goal is to get home, which requires getting past this scary thing. My goal is inflexible, but my means of attaining that goal are open to negotiation._"

That is where people talk about blocking options. Or in Tom Robert's training dictum: "_This will profit you. This will profit you not._" I do not know how one trains a horse to do anything without the ability to say, "_This choice is unacceptable. Try another._" When you tell someone X is not acceptable, you obviously do so from a position of authority, and are demanding they not use X.

Bandit arrived here two years ago quite willing to turn and run away when he thought things were too scary - which happened once or twice a ride. I guess I was imposing my will on him in rejecting that option, but his option wasn't safe for either of us. Two years later, he is not a beginner's horse, but he is much closer to being one.

Fair and persistent demands create a calmer, more relaxed and steadier horse. Switching Mia to a curb and teaching her stop meant "STOP" didn't create fear. It eliminated a big chunk of her fear. Ask - tell - demand, used fairly, doesn't leave a horse shivering with fear because "_If I don't respond at the lightest cue, I'll get the tar beaten out of me._" That has nothing to do with A-T-D as used by a good rider.



> On the contrary, the important thing is to let him know – to teach him – how, by doing what you want of him, he can avoid any pain, irritation, inconvenience and discomfort the bit (or whip or spur) might otherwise cause. Good trainers do everything they possibly can to avoid hurting the horse or even letting him hurt himself. Our real goal should be never to have to hurt our horse. - Tom Roberts, Horse Control - The Young Horse


Post #1 on this thread:



Hondo said:


> Is the following true or false?
> 
> Depending on how aggressive the ask tell demand protocol is followed or pursued, and depending on the psychological make up of the horse, it is possible that the horse may come to regard an ask as in fact a threat, based on what will follow if the correct response is not produced by the horse.
> 
> In this case, the simple act of the ask may produce a degree fear, apprehension, and tenseness in this particular horse.


You answered your own question in the first post. "*Depending on how aggressive the ask tell demand protocol is followed or pursued, and depending on the psychological make up of the horse...*"

It depends.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo, if you just wish to use R+ in your relationship with Hondo,that is your choice,but i reject your stance that if anyone uses the ask and demand in working with their hrose, in the fair manner, as has been out lined throughout this thread, by myself and some others, they some how then have horses that don't come close to having the relationship you profess to have with Hondo, and work out of fear and mindless compliance.
We use how horses interact with each other, as a basis for our communication with them,but apply human logic and other facets to expand our communication with them, increasing clarity and fairness, as an expanded vocabulary
For instance, besides body language we also teach a horse some vocal cues, which I am quite sure they have never been taught by another horse! Words like whoa, walk,trot, over, ect
By using ask, ask louder then demand, we are in fact, more fair then horses often are to each other, going directly to demand. There is the example of a horse lunging to sink teeth into another horse , who in his mind, invaded his space.
You have also perhaps never had Hondo and your self, in such a situation that it was critical that he respond to that ask, and if he was never taught at some point through that sequence , to listen, not just when he feels like it, but when you let him know it is the right choice of action in response to that cue, you might have a surprise that the visceral connection you feel you have with him, is not enough to prevent a wreak.
Yes, horses are mainly recreational animals now, but you also have no right to insist they never be used in performance events, where lightest to an aid is required, and that lightness is taught, once a horse first understands that cue, by using that ask, ask louder , then demand, and then by also always going back to the light ask the next time. If you wish to thump harder and harder with your leg, each time to have your horse finally move off of it, sidepass, whatever, fine, but I want a hrose that learns to respond to the lightest touch, and I have yet to see a horse that is light, trained by someone afraid to ever go to demand, when a horse offers non compliance to the light ask
Your example of Hondo freaking, coming home on that windy day, with something different in the yard,is in my mind, a warning of that you perhaps are relying too much on un dying love and connection with Hondo, which works, UNTIL you enter that zone which is outside of his comfort zone.
Quite a few people have been hurt,felt betrayed, by a horse they thought 'loved them', when that horse just acted like a horse, pushed outside of his comfort zone, and never taught lightest,obedience to aids.
What is wrong with having more then one 'tool'?
Sure, most times you can ride a horse that has learned to trust you, purely on that associated mutual trust and on the bond you have formed together, esp in non demanding pursuits, like just riding out on some familiar trails. Does that then mean one should just rely on that 100%, and not perhaps add some additional tools?
It makes adifference.
One example. You are crossing a river, and know where that crossing is, which does not go directly across , as there is a big hole with a swirling under tow on that direct route, near the other side, so that the correct route is going at an angle up stream for a bit
It is natural for a horse, once in that water, to try and head directly to the opposite bank. If you have not instilled that demand at some point, allowed the horse equal input, or even the right to over ride you, you won't be going by that dangerous spot!


----------



## Unknown (Oct 2, 2016)

Hondo said:


> @*Unknown* You're making me think. I appreciate that. In case you come back, I have another question.
> 
> Horses are believed to have some one on one affiliative needs and desires within the herd. At least some say so.
> 
> ...


I can't answer your question because I don't have clue what "affiliative need" is. I looked it up and it is human related psych stuff. I cannot communicate with you the way you want me to. I see things in very simple terms. I have no need to drill down, dissect and analyze everything around me. I don't see the point in it. Horses do what they do because they are horses. They are not people, pigs, chicken, dogs, cat. etc. I know what I know because I've been around horses all my life. For example, a woman was trying to unload a horse who refused to back out, which, when in public, always draws a crowd of well meaning ready to enlighten others horsepeople. Anyway, I told her what I thought should be done. While she was looking for a couple of long lines, another woman suggested opening the escape door. I said I wouldn't do that if I were you. He might try to go through it. She then proceeded to explain to me how horses are claustrophobic, that horses are not dumb animals, that they are more intelligent than I give them credit for and the horse knows he can't get through that small of an opening. She opened the door. Can you guess what happened? 

The horse tried to climb through the escape door. 

You are like that woman who thought she knew horses. I couldn't talk to her for the same reason I can't talk to you. You KNOW horse behavior, but you don't understand it. I saw a quote one time and it stuck. It said knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit and wisdom is understanding that it doesn't belong in fruit salad. I'm sure I didn't quote it correctly, but you get the idea, which is what really matters.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

@*Unknown* I wouldn't discount Hondo's 'wisdom'. I think in the case of his horse, he has cued into something good; that for THIS horse, a direct and forceful approach will only elicit a greater desire on the hrose's part to resist, and if forced into compliance, he will do so in resentment. I've seen people have rather successful relationships with horses where I never once see them 'demand'. I also see a lot of interaction and behavior with that person and horse that I, personally, would find unacceptable. But, that's me, and it's not my horse, and they have found their way, on their own terms. So, they are not without wisdom.


@*Smiley* I am wondering if it's ok to ask you if you could insert a whole blank line or two between each paragraph of your posts. I really have a hard time working through what looks like a giant wall of text, when there is not real blank space from time to time to break it up.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Hondo said:


> When I first started with Hondo, he had not been ridden in a few years and was also very herdbound. On our daily ritual walks in search of a hidden pan of pellets he was very very balky which since he was fully trained at that point could be considered to be a refusal to comply with a cue to come forward..


My first inclination would *not* be to consider his behavior as obstinate, but nervous and concerned. (If he was _scared_, he'd turn and run.) He probably didn't trust you "when you first started". Of course, in that case, I would switch to an "approach-and-retreat" paradigm, not ask-tell-demand. Of course I may lean on him a little to give me one more step, but once he's mustered the courage to take that step, he'll get release and reward. So what will he think next time, following your logic? "Oh boy, that one step didn't hurt at all, and if I take it, I get scratches, praise, and release. I think I'll take that step." Before you know it, he'll give you the second step, etc.

(Of course we already established that horses don't have mental what-if scenarios to play through in their minds, as they lack a prefrontal cortex. But it'll illustrate that there is no need for the horse to experience PTSD-like flashbacks whenever the human applies a bit of pressure.)


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Sure, Tiny, far as the spacing. I'm just happy when my word processor does not insert or attach letters where I never intended them to be, nor run words together, then not allow me to correct, deleting entire lines in auto correct mode or something.

No one is arguing that Hondo has worked out with what works for him and Hondo, in what they do.
I am also not disputing that trust and time together is not a huge factor

I am in disagreement that the ask and ask louder never has application with horses, that horses never willfully dis obey, with Hondo deciding that the ask, going to demand, never should be used on any horse, and also regardless of specific goals. 

