# Horse with unwilling attitude



## aqharyder (Jan 25, 2009)

I'm sorry to hear about your issue with your horse and I can sure understand how you feel. I did have a horse very similiar to this. She just did not want to do anything. We would have a really good work session one day, and then the next day it was like it never happened. She refused to go forward, crow hop when trying to put her into the lope, and would bolt for the gate. It was maddening. She was absolutely beautiful, had beautiful gaits, but she was never going to to do well because of her attitude. 

I kept her for 3 years, about 2-1/2 years too long, hoping it would eventually work out, but in the end I sold her for a lot less than I bought her for, but I was glad to see her go. I think what finally made me realize I needed to sell her was that I no longer wanted to go to the barn and was always making up excuses not to go.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't do H/E so I may be off base here but it sounds to me like he's been pushed too fast. He's just now 5 & has been doing all that.


----------



## eventer2012 (Mar 18, 2012)

Actually he will be 6 in a couple of months. Honestly that has been my concern a couple of time and I've gone back to the basics with him multiple times and spent a lot of time on groundwork and dressage but nothing improves his attitude. One day he may be great the next he will just quit on me and we will have major issues. I've free schooled him multiple times over 4' oxers and jumped him over 3'6" oxers but usually I keep him around 2'9"-3" when I do jump him more for my own comfort (he generally overjumps everything). Its really not the height of the fence that is the issue or how often we jump. I've spent multiple weeks where we just do flatwork and he still will suddenly throw a fit over a 20 meter circle at the trot that we did 4 times before without an issue. When he is willing he is awesome its just frustrating because he has all of the talent in the world to be an awesome show horse but I don't know how to make him want to work with me. I'm just wondering if he will grow out of this attitude as I have never trained a horse with this attitude before.


----------



## aqharyder (Jan 25, 2009)

I really was hoping the same thing. My horse was 4 and I sold her when she was 7, but she only got worse. I really do hope though that your situation will turn out better.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

eventer2012 said:


> Actually he will be 6 in a couple of months. Honestly that has been my concern a couple of time and I've gone back to the basics with him multiple times and spent a lot of time on groundwork and dressage but nothing improves his attitude. One day he may be great the next he will just quit on me and we will have major issues. I've free schooled him multiple times over 4' oxers and jumped him over 3'6" oxers but usually I keep him around 2'9"-3" when I do jump him more for my own comfort (he generally overjumps everything). Its really not the height of the fence that is the issue or how often we jump. I've spent multiple weeks where we just do flatwork and he still will suddenly throw a fit over a 20 meter circle at the trot that we did 4 times before without an issue. When he is willing he is awesome its just frustrating because he has all of the talent in the world to be an awesome show horse but I don't know how to make him want to work with me. I'm just wondering if he will grow out of this attitude as I have never trained a horse with this attitude before.


My guess is he didn't want to do it 5 times. :wink: Some horses don't like the drilling & need variety. He sounds like he is really smart, those types like to be kept on their toes.
I have one that is a pistol to school inside but take her out where she has to think about where she puts her feet or get through an obstacle & she shines. Her inside or arena schooling has gotten much better too since we started riding some trails.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

natisha said:


> My guess is he didn't want to do it 5 times. :wink: Some horses don't like the drilling & need variety. He sounds like he is really smart, those types like to be kept on their toes.
> I have one that is a pistol to school inside but take her out where she has to think about where she puts her feet or get through an obstacle & she shines. *Her inside or arena schooling has gotten much better too since we started riding some trails*.


 
That was my thought.


----------



## PaintedFury (Aug 18, 2010)

I would have to whole heartedly agree with Natisha. It sounds like this horse needs some time outside of the arena or training pen. He is quite simply bored. You can only do the same thing so many times before it becomes tedious. That him out on the trails a couple of days a week, and enjoy riding him, and let him enjoy the different scenery. You may find out that after a trail ride or two his attitude may improve. Training a horse for a specific discipline is fine, but they need some down time to just chill while being ridden as well. I would imagine that you are also getting bored with constantly doing the same maneuvers over and over again.

You may find out that with a little time spent on anything other than training while you are on his back may very well reveal a new horse to you.


----------



## Lins (Nov 8, 2011)

I would try different things with him. Give him a break from routine and turn him out, and just play with him. He may just need to experience some fun things in life to help inspire him. Sounds to me like he lost his spark, and hopefully he will be able to get it back. He may be one of those horses that was born without a spark. I've worked with a few that lost their spark, and what I did was turn them out and gave them a winter off with a herd. Helped for them to re ignite their interest in life and become a horse again, rather then be a tool for someone to use.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## aqharyder (Jan 25, 2009)

I truly hope that the above posters are right, and he just needs a change of scenary. Unfortunately, there are some horses, not many thank goodness, that just have a bad attitude and nothing seems to be able to change it. I hate being so negative about it, and again I really hope your horse is not one of them, but having had a horse like that and trying different methods and time off and trail riding, etc. (me and my trainer and even sending her to a trainer who dealt with problem horses) I just thought I would let you know of my experience in case he is one of those horses.


----------



## GreenBackJack (Feb 23, 2012)

Another voice echoing the boredom issue. Look on the bright side of it, he's smart...of course the downside is you have to be smarter.LOL 
Seriously, my Appy is this way. He figures out the "routine" in about two seconds and then turns to me and says "uh huh, so what's my motivation here?" Before tossing in the towel try finding ways to keep him guessing at what's coming next and reward him frequently. He's got talent so figure out a way that makes using that talent something that is rewarding for him, not just you. Like your trainer said, all the talent is between his ears. That's where you need to work him.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

One of the nastiest, meanest and dangerous horses I have had the pleasure to handle was a WB mare whose intention in life was to severely injure anyone who came near her. 
I had one sort out session with her and we came to an agreement. She respected me and as she was not in work I asked the owner if I could ride her. The reply was 'at my own risk'
First time I rode her she was standing on her back legs most of the time. Then she worked in an advanced dressage manner despite me pressing wrong buttons!
I decided to ride her out and she was spookier than a three year old but she enjoyed it.

This mare had been bought for a lot of money as a dressage horse but that was all she id, twiddle around in an arena and always ridden on the bridle. She learned to have fun, charging across open fields, jumping whatever was in the way, being allowed to go in a very relaxed manner - even having a buck or two, not to drop me but to say "hey, this is great!"

Horses get bored and need variety. You can work a horse schooling wise whilst out on a hack. 
Having said that, to be good in his field a horse has to want to work with you and enjoy the job he is going to do or you will get nothing from them.


----------



## eventer2012 (Mar 18, 2012)

I understand the change of scenery ideal but he is so much better in an indoor arena than being ridden outside. Our problems inside or ten times worse outside and I've tried riding him outside and in different arenas trying to break up the routine but in new environments its really hard to predict him. He may have a laid back attitude or he may just fight me the whole time. I've taken him on trail rides a few times and I can certainly try to trail ride him more often but it quickly becomes a war every step of the way unless another horse is with us at which point he is the calmest trail horse. I've given him time off but I honestly think it makes him worse. He lives outside with a couple of other horses so he isn't stuck in a stall all day. Its just difficult because I really want him to want to work with me and I'm not sure how to get that out of him.