There is no absolute on either end of that balance, that should be taken as they only way.
Come on, no horse person with any knowledge is going to think a horse won't try to go out an escape door, try to jump a stall door, or any other of the many things horses do, by reacting, versus thinking. If that woman truly understood horses, she would know that the flight reaction is a very strong basic instinct for a horse
By the way, they can get out that escape door, I found out, thank goodness!

We were still hauling, using a four horse stock trailer, straight bump pull, which had an escape door. That was the time I powered out on an icy mountain road, got dragged backwards, over the edge, with the trailer and truck stopped from decending all the way, by a clump of trees, growing just a little ways down that slope

No way to get the horses out the back door, jammed against those trees, and trailer at a steep angle. Got them out the escape door


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Just for the record, when first coming to the ranch and introducing Hondo to a trailer I was directly cautioned about the use of the escape door. My recent experience on another thread is clear witness to the horse's inability to make any clear reason about escape routes when frightened.

I purchased a trailer about a year ago with an escape door. One of the first modifications I made to the trailer was to install a heavy chain that could be fastened across the escape door but that a human could duck under. Don't anticipate ever even needing an escape door, but just in case.

Not long ago Hondo had some ventral swelling that I was concerned about. I decided to put the saddle on Rimmey who has only been under saddle one time in the last two years and has a history of being nervous under saddle. I went out of the pen to lead him around just to observe and see what I could see of him.

Hondo went absolutely berserk! I've never seen him do anything that closely resembled his actions. He went running circles around us, bucking, leaping, turning mid-air.

I turned around and untacked Rimmey.

My interpretation was that the saddle was some sort of connection between Hondo and I. He has expressed jealousy and possession at other times. My interpretation was that he was opposing HIS saddle being on Rimmey, (who has been his best bud for 10 years), or likely on any other horse. I resolved to never place it on another horse in his presence.

Now I know some might suggest that Hondo was expressing glee that Rimmey would be ridden and not him, but I don't really think so.

I had a similar experience today for the first time ever I led Rimmey to the pen for reasons of my other thread. I'll not detail them unless requested.

These things and others convince me that Hondo likes to be around me. You suggested he is my companion but I am not his. Well, he is not my only companion, I need at least some human companion ship. I don't believe I am Hondo's only companion and doubt that I could ever be just as he could not be my only companion, but I do believe I am one of his companions at least to a degree.

And it may well be suggested that it is all based on me being the supplier of food. I don't think so.

This is about as clear as I cas say things avoiding terms like affiliative. 

I used to interact with the construction trades quite a bit. There was always someone claiming 30-40 years experience doing this or that. Sometimes when weary of hearing it I would ask, "Do you have 30 years experience one time, or 1 year experience 30 times?"

Years of experience just does not ALWAYS translate it to a proportional degree of knowledge.

And there are lots of 40 year experienced people that have strong disagreements with one another. So I look at the logic and reasons beyond the years of experience..

Horses that have been flooded in the old ways and have gone to emotional shut down referred to as learned helplessness do not necessarily exhibit behaviors of horses that have never been shut down from the requirement of excessive submission.

Hondo has never been successfully subdued to the point and never will be while in my care, which if I live long enough and am able, will be until he passes on.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Smilie said:


> You have also perhaps never had Hondo and your self, in such a situation that it was critical that he respond to that ask, and if he was never taught at some point through that sequence , to listen, not just when he feels like it, but when you let him know it is the right choice of action in response to that cue, you might have a surprise that the visceral connection you feel you have with him, is not enough to prevent a wreak.
> Yes, horses are mainly recreational animals now, but you also have no right to insist they never be used in performance events, where lightest to an aid is required, and that lightness is taught, once a horse first understands that cue, by using that ask, ask louder , then demand, and then by also always going back to the light ask the next time.


May I assume your use of "You have also perhaps never" indicates that you are open to perhaps I HAVE?

What about being with a couple riders that bolt after a cow drifting and Hondo desperately wants to go with them? What about returning to my field and near the herd when something frightens them and they go panicked streaming within feet on each side of us. Hondo stayed within about a 20 foot circle on a Dr. Cook's which I've been told by ranch people was pretty D*** good! Some said most of their horses would have bucked under those circumstance.

I was talking to him. No scratching his neck or lovey dovey stuff. I have no idea what cues I gave him but I was extremely concerned about my safety. Yes he wheeled this way and that to check behind him and so on, but he stayed with me.

I could give other examples but I'll refrain. This was after about the first six months. The circle would be much smaller now.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mmshiro said:


> My first inclination would *not* be to consider his behavior as obstinate, but nervous and concerned. (If he was _scared_, he'd turn and run.) He probably didn't trust you "when you first started". Of course, in that case, I would switch to an "approach-and-retreat" paradigm, not ask-tell-demand. Of course I may lean on him a little to give me one more step, but once he's mustered the courage to take that step, he'll get release and reward. So what will he think next time, following your logic? "Oh boy, that one step didn't hurt at all, and if I take it, I get scratches, praise, and release. I think I'll take that step." Before you know it, he'll give you the second step, etc.
> 
> *Pretty much my thoughts, actions, and results at the time.*
> 
> ...


Here's one. There is a very interesting article in July Equus about this very subject.

http://www.horseforum.com/member-journals/why-i-gotta-trot-645777/page130/#post10028121


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If "demand" = "unjust & harsh punishment", then using ATD can cause a fearful horse. If "demand" = firm & proportionate negative consequences, then ATD doesn't give the horse a reason for fear.

A horse trapped by a very dominant horse may be fearful, and with good cause. The same horse, with open space behind him, simply moves a few feet. He knows how to escape.

No one here is arguing a person should administer '30 lashes with a bullwhip' with every "demand". And no one here is arguing for "Screw ask - Demand first".

The proof is in the pudding. It has been done with millions of untraumatized horses, so therefor it is possible to do without causing trauma.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

_(Of course we already established that horses don't have mental what-if scenarios to play through in their minds, as they lack a prefrontal cortex. But it'll illustrate that there is *no need* for the horse to experience PTSD-like flashbacks whenever the human applies *a bit of pressure*.)

Oh I'm afraid you are very much in error here. First, their memories are far superior to ours and has a definite effect on their actions. Haven't thought about it in terms of flashbacks but I'm convinced they can and do. Anything that has been extremely scary in the past can be cause for fear in the future. I'm going to go look for a couple of posts for you to peruse._

Your response addresses neither argument I made. We read the same article. It says that horses lack impulse control because of their absent functional prefrontal cortex. They react based on a stimulus, they don't weigh the range of their options on how to respond according the likely consequences that ensue. They just don't have the internal mental dialog that you have illustrated in earlier posts: "When I do this, that will happen, so I better do that...or maybe I could risk doing that third thing instead?" It anthropomorphizes equine mental processes, and that very risk is elaborated upon in the article *you* mentioned.

When you rely in your response on "Anything that has been *extremely scary*(????)...", you are bluntly dismissing 15 pages of responses in this thread and the very topic of the discussion, so I got nothin' for you. (Everybody in this thread who believes in putting a horse into *extremely scary* situations for training and riding purposes, please make yourselves known. I may have overlooked your post.)

I got a bunch of helmet videos on my YouTube channel, and I posted a few videos in the "Trail Rides 2017" thread. If you see any instance where I am riding an apprehensive horse, fearfully bracing against the next attack from her rider, I'd love for you to point it out. Otherwise, you do your horse, and I do mine, but you really haven't made any case other than, "I have a happy horse with what I do with him." Well, I believe I have a happy horse with what I do with her, so forgive me when I start to find your self-anointed role as champion of the downtrodden and abused horses who have to deal occasionally with "Move your butt!" somewhat tiresome.

Over and out.


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

Hondo, I refuse to argue with you. I've said my piece and I'm done. There are a lot of good people here who have spent the time over 15 pages to try and talk, explain, and reason with someone who has done nothing but trod over everything they say.

I never called you ludicrous. You are welcome to report my post if it bothers you that much. And I quote myself "I think the conclusion that I have reached is that if you are not willing to use the horse's language (yes, using what horses do with and to each other in the human horse interaction), then how can you call yourself a horseman? That's as ludicrous as saying you are a translator, yet you only know one language."

Basically, I was saying that you (as in people in general) can't claim to be something that they are not. You can't say you have a college degree when you don't. You can't be a translator if you only know one language. You can't be a car mechanic if you can't fix a car. And you can't be a horseman if you won't communicate with the horse.

As far as the books go, I was referencing "The Black Stallion". The only time I referenced "Black Beauty" is when I was comparing my mother's sweet natured mare to the black beauty in that book. If you go back and read my post, you will see that.

The point of the post was not to attack you, and it saddens me that that is all you got out of that and the numerous other posts on this thread. It was to make you think, that yes, the way horses interact with each other does apply to the human horse interaction. How you viewed my posts as an attack, I'm not sure.

I, and the many others here, have happy horses who are well behaved and adjusted. They have good lives, and everyone does what they believe is best for the horse. Many of your posts insinuate otherwise, which is an offense (or attack, if you prefer, although I think that is a silly word to use) to these people who pour their time, love, and hard earned money into these animals that otherwise would likely not have a home and be destined for the slaughterhouse, just like the many perfectly good but unwanted horses out there.

I'd rather focus on trying to help every horse I can, than worry about training philosophies and if my fairy dust is working properly on my unicorn.

To quote @mmshiro

"Well, I believe I have a happy horse with what I do with her, so forgive me when I start to find your self-anointed role as champion of the downtrodden and abused horses who have to deal occasionally with "Move your butt!" somewhat tiresome."

Well said.

Bowing out of this thread now, will not be back.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> You answered your own question in the first post. "Depending on how aggressive the ask tell demand protocol is followed or pursued, and depending on the psychological make up of the horse..."
> 
> It depends.


Yes, as a matter-of-fact, I had my own answer clearly in mind before I ever proposed the question or started the thread.

What I was really wanting to get at was opinions from others on the matter. Your answer of it depends I interpret as a yes, that "Depending on how aggressive the ask tell demand protocol is followed or pursued, and depending on the psychological make up of the horse, it is possible that the horse may come to regard an ask as in fact a threat, based on what will follow if the correct response is not produced by the horse.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> It has been done with millions of untraumatized horses


Do you actually make a claim of KNOWING this or is it simply something you believe or simply an opinion?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

mmshiro said:


> _(Of course we already established that horses don't have mental what-if scenarios to play through in their minds, as they lack a prefrontal cortex. But it'll illustrate that there is *no need* for the horse to experience PTSD-like flashbacks whenever the human applies *a bit of pressure*.)
> 
> Oh I'm afraid you are very much in error here. First, their memories are far superior to ours and has a definite effect on their actions. Haven't thought about it in terms of flashbacks but I'm convinced they can and do. Anything that has been extremely scary in the past can be cause for fear in the future. I'm going to go look for a couple of posts for you to peruse._
> 
> ...


Please chill just a little for me. I have tried to express my sincere belief that I am favorably impressed by how you do stuff and have already formed the impression that your horses are likely very happy horses.

The take-away from the article that I got was that there are things we do through our prefrontal cortex that horses also absolutely do. Things they you agree that they absolutely do. But we do them through our prefrontal cortex which they don't have. So where in the brain do they perform these functions. And what other stuff can they do that we do with our prefrontal cortex even though they don't have one. That was what got out of Reiningcatsanddogs post on gottatrot's journal.

In posting that information, I'm not telling you or anyone stuff that I know, just trying to share stuff that is being done on the leading research. 

Sheesh! I was in full agreement with you that the horse couldn't do anything that we did with our prefrontal. I'm accepting the fact that apparently I was wrong.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

horseluvr2524 said:


> Bowing out of this thread now, will not be back.


Thank you for your contributions.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Do you actually make a claim of KNOWING this or is it simply something you believe or simply an opinion?


Well...I think it is safe to say I have not interviewed millions of horses and tabulated the results. It is also true a great many horses are trained using this approach. Extrapolating from the sample I've seen leads to my belief.

If I've seen it used successfully with even one horse, then it is possible. And since I've used it at times in working with my own horses, and am 5 of 5 for horses who act stress-free afterward...it is undoubtedly possible and extrapolating strongly suggests it has worked with millions.

I've seen it used with a lot more horses than I have owned, and cannot think of a single case where the horse reacted to proportionate "demands" with stress or anxiety provided the horse understood the ask and had the option to obey at that point. So...in my limited experience with my own horses and watching others, it is 100% successful if used the way people have been telling you it should be.

Can a horse be ridden softly and willingly in a bit? Yes. Can a horse become intimidated by a bit? Yes. What general rule can we deduce? Use a bit correctly to have a happy horse.

But there are bitless people who tell me every horse is intimidated by bits, and I only believe what I believe because I am too stupid or unobservant to know my horses are all intimidated...

Oh well. I extrapolate to come to my belief that millions of horses are ridden contented and relaxed in bits.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hondo, have you read Evidence based Horsemanship?
You are confusing a horse having strong memory association with something dangerous, but without the reasoning power to distinguish as to when a similar 'trigger is harmless,and when the hrose should go into flight mode or not.
Yes, as a form of survival, if a mountain lion attacked from a certain out crop, the hrose is forever going to be on alert, passing that spot. That is good.
However, if once some person abused him, wearing a certain hat, that horse then can become reactive when any one wearing such a hat comes near him, as he cannot reason that all people wearing such a hat are not a threat
Associations/memories does not equate upper reasoning power
Maybe not the best example, but i Have to go and wash Charlie, having decided to show her tomorrow


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

A horse, that catches his leg in the fence, unless he has learned to accept some leg restraint, does not reason, 'gee, if I pull back, I am really going to tear up my leg'-he just reacts, because a horse lacks the upper reasoning that we have, great memory association to a bad experience being irrelevant, a point mmshiro tried to make .


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

I posted a story I like on someone's journal and I think I'll post it here. It's about a guy whose horse also by coincidence happened to also be named Hondo. There's a lot of softness in it but it's not by someone who just laid down their copy of The Black Stallion. Hope some will read it.

A horse named Hondo made it necessary for Ray to change his ways. 
Hondo made it clear that Ray could be broken, but he, the horse, could not.
"Everything I know now started with that horse," Ray said. "Hondo was a sticking, biting, kicking, bucking tough colt who might have killed me. 
Hondo would tell me, ‘Come on and try to break me, and I’ll break in YOU again’........and he would have. But I had all winter to work on him. He was my only horse; without him, I was afoot. It was just him and me and I tried to put myself in his place. How did he get so afraid? What could I do to make him trust me? A horse that’s had trouble can’t believe a human will quit hurting them. I felt sorry for that horse who had to hold up his defence. You can’t blame him. 
I worked on him some and we got so I could get near him, then get on him. I’m not saying it was all love and kisses. You better believe it. Things could get pretty physical, pretty western. I’d go to bed at night and think about that horse, dream about him, then go back to work with him the next day."
In the middle of the winter of 1960-61, Ray took Hondo to Tom Dorrance. 
"He’s a little old bow-legged cowboy; he’s the brains of it all. He can fix a horse so fast you never knew what happened. 
And who taught Tom? He says it was the horse. As soon as Tom came around me, Hondo would act like a lamb. And as soon as he left, I’d be riding a tiger again. I couldn’t understand. Something was going on but I couldn’t find it.
See, I was too forceful. The timing was good but the mental feel of how it could be wasn’t there. I couldn’t visualize it and the yielding wasn’t there. The horse was afraid of me. I thought I had to hurt him to get him rideable. I knew it wasn’t right. And pretty soon, I learned that to get respect, I had to give respect.
Sometimes it’s hard to figure out because a horse is so big and strong, but there’s a difference between firm and forceful. *And there’s a spot in there, inside the horse, an opening where there is no fear or resistance, and that’s what I began looking for.*"
By the end of the year Hondo was gentle, smooth, athletic, and kind to be around, a horse the grandkids could ride.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

So, why can't the demand be firm? To me, that is all the demand is a firm response to a horse's unwillingness to walk forward, or get on the trailer, or go by the downed tree he has seen a few times.

Do you Have problem with the firm, or the forceful, or both?

One can also 'demand' by out smarting the horse you know.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

> See, I was too forceful...The horse was afraid of me. *I thought I had to hurt him to get him rideable*...And pretty soon, I learned that to get respect, I had to give respect.