----------



## Super Nova (Apr 27, 2010)

aqharyder said:


> I truly hope that the above posters are right, and he just needs a change of scenary. Unfortunately, there are some horses, not many thank goodness, that just have a bad attitude and nothing seems to be able to change it. I hate being so negative about it, and again I really hope your horse is not one of them, but having had a horse like that and trying different methods and time off and trail riding, etc. (me and my trainer and even sending her to a trainer who dealt with problem horses) I just thought I would let you know of my experience in case he is one of those horses.


Would have to agree....I have one such horse......came with attitude at 9 months old......had a professional trainer involved from the get go......but still was a lot of hard work.......it is a lot better but she still has issues and will likely have issues till the day she dies....its just who she is.....she will be 10 this year.......The challenge has been rewarding but frustrating....but for me it was all about the learning curve.......and I have no aspirations to show.......just want to learn so it works for me.......plus I have other horses to ride who do like to work.

Super Nova


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I have reschooled a number of sour horses. Some needed to go back to the beginning because, in the rush to get the horse showing, they were badly overfaced. They became scared and sour. Slow retraining helped these horses.

Others were very smart and simply needed to be kept challenged. Instead of raising the jumps higher than they were ready for, I simply made the distances and turns tougher to give them a challenge.

Some were taught through NEGATIVE reinforcement. If they did something wrong, they were punished. If they did something correctly, they were not punished. There was very little reason for a horse to learn to WANT to do a good job. I train with positive reinforcement. If a horse does poorly, I usually ignore it and keep asking. When they do it even a TINY bit better, I praise praise praise! I teach them that praise comes whenever they try even a little bit. This works especially well with intelligent horses. I will give them a challenge I know they can do well, just so I can give them lots of pats. This makes a horse really want to try for you.

I have taken big and sour jumpers, give them a small grid to go through and then just be all over them with rubs when they do it. It was no challenge, but they decided they liked the rubs so much they would want to do it again to get them all over again.

See where I am going with this? The stallion in my avatar was a breeding stallion that, at age seven, had never been put under saddle. He was deemed too rank and no trainers wanted to deal with him. He was being bred because he had royal bloodlines and made nice talented babies. I actually asked to work with him because I did not think the hose was evil. And, besides, I like the rank (smart) horses. Within two weeks of dealing with him firmly, but positively, he was a whole different horse. His ego really made him want to be my best friend.

Sadly, there are also the horses who, for a variety of reasons, will never perform for you. Either they have ingrained emotional issues that you will never be able to overcome, or they simply *hate the job being asked of them*. If that is the case, find a job they do like and sell him to a situation that will get him there.

I had a client who bought a stunning and talented TB to event. The horse just didn't like doing it, no matter what. I took him foxhunting, and he loved it so much he bacame a totally different horse. He was sold to a staff member who said he was the best horse she has ever whipped on.

Good luck in deciding which of these catagories your horse might fit in. I would first, go back and see if any basics were missed and work him with extreme positive reinforcement and see if it changes anything.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

Sounds like a case of too much too young and the result is a very sour horse who needs either turning away entirely for a year of just nice gentle hacking out.

My young horseis a chronic bolter, he will go past something 4 times and on the 5th it is a pony eating monster out to get him and he bolts for home. The way i'm working round this is that I dont ask him 5 times, we do the vast majority of our schooling out on hacks and we do a max of 3 hours total in the school per week, normal routine is
sat: 45min hack to trainers, 1hr flatwork lesson in the school, 45 min hack home.
sun: 1hr hack out normaly working on forwards and getting his back end under him a bit further.
monday: day off, if i'm feeling perticularly energetic I may do some ground work with him
Tuesday: lunging or long reining for 30 mins
wed: hack out for 30 mins normaly followed by 15 mins in the school
Thursday: same as wednesday normaly however sometimes I do mix it up and pony does some free jumping or jumping on the lunge for approx 30mins.
Friday: normaly a nice long hack out.

a friend on the yard who has an eventer, normaly doesnt do more than 2 jumping sessions per week and normaly the jumps are small, the sessions short and lots and lots of variety.


----------



## SkyeDawn (Mar 31, 2011)

This may sound silly, but what is the relationship like between you two? Are you the one that feeds him? Do you spend time with him just hanging out? Does he only see you to work?

If the main problem is 'he doesn't want to work for you' maybe try building up your relationship? It might seem like a small thing, but if you don't have a relationship with my mare, she will just go through the motions. If she likes you and really wants to work for you, she will give you the moon.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

AF, thats not how negative reinforcement works. nor is that how positive reinforcement works, unless by pats you mean food.

my advice is to forget about jumping/eventing untill you've put a better handle on him, and work on your application of the aids.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

I was told by a clinician when my horse was young that he was dangerous and should be in the hands of an experienced professional. Almost 4 years later and with the right coach I still have him and he has turned out to be the best horse I could have possibly owned. He loves to jump, I love to hack out and when we get bored, that is what we do. He is similar, but he tries so hard for you, sometimes in the wrong way and when you correct him he gets offended and as a young horse would do the same "shutting down". You could break a 2x4 over his bum and he wouldn't budge an inch. This is where first of all having an awesome coach helped, then jumping him helped and hacking out helped. I also try to ride with lots of praise and few, but quick and clear, corrections and clear aids. I ride Dressage, btw.
However, I will say, I get along with these personalities. The very dominant, aloof types are my favorite. I don't like a horse who is not emotionally independent. However, you find that they have specific issues, like TMJ and general tensions in the jaw and neck. My RMT has done wonders to help my horse with this and the improvement is very noticeable. Mental breaks are also really important as they are so stoic. I can't stress enough that you have to find his "fun" button or activity. Have you tried driving? Obstacles like gates and tarps? Going for a good run? Etc...

Good luck!


Eta I also don't think the horse has been overfaced, persay, but I do agree with Allison that the challenge in schooling should come more from turns and lines instead of height. Maybe try more low gridwork to get him to focus and stop over jumping.

Eta again I also just thought about diet, it is also very important. Maybe also sit shown with a nutritionist and find what found be changed in his diet type improve his ability to work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

christopher said:


> AF, thats not how negative reinforcement works. nor is that how positive reinforcement works, unless by pats you mean food.
> 
> .


Really? Well, in the 40+ years that I have been training professionally and showing at some of the largest shows and events in this country and others, I sure have made quite a good reputation for training the rank horse this way. I have a proven record and this is precisely how I do it. I do NOT use food for reward. 

If you prefer to teach through negative reinforcement/bullying, and it works for you, then that's great. Not my cup of tea.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

christopher said:


> AF, thats not how negative reinforcement works. nor is that how positive reinforcement works, unless by pats you mean food.


Really?? Would you care to enlighten us then??


----------



## Casey02 (Sep 20, 2011)

Do you ever take the horse out to be brushed and put him back, or take him out to graze on a lead and put him back? Where it doesnt mean work all the time and he can feel relaxed with you, not saying to do it every day but a mental break every now and then may help along with what others have said!


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Reinforcement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SkyeDawn (Mar 31, 2011)

christopher said:


> Reinforcement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


From the article you linked:



> Skinner defined reinforcement as creating situations that a person likes or removing a situation he doesn't like, and punishment as removing a situation a person likes or setting up one he doesn't like.[2] Thus the distinction was based on the appetitive or aversive nature of the stimulus. Azrin and Holz defined punishment "as 'a reduction of the future probability of a specific response as a result of the immediate delivery of a stimulus for that response'."[4] This new definition of punishment encroached on Skinner's definition of reinforcement, but most textbooks now only present examples of the 1966 model summarized below:
> Helpful definitions:
> Appetitive stimulus: a pleasant outcome
> Aversive stimulus: an unpleasant outcome


I'm assuming the reason you think that positive reinforcement relies on food is the word 'appetite'. However, appetite does not just mean food. It can also mean: 



> ap·pe·tite/ˈapiˌtīt/
> Noun:
> A natural desire to satisfy a bodily need, esp. for food.
> *A strong desire or liking for something.*


If a horse likes getting pets and loved on, that is positive reinforcement. It will strive to do the correct thing in order to get the pats.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

a raw horse that enjoys pats & being loved on (by us at least) is either non-existant or a genetic abnormality, which in a natural environment would lead to their death, and the death of the gene itsself. on top of that, there would've been no reason for such a gene to occur in the first place anyway, and since domestication there would've been no reason for it to occur or reoccur.

they can (seemingly) learn to "like" pats, and the way to achieve that is using negative reinforcement. you pat them untill they're enjoying it more, or not enjoying it less, then you release. negative reinforcement. but that 'enjoyment' isn't actual enjoyment, its just the horse displaying what we perceive to be enjoyment in an attempt to get out of patting (as it learned through -reinfocement) because horses dont enjoy patting or being loved on as mentioned earlier (and it is indeed an "aversive stimulus"). so pats as a positive reinforcer don't exist. premack principle maybe but positive reinforcement no.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

I call BS that ponies dont like patting.
I have a horse that will come to you and demand patting/storking and cuddling.
He will litteraly canter up to you in the field (i do poo picking whilst he is in there) and demand a head scratch or a cuddle


----------



## mls (Nov 28, 2006)

christopher said:


> AF, thats not how negative reinforcement works. nor is that how positive reinforcement works, unless by pats you mean food.


 


christopher said:


> a raw horse that enjoys pats & being loved on (by us at least) is either non-existant or a genetic abnormality, which in a natural environment would lead to their death, and the death of the gene itsself. on top of that, there would've been no reason for such a gene to occur in the first place anyway, and since domestication there would've been no reason for it to occur or reoccur.
> 
> they can (seemingly) learn to "like" pats, and the way to achieve that is using negative reinforcement. you pat them untill they're enjoying it more, or not enjoying it less, then you release. negative reinforcement. but that 'enjoyment' isn't actual enjoyment, its just the horse displaying what we perceive to be enjoyment in an attempt to get out of patting (as it learned through -reinfocement) because horses dont enjoy patting or being loved on as mentioned earlier (and it is indeed an "aversive stimulus"). so pats as a positive reinforcer don't exist. premack principle maybe but positive reinforcement no.


 
Are you saying food is the only positive reinforcement?

I assume you ride motorcycles and not living, breathing, feeling horses. Horses act and react. If you have never had a horse 'preen' at a pat and verbal praise, you don't know what you are doing. (or missing!)

I find it very interesting that all of my horses have genetic abnormalities. That is - if I follow your line of reasoning.


----------



## minstrel (Mar 20, 2012)

christopher said:


> a raw horse that enjoys pats & being loved on (by us at least) is either non-existant or a genetic abnormality, which in a natural environment would lead to their death, and the death of the gene itsself. on top of that, there would've been no reason for such a gene to occur in the first place anyway, and since domestication there would've been no reason for it to occur or reoccur.
> 
> they can (seemingly) learn to "like" pats, and the way to achieve that is using negative reinforcement. you pat them untill they're enjoying it more, or not enjoying it less, then you release. negative reinforcement. but that 'enjoyment' isn't actual enjoyment, its just the horse displaying what we perceive to be enjoyment in an attempt to get out of patting (as it learned through -reinfocement) because horses dont enjoy patting or being loved on as mentioned earlier (and it is indeed an "aversive stimulus"). so pats as a positive reinforcer don't exist. premack principle maybe but positive reinforcement no.



Um, they do like positive attention, and it is a natural evolutionary development as they have evolved to be social, herd animals, that need positive interactions to be secure in their herd position. If a dominant animal gives them positive attention, including grooming and rubbing (incredibly similar to our stroking) then they feel more secure.

Patting, admittedly, is something horses get used to with age, and gradually learn to associate with positive attention when it is accompanied by positive verbal interactions. Horses don't naturally understanding that patting is positive, and that's why I tend to stroke young, green or timid horses rather than pat them. But if you think they don't like being stroked and generally touched and spoken to in a positive way, then you obviously know little about interacting with horses. Positive reinforcement.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

A scratch on the withers and a "Good Boy!" really encourages my horse I find. He physically relaxes and takes a deep sigh breath if I "Good Boy!" him during a particularily difficult movement like a pirouette, increasing his ability to work better. He tries too hard, like I said, and it cen generate some negative tension and the best way I've found to dissipate it (when he is going in a correct way) is to "Good Boy!" him, scratch his withers or come to a halt and stroke his neck.
For him food is purely for sustinence. I have tried training him on food stuffs and it has not worked at all. For example - whistle-pee-carrot training has been going on for over a year and he still pees whenever it suits him and not when I whistle. He gets sugar before his bridle goes on and a carrot in his stall or field and he knows that and expects it but does not mug me for treats or food, but attention and scratches he basically demands haha.
Horses really do like to please us and so we have to a) let them please us by setting them up for success b) celebrate the small victories with YES verbal and physical praise and c) use praise a lot, and corrections sparingly and only when needed. Horses are social animals and thrive on physical touch and verbal cues. When horses are buddies with each other, they mutually groom, they swish their tails in eachothers faces to keep flies away, they huddle together for warmth in the winter and they whinny and nicker to eachother. In their phsychology touch and sound are associated with familiar, friendly herd mates while hooves and teeth and squealing are associated with fighting or unfamiliar horses. They do associate touch and sound with things, why not associate the same positive touch and sound to their training? Is that not what positive reinforcement is?


----------



## Hunter65 (Aug 19, 2009)

Hunter never used to like scratches much but now I am finding his sweet spots, he stretches his neck so far he looks like a giraffe. lol And he LOVES to hear "good boy".


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

christopher said:


> a raw horse that enjoys pats & being loved on (by us at least) is either non-existant or a genetic abnormality.


I guess both my horses are genetic abnormalities then. Especially my paint that comes and stick her head to my fingers asking for the pat. 

BTW have you seen horses grooming each other with the teeth? They do it all the time, and clearly enjoy. So "pats" in fact is part of the herd communication, and I don't see how people are much different.