This is supposed to be an amazing insight? Something the rest of us haven't thought of? Something good riders weren't doing daily long before 1960?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Another quote from Lucy Rees in The Horse's Mind, page 168.

Attitudes: submission, obedience or responsiveness? When a horse 'does what he is told' we can look at it in different ways: we can say the horse *submits* to our will, that he is *obedient* to our commands, or that he *responds* to our signals. Each of those attitudes affects the way we go about riding or training.

The idea of *submission*, like the idea of dominance hierarchy based on aggression, leads to difficulty. It is not the way that horses naturally think in terms of friendship, kinship, and signals. It is in competition that they submit, by moving away from each other's threats. Is moving away, then, to be the basis of our coming together? Is threat to be the framework of our coming together? For many trainers and horses it unfortunately is, which makes the horses understandably eager to escape the process altogether. Faced with any such 'rebellion' the domineering trainer sees no option but to treat the horse more harshly, to increase his threats. Even when the idea succeeds it produces a truly broken horse, a dull-spirited beast with no interest in the world or his work, only in avoiding unpleasantness. If submission is thought about it all, it must be in terms of attention, not aggressive threats.

Obedience seems a better tack, for the trainer then thinks of reward as well as punishment and aversion. The horse is taught simply that if he obeys all will be well, and if he disobeys it will not. The disadvantage here is that the horse is left no space. Unable to think for himself, he becomes confused or agitated when faced with new problems. The trainer feels no compunction to take notice of the horse's signals. This one-sided process, a stream of commands, is more suited to motorcycles than to living animals, and again is not the way that horses naturally think.

Horses do think about responsiveness. They read each other's signals constantly, and they are very good at it. The trainer who thinks in terms of responsiveness is thrown back upon himself when the horse does not cooperate: he looks at the mistakes he may be making in his own signals, looks at the horse's signals too, and is more able to make the adjustments that are so necessary when dealing with such varied characters. He can pick up and develop the horse's ideas when he wants without seeing it as a breakdown in discipline. The horse, freed of the pressures of a bully or a sergeant-major, is interested in the problems facing her and is grateful for any suggestions that help her through them: she does not fight back, nor become an automaton, but uses her mind and indulges in one of her greatest talents, that of responding. The first two trainers would see such a horse as 'submissive' and 'obedient'; but she is likely to become more sensitive, more intelligent, and more interested in life if we adopt her attitude rather than forcing her against the grain to adopt an alien one.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

that's a nice piece of writing and thinking. And, I especially like the part where if the horse does not respond, the trainer is thrown back upon themselves to think about why.

that's why I say "convince', rather than demand, because to convince someone, you need to consider what approach will best get them to agree with your thinking.

but I also stay with the thinking of 'blocking' as a way of convincing. I mean, you are waiting for the hrose to come around to your way of thinking, so you just interrupt his idea of doing something else.

but, what I like about this article is how just having a different word in your mind when you are training your horse can help in how you think about the hrose, and how you deal with him. That's why I often try to think of 'helping' my horse when I can't get him to soften up and bend.

However, that said, I only ride the easier horses, ones that have, at worst, a few bad habits. I don't ride really hard horses, green ones, aggressive ones or truly troubled ones. So, for me to offer ANY advice could be seen as a bit silly, coming from my limited experience.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Not an article but a looong quote from her book. There is much much more wisdom in front and after that section.

In doing some research about her on the net I came across a discussion about her and a cowboy having a contest on whose method of training a colt was best and fastest. There was actually a documentary made of it. I MUST find it.

But here is the gist of it in a thread post:


Jr. Member
**
Posts: 99

Lucy Rees
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2007, 08:27:12 PM »
Publish
Quote
Anyone remember the TV programme where she and a cowboy each took a wild mustang and broke it in according to their different methods?

It was fascinating - and very sad.
I taped it on VHS when it was broadcast by HTV Wales in 1987. [From memory...] The documentary starts of at her home in Wales with her riding a pony bareback up Snowdonia and standing on the high mountain ridge with the pony and her dog surrounded by flurries of snow raised by the helicopter doing the filming - quite scary!

Cut to somewhere in the US where she's helping in a round-up of mustangs. There's a scene in a bar, the upshot of which is there's a bet between her and a local wrangler Wes over whose method of "starting" is faster/better. He'll use traditional Western techniques, and she'll use her own gentle approach based on her knowledge of behaviour (Lucy has a degree in zoology).

The two choose their horses (almost ponies) from the rounded-up herd of mustangs. Wes picks a gelded horse - we see a castration done rather brutally on the ground with ropes and no sedation; Lucy opts to take on a young entire stallion. They trailer their horses to a quiet, arid spot where two round-pens are set up. Wes sets about breaking in his horse using ropes, sacks and posts. In contrast, Lucy goes into the pen with hers, puts a blanket on the ground at the side, sits down with a book, and waits... Wes has a series of little battles with his horse, who is clearly not enjoying events at all. At one point, the horse sets back on a rope and threatens to throttle itself, so Wes has to cut the rope. There is an unpleasant scene where the horse appears to give up fighting and slumps to the ground. Wes flaps a sack in an attempt to get the horse up again.

Meanwhile, Lucy's boy has come over to investigate her, takes some grass and water and before long she has a halter on him. Things happen in a rather laid-back way. While Wes is still struggling, Lucy has backed her horse and goes off exploring the countryside, riding through streams, looking in a cave, allowing her horse to express his natural curiosity while building up trust with him at the same time.

In the end, Wes does manage to saddle and ride his horse. In the epilogue, when Lucy is back in snowy Wales, she said that Wes hadn't wanted to part with his mustang... but he hadn't ridden him either.

I do wish they'd show the documentary again - it was an interesting comparative study.

I saw Lucy a few months ago. She came over from Spain (where she lives and works) to Scotland for the EAGALA (equine assisted therapy) conference. I didn't manage to go to that, but I met her off the Ardrossan ferry and gave her a lift to Glasgow airport, stopping by my department for a coffee. Of course we talked horse behaviour and training pretty much the whole time! Barring unforeseen circumstances, she will be coming over here again to give a talk at the Equine Behaviour Forum's symposium in the autumn. She spoke at our 2002 meeting at Askham Bryan College, York, on "Lessons from Behaviour in the Wild: How we apply what we know to training and problem-solving".


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> Another quote from Lucy Rees in The Horse's Mind, page 168.
> 
> ...Obedience seems a better tack, for the trainer then thinks of reward as well as punishment and aversion. The horse is taught simply that if he obeys all will be well, and if he disobeys it will not. The disadvantage here is that the horse is left no space. Unable to think for himself, he becomes confused or agitated when faced with new problems. The trainer feels no compunction to take notice of the horse's signals. This one-sided process, a stream of commands, is more suited to motorcycles than to living animals, and again is not the way that horses naturally think...


It also isn't how many on this thread think. Even back in 1905, many knew this was NOT the best way to work a horse:










Erwin E. Smith Collection Guide | Collection Guide​


> It is to avoid using any expression that could possibly include punishment as a normal teaching procedure that I suggest you think in the terms:
> 
> “That will profit you – that will profit you not.”
> 
> ...