----------



## Jacksmama (Jan 27, 2010)

I have one of the aloof, independent, somewhat "unwilling" types. I have owned him since he was a month old and was there within minutes of his birth. Most people dislike him, honestly they call him an a**hole quite often. I do admit, it took some time for us to come to an understanding and I considered selling him when he was a yearling because of his attitude, but I perservered and wouldn't trade him as a 6 yr old. Believe me, Jack and I have had numerous come to Jesus meetings and I don't put up with outright disrespect or aggression, but I have found that for my grumpy gus very subtle, light cues are 10,000 times more successful than demands. ASKING is more effective than telling. And it is a MUST to keep things interesting for him. Our situation is a little different because I had years of ground time with him forming a bond before we ever started work under saddle, but because we have that bond he will try his little gaited heart out for me when I ask where he would(and has) bull up and shut down for anyone else. He is completely disinterested in other people, but follows me around the pasture and along fence lines, whickers at me when I pull up, nuzzles and wants constant attention from me. I don't show much anymore, but on the trails there is nothing he won't attempt for me. 

Personally, I would spend a few months spending more time on the ground playing with him than in the saddle. Sit in the pasture and read a book with him. (If you're able) hop on bareback in the pasture and goof off. Take him for a walk on the lead line and just meander, occasionally letting him graze. Not to say quit riding, but don't make your rides so much about preparing for a show and more about enjoying yourselves. Fine, pop a couple jumps, then do something else. Of course you don't want him to revert in training, but as mentioned above try to make it less of a drill. He has A LOT of performance years left in him.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

I say, cross-training. Just bc your horse was trained for jumping doesn't mean he wouldn't enjoy hacking on the trail or playing with some barrels--how about teaching him to play soccer with one of those huge horse balls?
He is, after all, your partner. It's obvious why he was sold, but, if you really like him you can make his time with you more fun. How about teaching him some tricks on the ground?
I believe that if you create a better relationship with him than his last owner he'll work for you. Than you can intersperse jumping with any of the new skills and disciplines that appeal to the two of you. I'm suggesting a good year of this retraining bc retraining sometimes takes about 10x as long to really sink in.
Good luck!


----------



## 1997magic (Mar 14, 2012)

Hmm, I'm sorry to hear that. When I work with horses that are like that, you cant really get them a better attitude, or make them more willing, but he is still young, and could change. When I work on horses like that, you've got to try to make them regret that they did something bad. I'm not saying to be overly harsh with him, but make him feel like doing the things correctly is a better option than taking the easy way out. When I work on my western horses, like lets just say western pleasure for now, if they decide to speed up to nearly a gallop for no reason at all, I will back them up like 30 strides, and then do it again, and repeat that untill the horse decides to keep it slow. Horses don't really like backing, because it isn't something they would do often in the wild. They don't like how they can't see where they are going. So if you find something that is just a little unpleasant for him and do it whenever he does something wrong, he will learn that doing it right is much more enjoyable.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

Jacksmama said:


> I have one of the aloof, independent, somewhat "unwilling" types. I have owned him since he was a month old and was there within minutes of his birth. Most people dislike him, honestly they call him an a**hole quite often. I do admit, it took some time for us to come to an understanding and I considered selling him when he was a yearling because of his attitude, but I perservered and wouldn't trade him as a 6 yr old. Believe me, Jack and I have had numerous come to Jesus meetings and I don't put up with outright disrespect or aggression, but I have found that for my grumpy gus very subtle, light cues are 10,000 times more successful than demands. ASKING is more effective than telling. And it is a MUST to keep things interesting for him. Our situation is a little different because I had years of ground time with him forming a bond before we ever started work under saddle, but because we have that bond he will try his little gaited heart out for me when I ask where he would(and has) bull up and shut down for anyone else. He is completely disinterested in other people, but follows me around the pasture and along fence lines, whickers at me when I pull up, nuzzles and wants constant attention from me. I don't show much anymore, but on the trails there is nothing he won't attempt for me.
> 
> Personally, I would spend a few months spending more time on the ground playing with him than in the saddle. Sit in the pasture and read a book with him. (If you're able) hop on bareback in the pasture and goof off. Take him for a walk on the lead line and just meander, occasionally letting him graze. Not to say quit riding, but don't make your rides so much about preparing for a show and more about enjoying yourselves. Fine, pop a couple jumps, then do something else. Of course you don't want him to revert in training, but as mentioned above try to make it less of a drill. He has A LOT of performance years left in him.


 
This. 
You really, really have to take the time to learn how to work with these types of horses. It takes a few years and an infinite amount of patience, observance and an ability to learn and think quickly.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

christopher said:


> they can (seemingly) learn to "like" pats, and the way to achieve that is using negative reinforcement. you pat them untill they're enjoying it more, or not enjoying it less, then you release. negative reinforcement. but that 'enjoyment' isn't actual enjoyment, its just the horse displaying what we perceive to be enjoyment in an attempt to get out of patting (as it learned through -reinfocement) because horses dont enjoy patting or being loved on as mentioned earlier (and it is indeed an "aversive stimulus"). so pats as a positive reinforcer don't exist. premack principle maybe but positive reinforcement no.


just thought i'd quote that again. just because your horses runs to you or looks like he's enjoying it etc, doesnt mean he does, it's just a response to a stimulus.


----------



## SkyeDawn (Mar 31, 2011)

> Just thought i'd quote that again. Just because your horses runs to you or looks like he's enjoying it etc, doesnt mean he does, it's just a response to a stimulus.


If a horse seeks it out on his own, but it's not because he enjoys it, what then exactly is your definition of enjoyment?

What about a horse that leans into scratches? Isn't enjoyment fundamentally a positive response to a stimulus?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## minstrel (Mar 20, 2012)

christopher said:


> just thought i'd quote that again. just because your horses runs to you or looks like he's enjoying it etc, doesnt mean he does, it's just a response to a stimulus.


Pick a word: pseudoscientist, or troll.


----------



## SkyeDawn (Mar 31, 2011)

Aren't they the same?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

SkyeDawn said:


> If a horse seeks it out on his own, but it's not because he enjoys it, what then exactly is your definition of enjoyment?
> 
> What about a horse that leans into scratches? Isn't enjoyment fundamentally a positive response to a stimulus?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


doesn't matter what i think enjoyment is, the way we humans enjoy things and the way horses 'enjoy' things (if they have a sense of enjoyment at all) are not comparable.

also it's not pseudoscience it's animal behaviourism.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

christopher,it is not animal behaviourism it is someone quoteing things they don't realy understandand trying to make out that they do.
My horse enjoys cuddles, he acitivly seeks them out. they are a nice safe and enjoyable place for him to be
Horses will not seek out things they dont enjoy, infact they tend torun inthe opposite direction.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

faye said:


> Horses will not seek out things they dont enjoy, infact they tend torun inthe opposite direction.


the fact that we can interact with them at all contradicts this.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

well no, it doesnt contradict it, but we can train them otherwise - through a process called negative reinforcement (been there before in this thread). and using something a horse learned through negative reinforcement as a reward isn't positive reinforcement. premack's principle, not positive reinforcement.

so we can 'seemingly' contradict that fact. that doesn't mean the horse enjoys it, even if they bound up to greet you or seek out cuddles, again that just means thats how they respond to X stimulus.

and also, all the examples given in this thread of horses that DO like patting have been peoples personal horses. that you've probably had for a while, and that you've subconsciously been training to 'enjoy' the pats you give. so, i challenge you to go find some un-handled horses or any wild animal that has similar behaviour to horses (cattle, deer etc) and see how much it likes being patted without prior training.