For an example of how he viewed "Quiet Persistence", here is an excerpt from his book, Horse Control Reminiscences:

http://www.horseforum.com/member-jo...-through-together-622121/page45/#post10036713


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Nice story about the horse HOndo, but again, what in the heck does it have to do with this thread?
I don't think any members on here, advocate the old bronc bucking out training of the old west
I think some of us have explained until we are blue in the face, WHEN< WHY< HOW you use that ask and demand, with the CONCLUSION it is not used when first training ahrose, teaching him a response, BUT rather on a horse that understands that cue, has no pain issue, is not a fear rescue case, BUT on a horse who chooses not to respond to that light ask, just because he rather would not. 
You can follow your own creed in horsemanship, and that is fine, but don't distort as to what have been genuine replies, by many on this site, to your original question, which I now know was only rhetorical, by using examples that have zero to do with using that ask and demand correctly


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Again, HOndo, what in the heck does that competition between an old time range cowboy and That Lucy, with that cowboy using old range bronc busting technique have anything to do with this topic? ,
You are digging, digging, trying to discredit the correct use of ask and demand, as explained to you, on a horse that has already been taught a response, but decides he would rather not comply (no, pain has been ruled out, as has confusion, or any other extenuating circumstances )
The horse just decides he would rather not comply, and tunes that light ask out. Yes, horses will do that,at times, regardless if you love them to death

Do you really think, those of us that have used that ask and demand at one time or another, on a hrose, started that horse under saddle like that old bronc buster, whose techniques go back to when range horses were quickly made serviceable, when truly had the word .breaking' a horse fit the picture?
Sorry to burst your bubble as we now train horses with empathy and feel Only when a horse is along a certain distance in that training, when he understands a cue, and when he decides to not respond to a light ask then and only then do you ask louder, in increments, until you get that response. This is perfectly acceptable and even desired, JMO, so that the horse does not tune out that light ask the next time


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Well, Hondo, here are some of my poor submissive dead, listless, unhappy horses, because at one time or another I might actually have ,, gasp, demanded a response from them that they understood, but ignored


http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m455/KiloBright/BrightandReeshma_zp

sfc2c35e3.jpg


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Duplicate post deleted


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Not to dumb or dull, eh, as Einstein found out that trail barrels could double as belly rubbing objects



Yah, this three year old looks dull and tramatized from her training


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Sorry about the duplicates, some computer glitch


----------



## Unknown (Oct 2, 2016)




----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

The training methodology that uses 'this will profit you, this will profit you not' fits squarely in the 'obedient' methodology as described by Rees which is less than the optimum approach.

I have not finished her book but so far there has been no mention of ask-tell-demand. I'll be certain to report if at some point I do come across those terms.

The little bit of Rees' method used during the documentary as described in the post appears to be very similar to that used by Willis J. Powell in Taming Wild Horses. Whatever those methods were, apparently they were very effective.

Smilie, if you wish to denigrate both me and what I believe by labeling or calling me a voice in the wilderness and comparing my beliefs to scribblings on subway walls, so be it.

I believe you will be hard put to successfully label Lucy Rees the same. What you say about my person really doesn't matter.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@Unknown Video isn't delivering sound. Adjacent vids do so problem does not appear to be in my apparatice.

The first part shows some stallions fighting which of course they do. They do of course as I have personally witnessed. Rees points out they do this in competition and that competition is not the most effective training tool...if that is what you were getting at with the post.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

My belief is that there are rules and boundaries. If these are firmly and fairly adhered to with the boundaries widening as the horse becomes totally trusting, then the animal doesn't loose its character and the pair become a true partnership. 

As for demand, much of that depends on e horse and its character, as to how much pressure is put on them. Some, a slap with the hand will make them freak, others will just think you are swatting a fly. 

A horse that has learned it can push and barge a human around will be demanded to listen and respect. You can bet this type of animal will take a darn good whack that it feel, to make it think "Heck, that was a surprise. I'd better watch this one, they mean what they say!" 

A lot of time a horse spooks on a regular basis is because it can and the rider is to slow to correct/ stop before it can get right around and take off in the direction it was coming from. 

My experience of such horses is that they do not totally trust their rider. They might trust them on the ground but this doesn't transfer to when being ridden. 

A friend bought a horse, it was at a stables belonging to a woman's who was highly thought of. She told me to allow time as he had been bad to load. 
I led him to the ramp of the horsebox, he stopped, lowered his head and sniffed the ramp. I allowed this as he was a youngster and inexperienced with travelling. He put one foot on the ramp amd it echoed so he stopped to check it out. The woman immediately setmabout him with a lunge whip. That was it. That horse was not going to load no way. 

I ended up with a kick to the face somwhilst I straightened my nose and stopped the bleeding, the horse was back in the stable. 
I then took over, I allowed the horse to look, test where he was putting his feet and after a few minutes with reassurance, he walked straight it - he would have done this in the first place given a chance. 

When his new owner took him to shows he loaded without being hassled. Then one day I was called to say he wouldn't load. When I arrived he was planting his feet and saying "Not today." 
I gave him one chance and when he baulked I did use the lunge whip across his hind legs. He shot up the ramp. He fully accepted the crack because he knew he was being defiant and it was timed right. 

That was a horse that you could push to his limits amd he would bust his heart for you but, if he didn't understand or wasn't sure and you persisted with demand then he would fight you all the way.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> The training methodology that uses 'this will profit you, this will profit you not' fits squarely in the 'obedient' methodology as described by Rees which is less than the optimum approach.
> 
> I have not finished her book but so far there has been no mention of ask-tell-demand....


Not sure why anyone here should consider Lucy Rees to be The Final Authority in training horses. I bought & read her book. I remember it as being a better book than the excerpts you have posted. But I can't say I found any overwhelming insight. Her book "The Fundamentals of Riding" had problems...enough so that it didn't make the cut when I thinned out my herd of books a few months ago.

Of course, Tom Roberts did believe horses should end up obedient. He was the youngest person to become a riding instructor in the British Cavalry, had experience in WW1, developed a reputation dealing with problem horses and playing polo in India and settled in Australia, founding a dressage club. You cannot have a cavalry or a polo team with horses who only do what the horse feels like doing and when the horse feels like doing it.

To be honest, I think anyone who accepts the horse's domination, and believes the horse gets to do only what he wants and when he wants to, is a passenger. Freight on top of the horse. And the idea that humans making and enforcing choices, imposing their will on the horse at least some of the time, results in:

"...a dull-spirited beast with no interest in the world or his work, only in avoiding unpleasantness...Unable to think for himself, he becomes confused or agitated when faced with new problems. The trainer feels no compunction to take notice of the horse's signals....an automaton..."

is stupid. I didn't write that lightly. When something very obviously differs from observed reality experienced by countless people, believing it is "stupid".

Cowboy, carrying my DIL a few days ago, zoomed in since we were about 100 yards away...does Cowboy look like he is listlessly and dully only trying to avoid a beating? Truth is he could dump my DIL anytime he felt like it.










Bandit, crossing a section of desert and avoiding cactus with me:










I'm supposed to believe these are unthinking, uncaring, abused into blind submissiveness horses?

How do you think Hondo was trained to go forward as a squeeze? How do you think he was trained to neck rein? Training implies getting a horse to do things. Training implies some degree of obedience. And you cannot have a team if each member of the team gets to do what they want and nothing else.

Not a single post on this thread argues in favor of fighting a horse into submission. But if I want to go on a trail ride today, and my horse feels like hanging around the corral...only one of us will get his own way. And I respect my horse enough to understand he doesn't always feel like doing everything I want, just because I want it. I can't ride a horse based on the purity of my soul. I rather doubt the Dorrance brothers or Lucy Rees have as well.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Foxhunter said:


> A horse that has learned it can push and barge a human around will be demanded to listen and respect.


Oh I very much agree! And so does every trainer/author that I have read, including Lucy Rees and Mark Rashid.

Personally, I would re-word it slightly by saying "has been taught" rather than just "has learned" to emphasize the point that the horse is responding to what it has been taught.

This, to me, is in dealing with a horse that needs rehab training, which I'm not really talking about in terms of ask-tell-demand.

For instance, Rashid in one section uses an example that a horse that has learned (been taught) that it can move a person away by turning hindquarters toward that person, will escalate to kicking if the person's response does not come as quickly as the horse decides it should come.

Really, I'm not as soft and unknowing about these type situations as some would seem think.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

bsms said:


> Not sure why anyone here should consider Lucy Rees to be The Final Authority in training horses.
> 
> *I personally have no final authority on anything. I do think Rees has some intriguing insight that are interesting and possibly quite useful.*
> 
> ...


One two three


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

*First off, I have embedded the video on the previous page posted by Unknown. Beautiful scenery and good photography.* I just spent an hour or so watching it when I really should be doing some serious housework!

The thing about training anything, dogs horses, humans - it takes consistency and adhering to the rules, whatever they may be. 

It seems to me that nowadays people are frightened to say "NO!" and to correct. 

You cannot teach anything unless the recipient _wants_ to learn. Sure it may well do what you want but with resentment. At the start it takes a lot of energy and effort to get the desired result. It will not always work the first few times and here many people give up. Persistence, keeping calm amd tempered with confidence and determination will win through.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Well I still can't hear the woman talking. I copied and pasted the url in youtube still can't hear. Videos on the same page sound fine.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

To be honest, I think anyone who accepts the horse's domination, and believes the horse gets to do only what he wants and when he wants to, is a passenger. Freight on top of the horse.