----------



## minstrel (Mar 20, 2012)

christopher said:


> well no, it doesnt contradict it, but we can train them otherwise - through a process called negative reinforcement (been there before in this thread). and using something a horse learned through negative reinforcement as a reward isn't positive reinforcement. premack's principle, not positive reinforcement.
> 
> so we can 'seemingly' contradict that fact. that doesn't mean the horse enjoys it, even if they bound up to greet you or seek out cuddles, again that just means thats how they respond to X stimulus.
> 
> and also, all the examples given in this thread of horses that DO like patting have been peoples personal horses. that you've probably had for a while, and that you've subconsciously been training to 'enjoy' the pats you give. so, i challenge you to go find some un-handled horses or any wild animal that has similar behaviour to horses (cattle, deer etc) and see how much it likes being patted without prior training.




Ok, I'm sorry, but you really have got the wrong end of the stick. I spend a LOT of my course studying animal behaviour (I'm a vet student) and you have two main things wrong here:

Firstly, negative reinforcement is more about removing stimuli interfering with a behaviour you want to see, for example distracting stimuli such as leaving rugs within reach of tied up horses that can then chew on them, but removal of the rugs leaves them standing nicely. Applying an aversive stimulus to get a behavioural response (what you describe) is positive punishment rather than negative reinforcement, so patting a horse that doesn't want to be patted until it accepted it is, and I agree to this point, punishment training (o at the very least, habituation, where animals are trained to ignore a neutral or non-painful stimulus).

However, training an animal to present as if an aversive stimulus is a appetitive stimulus is going to be pretty difficult. And when we see that the percentage of horses that like to be touched is so high, we can't assume that it is specialist training that has caused that, but done subconsciously. We could assume that it is a form of habituation, which would tie in with the fact that 'wild' or feral horses don't like to be touched by humans and tame ones do.

BUT, what you are missing out on here is an important piece of background information, which ethologists would always take into account as evolutionary adaptation of instinct makes up so much of an animal's natural behaviours. HORSES ARE SOCIAL, and when they interact with each other in the wild, they touch each other for reassurance, both in their hierarchical roles (which are established using teeth, but maintained with muzzles) and just in the simple fact that they have company.

Initially, then, it is unnatural and uninstinctual for horses to be soothed by human touch they way they are by other horses. This is where habituation comes in. These animals are then habituized to interaction with humans to see it as a non-threatening stimulus, and accept being touched by them. This only, however, accounts for accepting handling, and does not account for any 'enjoyment' factor. This, I'm afraid, comes from actual enjoyment, which is associated with the enjoyment they get from social interactions and touch amongst the herd, and this is when horses begin to see humans as their herd and form an emotional bond. And I'm sorry, but you can't deny an emotional bond - anyone who's seen a horse go mental in the field when they smell their owner after a separation can't deny that they've missed them.

I agree that we anthropomorphise horses far too much, but at the end of the day the reason horses (and dogs) work so well as companion animals is because they are highly social, so our natural interactions overlap far more than with animals such as cats (who I've found a much higher percentage of who certainly don't 'enjoy' being petted, rather than putting up with it). However, just because we anthropomorphise them too much in other settings (such as some owners being unwilling to turn their horses out in the rain or cold, which I find mental) doesn't mean we have justification for ignoring their natural instincts to claim that they don't like being touched.

And the pseudoscience comment was possibly a bit harsh, but you have taken scientific vocabulary and tried to make a claim regardless of the ethological background, so you can see where I was coming from.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

minstrel said:


> Ok, I'm sorry, but you really have got the wrong end of the stick. I spend a LOT of my course studying animal behaviour (I'm a vet student) and you have two main things wrong here:
> 
> Firstly, negative reinforcement is more about removing stimuli interfering with a behaviour you want to see, for example distracting stimuli such as leaving rugs within reach of tied up horses that can then chew on them, but removal of the rugs leaves them standing nicely. Applying an aversive stimulus to get a behavioural response (what you describe) is positive punishment rather than negative reinforcement, so patting a horse that doesn't want to be patted until it accepted it is, and I agree to this point, punishment training (o at the very least, habituation, where animals are trained to ignore a neutral or non-painful stimulus).


yes, but the removal of that positive punishment is negative reinforcement, which is where the shaping (i won't say 'learning' here because it's more about behaviours than thought processes) takes place. you can't have 1 without the other (the horse responds to Y +punishment with X, the -reinforcement makes X more likely to happen in the event of Y +punishment again).



minstrel said:


> However, training an animal to present as if an aversive stimulus is a appetitive stimulus is going to be pretty difficult. And when we see that the percentage of horses that like to be touched is so high, we can't assume that it is specialist training that has caused that, but done subconsciously. We could assume that it is a form of habituation, which would tie in with the fact that 'wild' or feral horses don't like to be touched by humans and tame ones do.


its not difficult because when we pat horses, we go into a less aversive mind set, and so we transmit less aversive subconscious communication too the horse. it's still negative reinforcement and not positive reinforcement, because it's less aversive, not more appetitive.



minstrel said:


> BUT, what you are missing out on here is an important piece of background information, which ethologists would always take into account as evolutionary adaptation of instinct makes up so much of an animal's natural behaviours. HORSES ARE SOCIAL, and when they interact with each other in the wild, they touch each other for reassurance, both in their hierarchical roles (which are established using teeth, but maintained with muzzles) and just in the simple fact that they have company.


although true, to apply it in this case relies on the assumption that horses can see humans as other horses. because yes, horses are social, but evolutionarily they've only been social with animals that have similar instincts to them (cattle, deer etc)



minstrel said:


> Initially, then, it is unnatural and uninstinctual for horses to be soothed by human touch they way they are by other horses. This is where habituation comes in. These animals are then habituized to interaction with humans to see it as a non-threatening stimulus, and accept being touched by them.


horse doesnt see it as non-threatening, horse simply acts as though it's non-threatening because as i mentioned earlier it causes us to negatively reinforce.



minstrel said:


> This only, however, accounts for accepting handling, and does not account for any 'enjoyment' factor. This, I'm afraid, comes from actual enjoyment, which is associated with the enjoyment they get from social interactions and touch amongst the herd, and this is when horses begin to see humans as their herd and form an emotional bond. And I'm sorry, but you can't deny an emotional bond - anyone who's seen a horse go mental in the field when they smell their owner after a separation can't deny that they've missed them.


agreed, those people really can't deny that the horse missed them. but (unfortunately) we can't see it from the horses perspective, untill then that'll remain very debatable.



minstrel said:


> I agree that we anthropomorphise horses far too much, but at the end of the day the reason horses (and dogs) work so well as companion animals is because they are highly social, so our natural interactions overlap far more than with animals such as cats (who I've found a much higher percentage of who certainly don't 'enjoy' being petted, rather than putting up with it). However, just because we anthropomorphise them too much in other settings (such as some owners being unwilling to turn their horses out in the rain or cold, which I find mental) doesn't mean we have justification for ignoring their natural instincts to claim that they don't like being touched.


fair enough.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

while i was editing a part of that the edit time expired:evil:



christopher said:


> horse doesnt see it as non-threatening, horse simply acts as though it's non-threatening because as i mentioned earlier it causes us to negatively reinforce.


to add some clarity to this, at the risk of being anthropomorphic, i suppose you could compare it to a person asking another person to smile, and so the other person smiles. that doesn't mean they are happy, it's just a response. which isn't considered a +reinforcer, because neither being asked to smile or smiling are necessarily positive things. just like patting a horse, and the horse "smiling" about it (seeking cuddles, running to greet owner vs runing away, etc.) aren't necessarily appetitive things for the horse.


----------



## minstrel (Mar 20, 2012)

christopher said:


> yes, but the removal of that positive punishment is negative reinforcement, which is where the shaping (i won't say 'learning' here because it's more about behaviours than thought processes) takes place. you can't have 1 without the other (the horse responds to Y +punishment with X, the -reinforcement makes X more likely to happen in the event of Y +punishment again).


Yes, but the point of negative reinforcement is removing the stimulus to ENCOURAGE a behaviour influenced by REMOVAL of the stimulus. In this case, removing the stimulus of patting does't condition for the 'enjoyment' behaviour, it is the application of the stimulus, hence it is positive punishment training rather than negative reinforcement.




christopher said:


> its not difficult because when we pat horses, we go into a less aversive mind set, and so we transmit less aversive subconscious communication too the horse. it's still negative reinforcement and not positive reinforcement, because it's less aversive, not more appetitive.


This is true, when we pat horses, we do give positive body language - but this is an encouraging conditioning factor. Horses read our positive body language, and it is this positive interaction that soothes the horse. This body language is in itself positive reinforcement, let alone patting.





christopher said:


> although true, to apply it in this case relies on the assumption that horses can see humans as other horses. because yes, horses are social, but evolutionarily they've only been social with animals that have similar instincts to them (cattle, deer etc)


That relies on the assumption that horses can tell that cattle/deer etc have the same instincts. Generally, if horses haven't been exposed to cattle/deer before, they show a fear response, and horses that live with cattle/sheep tend to ignore them than rather than socialise (as long as they have othe rehouses for company). This implies more of a three-category socialisation distinction (somewhere I have some very good paper references on this I can look up for you) with horses categorising other animals into positive, negative and neutral interaction species. E.g Dogs are naturally negative, cows naturally neutral, and other horses positive. When we 'tame' horses, we encourage them to treat us in that positive fashion (usually, we won't discuss brutality etc here, not really relevant), which puts us in a category with other horses.

From the evolutionary aspect, you can't deny that after 6000 years of domestication horses are easier to tame. When we compare domestic breeds to Przewalski's horse, or to animals like zebra, they are much more aggressive and extremely hard to tame, whilst even feral horses straight from the New Forest or Dartmoor/Exmoor etc can be very tame within a year.





christopher said:


> horse doesnt see it as non-threatening, horse simply acts as though it's non-threatening because as i mentioned earlier it causes us to negatively reinforce.


I don't really see how you can conclude this - animals have a fear response, and to suppress a fear response to something they still find threatening whilst presenting as though it is non-threatening is something no respectable ethologist would propose. It requires a high cognition level than humans, for even humans when feeling fear usually show at least some response to it. And as I've already said, I still don't see where you get negative reinforcement from, and certainly not how it could cause an animal not to show a fear response, when negative reinforcement is about conditioning FOR a behaviour.



christopher said:


> agreed, those people really can't deny that the horse missed them. but (unfortunately) we can't see it from the horses perspective, untill then that'll remain very debatable.


That's the whole point of ethology - trying to figure out. And when animals show a behaviour that hasn't previously been conditioned for (using the separation example, an animal that doesn't see it's owner in some time, and then shows excitement on seeing them, this situation hasn't been trained for any further than how the animal would suavely respond to the owner coming to see it every day, and yet we see a markedly different repines initiated by the animal) it is more than fair to conclude that it isn't an effect of training.


----------



## minstrel (Mar 20, 2012)

christopher said:


> while i was editing a part of that the edit time expired:evil:
> 
> 
> 
> to add some clarity to this, at the risk of being anthropomorphic, i suppose you could compare it to a person asking another person to smile, and so the other person smiles. that doesn't mean they are happy, it's just a response. which isn't considered a +reinforcer, because neither being asked to smile or smiling are necessarily positive things. just like patting a horse, and the horse "smiling" about it (seeking cuddles, running to greet owner vs runing away, etc.) aren't necessarily appetitive things for the horse.


The difference is that you are ASKING a human in that example for a positive response. If you just smiled at them, and received a smile in return, that is a response. Even then, with humans you risk the fact that it is considered etiquette to return and smile and whatnot... so not the best example. And I still fail to understand why you don't see what is classed by pretty much all behaviourists as a positive response is not one. Then how do you ever determine a positive response? When a horse is offered a food reward and ****** it's ears forward, by your logic you will never be certain that it's actually showing interest in the food/wanting it.


----------



## corymbia (Jul 6, 2011)

While I am in agreement with the argument that there is nothing inherently rewarding (and therefore reinforcing) about patting a horse per se, there is a way we can reward our horses with touch and that is scratching, especially their wither. 

Two peer reviewed studies found that scratching the wither of the horses in the experiment caused an average lowering of heart rates by 10 beats per minute. It is the one action we can take that has direct ethological relevance compared to stroking the head (advoicated almost universally by NHS trainers) which is very rarely if ever observed in wild horse herds.

I had a very nervous pony colt who was generally too anxious to accept food reinforcers while he was being trained to have his feet handled, but because he was living on his own during the training period, he loved getting a wither scratch. I was able to use it as the primary reinforcer when he allowed me to pick up a leg. Once he habituated to being handled his anxiety levels dropped and he became interested in the food rewards.

It is legitimate to argue that a negative reinforcer is also a positive punisher, however a reinforcer is something makes a behaviour more likely to happen and thus when we use say a leg aid to indicate an increase in speed and we will get the speed increase whether or not the horse is stationary, walking, trotting or cantering. The behaviour that is repeated is the going faster. The behaviour that is momentarily punished is the slower gait we are trying to increase, however we then use rein aids to slow the horse down, so our punishment of the slow gait hasn't been very long lived as we are now getting slowing repeated (courtesy of the bit or nose pressure). So its is more accurate to call the aids we use to signal to our horses as negative reinforcement.

Punishing a horse for doing something "wrong" is not negative reinforcement as pointed out- it is punishment. Punishment is anything that makes a behaviour less likely and it is very difficult to get the timing right for it to be effective. Unless delivered within 5 seconds of the behaviour the horse will not know what it did that caused the unpleasant consequence.

Lastly, no horse jumps something when it can go around it. In a number of studies horse chose to avoid jumping obstacles to get at food whenever they could. 