*I have never read or heard any individual, writer, or trainer recommend such. What you say is common knowledge by all and contested by none.*

============================

Well, if the horse doesn't always get to do what they want, then that pretty much defines submission. Doesn't mean it is a grovelling, fear-induced sort of submission. But it does mean the human at least sometimes is making the decisions and expecting the horse to carry them out regardless of the horse's desire.

Maybe I just don't understand, after 150+ posts, what it is you are driving at. I learn from negative consequences. So does my horse. So...why are negative consequences a bad thing? Why does my horse avoid cactus? Because he hasn't avoided cactus. And now he wants to avoid it. Negative consequences taught him a valuable lesson for a desert horse.

I provided negative consequences for my kids as they grew up. They didn't obey me when I said "Stop!" because they admired me as The Family's Great & Strong Leader. They did it to avoid punishment. And in the process, it kept them from running in front of cars, which would have provided much harsher negative consequences. But my kids didn't grow up as cowed, intimidated automatons!

So...you ask Hondo to go forward. Hondo isn't in the mood today. So you...what? Dismount? Increase the ask? Get in touch with that inner spot where Hondo has no fear, and telepathically induce him to move?

"*I read a post recently where a poster declared, "If a horse wants to start a fight with me, I will always be willing to oblige him". I'll look it up and reference it if you like.

*Please do. I'd like to see the context, and if it is on this thread.

Meanwhile...maybe I'm the only person whose horse had ever said no and bucked to back it up. I doubt it, but maybe. On the whole, if and when my horse bucks, I provide negative consequences. I don't appreciate bucking, particularly if he does it on pavement. I don't beat the tar out of him. I don't grab a bullwhip and provide a minimum of 30 lashes. But I'm also not very gentle in raising his head, and we then discuss what is and what is not an appropriate way to say, "_I don't want to_". Or, "_I'm frustrated!_"

Of course, maybe my horse's willingness to sometimes buck shows what a terrible person I am. Or maybe it has something to do with his life before me. Or maybe he is a mustang (50%) sometimes acting like one. Don't care. I provide some negative consequences to prevent worse ones from happening. Why is that wrong?

And what indication is there that it results in him becoming "_...a dull-spirited beast with no interest in the world or his work, only in avoiding unpleasantness...Unable to think for himself, he becomes confused or agitated when faced with new problems. The trainer feels no compunction to take notice of the horse's signals....an automaton.._." Because in the world where I live, I don't see it!


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

Foxhunter said:


> . . .
> The thing about training anything, dogs horses, humans - it takes consistency and adhering to the rules, whatever they may be.
> 
> . . .Persistence, keeping calm amd tempered with confidence and determination will win through.


I've seen some very harsh trainers who got good results, and well-adjusted horses, because they "adhered to the rules." Consistency is of utmost importance.

My neighbor "trained" a young horse by pretty much doing nothing. This was also a consistent approach, and because the horse had a good native temperament, I suppose, this approach worked out fine, and the horse became a trail horse.
A lot depends on what you want of the horse, of course. And how much time you have. And who you are.


Nevertheless, as Foxhunter says, 


*The thing about training anything, dogs horses, humans - it takes consistency and adhering to the rules, whatever they may be. *

*. . .Persistence, keeping calm amd tempered with confidence and determination will win through.*


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

RE: Well, if the horse doesn't always get to do what they want, then that pretty much defines submission.

Comment: So anytime a horse agrees to do something he is submitting? Personally, I just don't see it that way. There are people of an agreeable nature that like to agree to get along. It's in their nature, but I don't see them as necessarily submissive. The horse is rated by many as one of the most agreeable animals on earth that just wants to get along. Reproductive hormones aside.

RE: Please do. I'd like to see the context, and if it is on this thread.

Comment: I did not get the quote correct word for word but the meaning seems to be the same. I did not intend to indicate it was on this thread. It was posted on another thread as of a result of my posting Mark Rashid's "Old Man's" comments that, "If you want to fight with a horse, the horse will always oblige you".



bsms said:


> I would phrase it, "_If the horse wants a fight, I might oblige him_."


I could not believe anyone could have such an attitude towards any horse. Very sad.

http://www.horseforum.com/member-journals/why-i-gotta-trot-645777/page121/#post9977193


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Hondo, I was brought up by a mother who was a total pacifist, very very rarely would she ever even argue let alone row yet, she ruled the roost. 
One of her favourite sayings was "There is more than one way to skin a cat." She was so right. 

I have had many horses that were classed as very difficult but after a short time I could do anything with them. Not because I was a brilliant rider but because I could get inside their minds. I would look for a reason as to why they behaved as they did and set about changing them. 
I did this by remaining totally calm no matter what they did. My heart rate never changed and I always though calmly. 

Being that most of these difficult horses were racehorses I had to teach them to relax when ridden. I learned certain pressure points that I could reach when riding amd it was surprising how they would soon start to relax. 

A race trainer near where I was working came into our yard one morning. His wife had been riding a difficult horse and when she was leading it down the steep road (we were at the bottom) she had slipped and put her back out. Robert asked if he could leave the horse in a stable whilst he went to get the horsebox. I told his wife to take my car and I would ride the horse back. Robert was concenred as this horse had all sorts of tricks up his sleeve with new riders. He half reared when I was mounting, came down and did a fly leap four feet off the ground through the other horses. I just flicked him across hos neck, laughing and told him he would have to do better than that to shift me. 

Witching 100 yards of leaving the yard he tried whipping around but that didn't work. I scratched his withers and let him have a loose rein, though I was ready should he do something. He started to relax rather than jogging and was soon outwalking all the others. He was totally relaxed by the time we returned to their yard. 

Robert asked me if I would ride work (galloping) on him and I did so. On the gallops he was renowned for hooking off with riders so worked in front. We went around the track three quarter pace first time, he was relaxed and cantering with his head down and a long lolloping stride. Lovely feel. 
On reaching the marker we opened. The horses up. Robert came alongside me and the horse started to want to race. Instinct it to take a stronger hold but I just scratched him and he settled to working really well. At the end he was a bit hyper but soon settled to walking home. 

Riding him went against all instincts, you wanted to keep a hold of him as he misbehaved as in spoofing, bucking and fly leaping, but it didn't work so, I tried the opposite and left him to decide whether jogging or walking was the easiest. 

I won innthat he never misbehaved with me amd remained relaxed rather than hyped up. 

Some would say he submitted to me riding him. I don't think along those lines. I like to think that we came to an agreeable understanding.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

RE: I did this by remaining totally calm no matter what they did. My heart rate never changed and I always though calmly. 

Comment: One of my favorite author/trainers believes that is one of the most, if not the, most important skills a rider can learn. He insists it is a skill and that it can be improved through conscientious practice.

RE: but I just scratched him and he settled to working really well

Comment: About a week or so ago I was riding with two other ranch members, mom and daughter actually, plus a neighbor down the road. We were looking for cows that had strayed in from the neighbor. I had expected to only go to the barn and back which is relatively good road/trail in terms of rocks and stuff so rode Hondo barefoot instead of throwing his boots on. I like to condition his feet riding barefoot when conditions allow.

All of a sudden the neighbor decided he saw some cows off yonder on the way back and dove down a steep rocky trail. All followed except Hondo and I. I yelled to the last person that we would go on down and around the easy way.

Well, you might guess. Hondo like many horses does not like everybody galloping away from him. Might be a lion they're running from. Who knows?

I soon had my hands pretty full with a very worried horse. Hadn't been in those circumstances for a year or more. The more I tried the worser and worser everything was getting. He just couldn't understand that I was trying to tell him it was ok.

Then something clicked. I reached up and started scratching his mane with my free hand for all I was worth plus saying something calm.

It felt like his entire body sank around 6 inches. I know it didn't but it felt like it.

He was still worried, but we were back communicating again with him vastly settled.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hondo said:


> ....There are people of an agreeable nature that like to agree to get along. It's in their nature, but I don't see them as necessarily submissive. The horse is rated by many as one of the most agreeable animals on earth that just wants to get along...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm....if a horse or human is so agreeable that they always do what someone else wants, just to get along....well, I'd call that submissive. If you prefer agreeable, have a nut.

Now, notice the difference:

"*I read a post recently where a poster declared, "If a horse wants to start a fight with me, I will always be willing to oblige him". I'll look it up and reference it if you like.
*
VS: Originally Posted by *bsms* "_If the horse wants a fight, I might oblige him_."