There is no reason why a horse should want to jump a showjump fence, especially with our weight on its back, unless its been trained to do so. And we do that by making it choose between pressure it doesn't like being applied to its mouth, sides, back etc and jumping. Being a horse, most choose making the pressure go away and so jump the fence.

Its highly unlikely horses have the mental capacity to understand what we want and then choose not to please us by doing something else. Its much more likely that they are sore, tired, bored or plain confused about how to make the pressures we apply to their bodies go away (negative reinforcement). While not all horses are suited to all the things we might wish to make them do, when it goes wrong its not the fault of the horse.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

minstrel said:


> This is true, when we pat horses, we do give positive body language - but this is an encouraging conditioning factor. Horses read our positive body language, and it is this positive interaction that soothes the horse. This body language is in itself positive reinforcement, let alone patting.


doesn't soothe the horse, makes the horse appear soothed due to -reinforcement (our subconsious responses to the horse appearing soothed, been there this thread) but it's still not +reinforcement, because it's less aversive instead of more appetitive. really depends how you look at it, if you spurred a horse with 10 pounds of pressure, then spurred it with 9 pounds of pressure, is that transition from 10 to 9 a +reinforcement? or just less of a +punishment (or in other words, a -reinforcement)? i suppose what i mean is, is there a fine line between + and -?



minstrel said:


> That relies on the assumption that horses can tell that cattle/deer etc have the same instincts. Generally, if horses haven't been exposed to cattle/deer before, they show a fear response, and horses that live with cattle/sheep tend to ignore them than rather than socialise (as long as they have othe rehouses for company). This implies more of a three-category socialisation distinction (somewhere I have some very good paper references on this I can look up for you) with horses categorising other animals into positive, negative and neutral interaction species. E.g Dogs are naturally negative, cows naturally neutral, and other horses positive. When we 'tame' horses, we encourage them to treat us in that positive fashion (usually, we won't discuss brutality etc here, not really relevant), which puts us in a category with other horses.


if you could PM me some stuff about that or put links here that'd be really cool. i'd argue that again our subconsious would get in the way of horses truly categorizing us with other horses, but i've not studied that.



minstrel said:


> From the evolutionary aspect, you can't deny that after 6000 years of domestication horses are easier to tame. When we compare domestic breeds to Przewalski's horse, or to animals like zebra, they are much more aggressive and extremely hard to tame, whilst even feral horses straight from the New Forest or Dartmoor/Exmoor etc can be very tame within a year.


again i dont know enough about this to say. the limited training i've done with zebra was extremely similar to training domestic horses, it's just the zebra was several times 'faster' in every aspect (+punishment made him more unlikely to repeat a behaviour than the same +punishment ever has with a domestic horse, and same applied to -reinforcement). so i wouldnt say they are harder or easier than a domestic horse, just 'bigger', more sensitive to change, and change shapes their behaviour faster.

but then that's comparing the 1 zebra i have worked with to the many horses i have worked with, and is my subjective experience.



minstrel said:


> I don't really see how you can conclude this - animals have a fear response, and to suppress a fear response to something they still find threatening whilst presenting as though it is non-threatening is something no respectable ethologist would propose. It requires a high cognition level than humans, for even humans when feeling fear usually show at least some response to it. And as I've already said, I still don't see where you get negative reinforcement from, and certainly not how it could cause an animal not to show a fear response, when negative reinforcement is about conditioning FOR a behaviour.


it's not so much about fear, or the horse trying to supress that. it's more about the horse learning that if it just does X behaviour (even if X behaviour is a direct contradiction of what it's instincts or fear response tell it), it'll achieve a removal of pressure (whether that removal be intentional as in the case of the following example, or unintentional in the case of patting, doesnt matter).
just look at join up or 'walking down'. using the same thing, you teach a horse, by consistently chasing/approaching it (+punishment), that the only way to escape the person (-reinforcement), is to in fact turn and face and even approach the person. in which case the person then removes the pressure (-reinforce). next time you approach the horse (+punish) it'll be less likely to run away (how horses normally seek -reinforcement), but that's not because it wants the person to be near it or it enjoys the humans company, it's just been taught through +punishment and -reinforcement that there is a more effective way of escaping (escaping in this case = achieving a -reinforcement) the human than running away. the fact that it stands still or even approaches the person is simple proof that even though it's doing those seemingly un-afraid things, it wants too escape, and is trying to achieve that in the seemingly contradictory way that worked for it in the past. the same concept applies to patting, it'll try the same thing (looking like it enjoys it) in an attempt to get rid of it, or to at least make it less aversive (as in the case of our body language relaxing or becoming less aversive when we see that our patting the horse causes 'enjoyment')

is it actual enjoyment, and will it work as a +reinforcer? no, just like the horse that follows a person around is only doing so to try and achieve a -reinforcement



corymbia said:


> It is legitimate to argue that a negative reinforcer is also a positive punisher, however a reinforcer is something makes a behaviour more likely to happen and thus when we use say a leg aid to indicate an increase in speed and we will get the speed increase whether or not the horse is stationary, walking, trotting or cantering. The behaviour that is repeated is the going faster. The behaviour that is momentarily punished is the slower gait we are trying to increase, however we then use rein aids to slow the horse down, so our punishment of the slow gait hasn't been very long lived as we are now getting slowing repeated (courtesy of the bit or nose pressure). So its is more accurate to call the aids we use to signal to our horses as negative reinforcement.


i would've said were we walking along and we cued our horse to trot, then they complied so we released our cue, we have just as much positively punished walking as we have negatively reinforced trotting.



corymbia said:


> Its highly unlikely horses have the mental capacity to understand what we want and then choose not to please us by doing something else. Its much more likely that they are sore, tired, bored or plain confused about how to make the pressures we apply to their bodies go away (negative reinforcement). While not all horses are suited to all the things we might wish to make them do, when it goes wrong its not the fault of the horse.


i've never known a horse to ever do anything other than what it understands & knows, and theres no reason for them not to. so i wholeheartidly agree with this.


----------



## Hunter65 (Aug 19, 2009)

Does this mean that my pup doesn't enjoy her scratches either, she just rolls over for a belly rub because I've trained her to do that?


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Christopher (and others),

It seems that we are getting tangled up in semantics here, as much as anything.

Some of the most dangerous horses I have had to retrain are the ones who have been trained through strong negative reinforcement. My use of this term means that when a horse does something incorrectly or poorly, he gets punished. If he does it better, the LACK of punishment is the only praise her gets. The theory is that the lack of punishment is all the horse needs to know that they have done it correctly. I say this is expecting way too much *deductive reasoning* on the part of a horse.

These horses often come to me with a panic response as a result of this type of training. They have gotten to the point that when they don't understand what is being asked of them, they believe the punishment is coming and they panic. THIS is a dangerous horse!! Unfortunately is is all too common with horses trained through correction/punishment only.

As said, horses are social animals who enjoy scratches and praise (if your horse doesn't like praise, I suspect you don't do it often enough for them to openly seek it). If they know that there is praise and (as I use it) POSITIVE reinforcement for doing better, they will *try* to do as you ask. AND, by praising for any improvement, you are showing the horse the "path to success" for every improvement.

Most times, through patient and positive retraining, the panic response horses can be retrained. But, sometimes the damage is so ingrained I don't think they will ever be trustworthy again.

So, train through aggressive punishment, if you must. I find my way so much more effective and enjoyable for BOTH of us. I often think angry trainers are angry people in many aspects of their lives.


----------



## Casey02 (Sep 20, 2011)

Hunter65 i was just going to bring that up, although not a horse does it mean my dog doesnt love scratches when he plants his butt on me to be scratched and flips over just to get a morsel of a pet


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

eventer2012 said:


> I understand the change of scenery ideal but he is so much better in an indoor arena than being ridden outside. * Our problems inside or ten times worse outside and I've tried riding him outside and in different arenas trying to break up the routine but in new environments its really hard to predict him. *He may have a laid back attitude or he may just fight me the whole time. I've taken him on trail rides a few times and I can certainly try to trail ride him more often but it quickly becomes a war every step of the way unless another horse is with us at which point he is the calmest trail horse. I've given him time off but I honestly think it makes him worse. He lives outside with a couple of other horses so he isn't stuck in a stall all day. Its just difficult because I really want him to want to work with me and I'm not sure how to get that out of him.


While the current topic is interesting, I'm going to go back and respond to one of the OP's comments. 

I do think changing things up a bit will help - but don't always think of riding. One of the best ways to build a relationship is actually taking them for a walk in-hand. I've done this with many horses in the past and not only does it allow them to bond with you more with you walking beside them rather on their back, they get to see the world a bit differently, and they can take reassurance from you in the new scary outside world. When walking them in-hand you can go through the woods or even do an obstacle course with them. 

Keep it different and keep it interesting and don't always think of working with your horse = riding.


----------



## Hunter65 (Aug 19, 2009)

Cat said:


> While the current topic is interesting, I'm going to go back and respond to one of the OP's comments.
> 
> I do think changing things up a bit will help - but don't always think of riding. One of the best ways to build a relationship is actually taking them for a walk in-hand. I've done this with many horses in the past and not only does it allow them to bond with you more with you walking beside them rather on their back, they get to see the world a bit differently, and they can take reassurance from you in the new scary outside world. When walking them in-hand you can go through the woods or even do an obstacle course with them.
> 
> Keep it different and keep it interesting and don't always think of working with your horse = riding.



I agree with this. I have spent more time hand walking Hunter lately and just spending time with him because our arena is so wet and we are getting along better than ever.


----------



## minstrel (Mar 20, 2012)

Cat said:


> While the current topic is interesting, I'm going to go back and respond to one of the OP's comments.
> 
> I do think changing things up a bit will help - but don't always think of riding. One of the best ways to build a relationship is actually taking them for a walk in-hand. I've done this with many horses in the past and not only does it allow them to bond with you more with you walking beside them rather on their back, they get to see the world a bit differently, and they can take reassurance from you in the new scary outside world. When walking them in-hand you can go through the woods or even do an obstacle course with them.
> 
> Keep it different and keep it interesting and don't always think of working with your horse = riding.


Long-reining too is very useful, you can get out of the school and yet still work your horse.


----------



## corymbia (Jul 6, 2011)

[QUOTE

i would've said were we walking along and we cued our horse to trot, then they complied so we released our cue, we have just as much positively punished walking as we have negatively reinforced trotting.

.[/QUOTE]

For that instant you are correct, the walking is "punished", but when we consider something a punisher or a reinforcer we are looking at the frequency of the behaviour- does it strengthen or weaken. If the leg aids result in the horse never slowing then we would call the leg aids a punisher because the slowing has reduced in frequency. In fact, we only have to apply a rein aid to get slowing. Punishment should result in a net rather than temporary reduction in the behaviour which occured immediately before the punishing stimulus. If the behaviour recurs then we consider that the stimulus hasn't been effective punisher. 

Behaviour which is repeated in response to a cue is behaviour which has been reinforced. Behaviour which is decreased or not repeated after a cue has been punished. If you do an academic database search on horse training you will find that the vast majority of equine scientists refer to the standard cues used in horse training as negative reinforcement. For example see, McGreevy and McLean, 2007- Roles of learning theory and ethology in equitation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior.

You have however identified a key attribute of the cues that we use to train horses and that is their aversive characteristics. That horses will repeatedly perform all sorts of hard, tiring and boring responses to escape the effects of our cues on their bodies tells us how unpleasant they find those cues.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

i suppose my point was that in order to -reinforce something, there has to be something aversive to remove. and the initial application of whatever that aversive thing was, was (intentionally or unintentionally) +punishment. and if the application of it wasn't enough to work as a +punisher then the removal of it won't be enough to work as a -reinforcer.


corymbia said:


> You have however identified a key attribute of the cues that we use to train horses and that is their aversive characteristics. That horses will repeatedly perform all sorts of hard, tiring and boring responses to escape the effects of our cues on their bodies tells us how unpleasant they find those cues.


i especially liked that part:lol:


----------



## corymbia (Jul 6, 2011)

christopher said:


> i suppose my point was that in order to -reinforce something, there has to be something aversive to remove. and the initial application of whatever that aversive thing was, was (intentionally or unintentionally) +punishment. and if the application of it wasn't enough to work as a +punisher then the removal of it won't be enough to work as a -reinforcer.i t:lol:


You are exactly right in that if the stimlus isn't aversive enough then its removal won't be reinforcing. Its the conundrum and reality of negative reinforcement. The easiest way to determine if the stimulus is a punisher or a refinforcer is to measure its effect on the behavior that follows the stimulus. If you get more of the behaviour then its been reinforced and if less, then its been punished. A stimulus may be aversive but reinforce a behavior, just as withholding something can be a punisher (such as witholding a food treat until the horse stops mugging). 

Ultimately this discussion has become a bit about semantics, although the language and terms we use do influence our attitudes and beliefs which in turn influences our actions. 

As to the relevance of the semantics- an understanding about the reality of how we train horses- aversive cues and the reward inherent in their removal can allow us to solve all kinds of behavior problems, such as the horse with the "unwilling" attitude. Perhaps if we were more honest about the fact that we do things to horses that they don't like in order to make them do things that we do like we'd be slower to claim the horse has a bad attitude and quicker to try and work out what we are doing wrong with the aversive pressures we apply to their bodies.


----------



## Rascaholic (Oct 4, 2010)

This post has been an awakening for me. I find out that Rascal running to greet me in the pasture is a conditioned response. Meh, if so, I think he and I will both continue to enjoy the conditioned response. I'll continue to delude myself that he enjoys the loving and scratching and the rubs. He can continue to give me those cues someone taught him that makes me think he is enjoying it. 

Hmmmm does this mean he has been conditioned to enjoy grooming? *gasp* His body language screams relaxed and contented. 

Op, I agree with the boredom/sour issue. Let him be a horse for a while. If leading him out and going for a relaxing walk isn't in the cards, MAKE it so. He'll thank you for it (oops no he won't but you'll feel like he does LOL.)

(Starting another thread so we quit highjacking this one, because I do want to hear more on this subject.)


----------