What is the difference between "MIGHT" and "ALWAYS"? Hmmm?

So Hondo, if the horse starts bucking, do you...become "agreeable"? Fall off early, to avoid any further conflict?

My horse says, "I want to canter. Now!"

I say, "Not on pavement. Not a good idea."

He says, "Oh yeah?" and starts bucking.

Should I provide any negative consequences? Or should I be agreeable and bail?

Of course, it would be nice if my horse didn't try bucking, but that's how he came. He does it far less now. But I don't start my horses, breed my own, etc. All of the horses in my corral came with some bad habits. And some good.

I happen to like my horse. For the most part, he likes me. We ride most days. In the last year, he has bucked briefly twice, the last time being about 8-9 months ago.

But I did not, in any way, claim *"If a horse wants to start a fight with me, I will always be willing to oblige him"*.

A horse who bucks, bites, bolts or spins will have some boundaries set, if I'm the rider. You do what you want.

For reference, the quote in context:



bsms said:


> I would phrase it, "_If the horse wants a fight, I might oblige him_."
> 
> It isn't as though I insist on unquestioning obedience or else. And I have no problem with taking extra time when Bandit's problem is fear or lack of understanding. But sometimes, he just wants his own way. And like a 3 year old kid, he can't always understand that having his own way would cause problems. In his journal, @*Alhefner* mentions "_working with Mr. "I don't wanna!" Barney this afternoon_". I can relate.
> 
> Man or horse, sometimes you have to do the tough thing now to get to the happy things afterward. If Bandit never gets pushed to stretch his comfort zone - and I cannot do so perfectly, so I'll sometimes push too hard - then he'll never have the comfort zone that allows him the freedom to go out and burn energy and be trusted and do things he enjoys...


BTW - this time, I am quitting this thread for good. I see no value in it.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Thanks for your contribution.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I am also getting to the point where this thread has ceased to have any value.
Many here, myself included, tried to explain, when that ask, tell and demand has application.
It is not on a horse that does not yet understand a cue, and those of us that do use that ask, tell demand in the correct situation, are not abusive, and whether you believe it or not Hondo, have just as good a relationship with our hroses, as you do with Hondo.
In fact, when those horses left, Hondo still had you, did he not? Would it surprise you, that on a working ranch, horses often split up, go after cows,splitting from their group that they rode out with, and do so, without being concerned.
Their leader is still on their back, and not galloping off down the trail
Some of us also do desire to ride a horse that is lighter then Hondo, and not all of us just wish to trail ride
Anyway, you are determined to try and shove the idea that there is never a need to use the demand, on a horse that understands a cue , but decides he would just rather not listen, first to the ask, then to the tell,used with just enough stimulus to get the desired response.
That is simply not true.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Thank you for your contribution.


----------



## Unknown (Oct 2, 2016)

Hondo said:


> @*Unknown* Video isn't delivering sound. Adjacent vids do so problem does not appear to be in my apparatice.
> 
> The first part shows some stallions fighting which of course they do. They do of course as I have personally witnessed. Rees points out they do this in competition and that competition is not the most effective training tool...if that is what you were getting at with the post.


I was trying to get the video to play in an effort to find common ground...to discuss why the wild horses would willingly follow the Judas horse, a horse they had never seen before. It has to do with what I'm trying to say, but can't get across. It doesn't matter as it's neither here nor there now. I'm done too.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

All,

I did a little soul searching last night and came to the realization that for some time now I have become increasingly troubled deep down by the ethics of even general trail riding and that this of course is something I will have to work out for myself in the privacy of my own mind heart and soul.

Hopefully that will help explain what seems to some as my unreasonable aversion to ask-tell-demand or anything at all that can be construed as a hostile act or attitude towards the horse.

I'll make this my last post also with it being mostly directed at myself.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Ok one more.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I respect your journey, @Hondo , because at heart it is a spiritual quest which asks the big questions without flinching away from the answers you are getting (i don't mean the other posters, I mean the answers coming from your heart). It seems to me that the end of your search may well be to not ride at all. That's an honest answer. 

Because this board is by and large comprised of people who are 1.committed riders, and 2.not engaged on the same quest you are, I don't know how much we have to offer you in terms of support. 

Life is nothing but compromises and ambiguities. Today I ducked out of helping a 90 year old lady move vases of flowers in the church after Mass because I was, face it, too lazy. But on my way out I saw a homeless girl sitting on the sidewalk with her face in her hands, and I stopped, gave her money and directed her to help she wasn't aware of. Then I went and paid to get my car washed because I didn't feel like washing it myself. That was all in one hour of my day. If I was God I'd have a hard time totaling it up, you know? That's how our being with animals is too. If we are convinced we are doing it right, we're lying to ourselves. Because we just don't know.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Hondo said:


> All,
> I did a little soul searching last night and came to the realization that for some time now I have become increasingly troubled deep down by the ethics of even general trail riding and that this of course is something I will have to work out for myself in the privacy of my own mind heart and soul.


I've been down that route, just exploring it and ended up at Nevzorov. Which I came quickly to reject, his idea of banning all horse sport based on supposedly altruistic beliefs. 
For myself, I could not accept that all these things we did for horses were wrong, because we end up giving them a better life in exchange for the work they do for us. If they were not working for us, they'd be working for their own survival and it can be far more harsh out there, with horses living shortened lives. So many of our modern horses are not adapted for it at all and would quickly suffer and die.

It is impossible at this point in history that all the horses would be provided for ideally and well cared for without doing anything for their owners. Actually, that has not been the case for horses at any point in human history so far. 

And I can't agree that all the horses working for humans by being ridden are suffering as Nevzorov claims, because I've seen horses enjoying themselves and forming bonds with their riders. His claims about the back breaking down because it is not meant to hold a rider's weight for more than 20 minutes have not held up in my experience, and I've seen evidence of horses with good strong backs into old age after being ridden in well fitted saddles. 

So go down that route if you need to, but it is a narrow road that only accounts for a select few horses rather than considering the lives of the majority of horses in the world. I believe most of the horses I'm around are better off for being ridden and loved by their owners.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@gottatrot Had not heard of Nevzorov. Looked him up. While I definitely do believe that many things done to horses for human entertainment consists of abject cruelty, as I know you also do, my problem area has nothing at all to do with anything anybody other than what myself is doing. I do not wish or intend to attempt to interject what I feel about anything onto someone else. That's way way above my pay grade.

I care deeply for my dog Meka. I recieve a great deal of comfort from her presence. For the most part, she does exactly what she wants when she wants. In my retirement, I do pretty much the same. But of course, Meka goes where I go unless it is too hot for her thick fur and she bows out. When left at home one day she tracked me down in the hills 23 miles away.

I recieve the same pleasure and comfort from Hondo's presence, even when out of sight. If I'm laying in the grass, he will often approach and graze all around me bumping his nose on me occasionally. I do believe he enjoys my presence from this and other behavior. And at some level, I think he knows I enjoy his.

So, @Avna if I were to quit riding, which is far far from a given, Hondo would remain in my care and always will while I'm able. Yes, whether some would want to agree, life is, itself, a spiritual journey and quest.

This whole idea was not a problem in the beginning. Wasn't even thought about. It's just that the more I came to actually care about Hondo that the that the concerns began brewing. I'm sure many wouldn't understand. My old cowboy friend that is my age said, "Well, yeah, I guess sometimes a guy can get a little attached to one if he rides him a lot". That was about it for him. That's from an ex wild horse race designated rider.

So yeah, it's a personal quest, just for me, but all this should give an idea why I'm so determined to find a work-around for demand, for myself, not for anyone else.

At a very young age my mother told me I was too chicken hearted. Well, theory is our base personalities don't change much after age 5 YO. So I reckon I'm just stuck with who I am.

Actually I'm starting to be more like I always was than I've ever been before.

Thanks to you both for your understanding comments.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Hondo said:


> While I definitely do believe that many things done to horses for human entertainment consists of abject cruelty, as I know you also do, my problem area has nothing at all to do with anything anybody other than what myself is doing. I do not wish or intend to attempt to interject what I feel about anything onto someone else. That's way way above my pay grade.


I'm guessing most on this thread would not have any issues with your personal journey and decisions, and yes, I agree many things done to horses are cruel. But I am not willing to exclude training that is considered humane by most animal people, or riding horses.



Hondo said:


> So yeah, it's a personal quest, just for me, but all this should give an idea why I'm so determined to find a work-around for demand, for myself, not for anyone else.


I try to not use demand if possible, but I can't rule it out if it comes down to safety. Such as yesterday when it came down to either risking a mini horse running loose downtown with a cart attached, or demanding that the horse stopped and doing everything necessary to accomplish that (diving for the reins and stopping the horse with some force). 

I'll submit something, and I mean this in the kindest possible way. I'm not sure how to put this exactly, but I've run into it with myself and others. It's a type of subtle dishonesty that we can have with ourselves. For some reason we don't want to do something, but instead of just openly and honestly facing the whys, we will find another philosophical "out" for ourselves. Sometimes we say our horse doesn't like something, but it's really that _we _don't like it. We can talk about how the horse physically isn't up for something, or that his training isn't good enough, but if we were truly honest about it, we would find that we might be trying to get out of something because it is frightening or even just boring for us. Or too much work.

I watch for this with myself, because I feel it is a human tendency. I've heard every excuse for not going riding, and then had someone finally admit they weren't enjoying it. That's fine, but even if having horses carry us around is a type of coercion, that doesn't mean it is an inhumane thing to do. Dogs do tricks, and that may be "exploiting" them, but many seem to enjoy being exploited for treats. We all work for a living, or we have in the past, or someone else works for our livelihood. Or some have disability early on, such as horses born unsound for riding. But that doesn't mean all those who do work are unhappy, or that work itself should not be asked of other creatures. I think if you asked an animal, they would say they are working much of the time - looking for food or their "livelihood." So riding is just another form of work, and nothing to be resented if approached in a way seen as fair by the animal. 

Some seem to feel that horses turned out are not working, but finding food and foraging is a type of work for animals. We just ask them to do other types of work for us. If you truly wanted to create a life of no work or utopia for a horse, it probably would be unhealthy for them mentally, because they're adapted to a life of working.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@gottatrot

As far as not enjoying riding, I continue to enjoy it immensely. And far as not wanting to perform the physical output required, riding is one of the less physical outputs I do for recreation. Physical outputs are a form of recreation for me. I dream up projects that require it.

Even when riding, I will dismount on the most strenuous climbs and lead him. Good for him, good for me. 

Watched your video of the saga of the mini that suspected his cart of biting him in the groin. This did not involve what I view as demand. My thoughts on demand consists of an attitude that is uncomfortable to me. Other's thoughts on demand may be different than mine. It can be massaged and defined in differing ways. What I saw and read regarding the mini sago involved rescue and caring. 

If someone grabs a child's arm and jerks them out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, I do not associate that with a demand that the child not be allowed to be ran over.

Like mentioned, this is my own thing as I determined after my more serious mulling.

Again, as far as physical output, Hondo needs more exercise that he would get in his field if I were to actually stop riding him which would leave me faced with even more physical output in order to provide the exercise his body needs for maximum health.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

If horses weren't ridden then how many horses would there be? 

It is like the whole world turning vegetarian, there would be few animals.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Foxhunter said:


> If horses weren't ridden then how many horses would there be?
> 
> It is like the whole world turning vegetarian, there would be few animals.


Much of the world is, in fact, mostly vegetarian, because meat is so expensive to produce. If the wealthy countries became mostly vegetarian, there would be plenty of animals, they just wouldn't be domestic ones. Where we have turned the Great Plains into corn and soybean and wheat fields, most of which feed livestock, there would be herds of wild grazers. 

I can think of worse futures. 

I was a vegetarian for many years. Ain't that big a deal. 

Anyway I don't remember Hondo saying nobody should ride.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Avna, I agree and am certainly not against anyone being vegetarian and, far more food could be produced on the land it takes to feed animals. 

I was just using it as an example.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Just came in to post some more thoughts on atd. I've definitely no problem with it in any way as, for instance, @gottatrot describes it.

The problem I have is my first introduction to atd with someone in a very demanding and domineering body language pose almost demanding that I atd.

And further, and this is most of it, I am inclined to think that the widespread popularity of the training/interaction of the atd paradigm, if that's the correct description, too often (emphasis on too often-not always) engenders an attitude toward the horse that is not helpful with regard to the positive relationship between horse and rider, for those that desire that. Not necessarily the acts themselves, but the domineering attitude. I don't like domineering attitudes directed towards me and believe the horse doesn't either. If given a choice in a natural setting, the horse does not choose a horse with a domineering attitude for a buddy.

And again, I'm far from not riding. When returning from a ride Hondo shows no interest in returning. If I did not encourage him to keep moving at times, I'm sure he would lollygag along until dark or after. His lack of anxiousness to return to the herd suggests to me that he is not all that anxious to get me off his back.

That said, when we are back within 1/2 mile or less from his field, he does get anxious. My perceptions conclude that the herd is back on his mind and he is concerned if they are still there and what has transpired in his absence.

If I see them when we re-enter, which I normally do, I'll ride over near them and stop at which time Hondo lets out a huge human sounding sigh and begins grazing. We'll soon return to the yard/pen to detack with the others in tow.

So I am far from convinced that Hondo would prefer not to ever carry me around as some have suggested. There are some good things he gets to experience that he would not otherwise.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I know, I said that I would not comment anymore, but I have read some of the responses, and feel compelled to say something, as that is just part of who I am.

I totally respect your own journey, finding your own personnal balance,comfort level, refuting ever using the ATD, Hondo,as we all find our own comfort level that works for us and our own horses.Had to make that clear.

What I have a problem with, is the idea that you project, that if someone does use that ATD, correctly, they do not enjoy the kind of relationship that you have with Hondo, that their horse is not as happy in their presence, does not ride out cheerfully, happy to be going somewhere with them, but goes along like a dull repressed beast, robbed of any personality, working only under duress, avoiding your company, unless forced to endure it.
If I am working out side, and I have a horse loose in the yard, they also will come and graze in the arena that I am at.

When I ride a horse out, he is happy to ride out, relaxed coming and going, including that last little stretch home, never rushing, so what does never using ATD have to do with your personal soul searching, and where do you have the right, to imply that your commitment to Hondo, exceeds that of anyone of us,, in regards to our own horses, just because we use the ATD correctly, and only when it applies, and in the right degree?

I have not really ridden Smilie much, since that escapade two years ago, as feel she is not completely sound. Still, I manage her, build any time away around her needs, take her for walks with a grazing muzzle, to give her timeout of that drylott, have researched all kinds of supplements, bought many styles of hoof boots,so how dare you suggest, even in a subliminal way, that just because I have at times, to create alight horse, used that ATD in a fair and correct way, have horses not as bonded to me, as happy, or that I am less committed to their well being.

There is a sane middle ground, and that is based on feel, really understanding hroses, having used and enjoyed horses in many activities, including those that require a degree of lightness, and not by reading internet dogma of endless projected phycological musings, trying to make a horse other than what he is,not recognizing him for the magnificent being he is, in his own right, versus trying to project human type emotions onto him

Horses hang out in peer groups, that is a given. Turn a bunch of yearlings out with the main herd, and they will hang out with each other.
This has nothing to do with not wishing to hang out with more dominant horses, but rather to the fact that a dominant gelding will drive those yearlings off, an din fact, give them permission, as to when they can enter the main herd
It is also natural, since there can only be one leader,other horses are not going to chose them to hang out with, but rather more horses in their own herd status.
That again has nothing to do with us being leaders to that horse, with that horse not enjoying our presence just because we are a clear and fair leader

Okay, apologies for going back on my resolution, but I really thought that this endless convoluted and often repetitious thread had breathed it's ;last gasp, and perhaps found some common ground that you could both accept and understand,Hondo, and perhaps really consider the genuine responses to your original post, taht took your question seriously tried to truly answer and explain as to when ATD had application, versus just as an introduction to your already locked in conclusion on that subject, that you wished to extrapolate on.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

@Smilie If we can somehow remain pleasant, considerate, and polite during our exchanges, even when we disagree on a particular point, we will both benefit, others on the forum will benefit, and most importantly, our horses will benefit.

Happy people have happy horses.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

This thread is closed for moderating review.


ETA:

Please remember that we debate ideas here. It's ok to disagree and critisize, even strongly. but keep it to the method, not the member.

Re-opening


----------

