# Negative Punishment



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

Well, I do end up using negative punishment but not by choice. I know, sounds odd. But whenever Lilly does something 'bad' she knows she didn't do it well, and doesn't expect a treat. Like, if I ask to lift her hoof, and it takes her a while to agree. I do click and treat her, but only once I'm holding the hoof. When she knows she did it good; I ask for her hoof, she instantly gives it, or has it already ready for me when I go to the other side. She seems happy,like she knows she did good, and readily takes the treat from my hand. If it takes her a while to lift the hoof and I have to ask more than once, I still click once I'm holding it, but I put it down again after I pick it out, and she just stands there with her head down and won't take a treat from me, I have to literally shove it into her mouth. When she does it well, she is still respectful when taking the treat, but she takes it immediately and gobbles it down. When she does it badly, she won't take a treat even if I offer it, so I do end up using negative punishment that way, in that, I don't give her a treat even though she did lift her hoof. Does that make sense? I can never really remember the difference between them all so sorry if that isn't actually negative punishment. 
I kinda train my own special way, and it works for me. I never really know which one of the four training methods I'm using lol!


----------



## rambo99 (Nov 29, 2016)

I used negative punishment here the other night when feeding. I use same routine every single time I feed. I have both boys grain in buckets and a wheelbarrow of hay.

I give ice his grain first so he's busy eating ,while I go feed cinder his grain and dump his hay. Went in gate to give ice his grain, he wouldn't let me get to his pan kept blocking me. Well I hauled off and whacked him in the side of his face told him back off. 

He got the memo and went about 6 feet back an stood looking at me. I dumped his feed an just stood there. He stayed where he was looking at me when I walked away, he very slowly came up to his feed pan. 

After that I went about my business like nothing ever happened. Tonight when I went to go give ice his grain ,he backed off and waited till I walked away. He's young he gets pushy tends to test to see if he can get away with stuff. 

It's been really cold he's hungry an in his mind. I'm not getting that feed in pan fast enough. He has all the hay he can eat free choice 24/7. 

For most part I use positive reinforcement and use treats. Didn't feel that positive reinforcement was going to work,in the situation I described above. Ice isn't a horse I can haul off an whack and use negative punishment all the time. But in certain instances I do. It gets my point across and he knows I mean it.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

AbbySmith said:


> Well, I do end up using negative punishment but not by choice. I know, sounds odd. But whenever Lilly does something 'bad' she knows she didn't do it well, and doesn't expect a treat. Like, if I ask to lift her hoof, and it takes her a while to agree. I do click and treat her, but only once I'm holding the hoof. When she knows she did it good; I ask for her hoof, she instantly gives it, or has it already ready for me when I go to the other side. She seems happy,like she knows she did good, and readily takes the treat from my hand. If it takes her a while to lift the hoof and I have to ask more than once, I still click once I'm holding it, but I put it down again after I pick it out, and she just stands there with her head down and won't take a treat from me, I have to literally shove it into her mouth. When she does it well, she is still respectful when taking the treat, but she takes it immediately and gobbles it down. When she does it badly, she won't take a treat even if I offer it, so I do end up using negative punishment that way, in that, I don't give her a treat even though she did lift her hoof. Does that make sense? I can never really remember the difference between them all so sorry if that isn't actually negative punishment.
> I kinda train my own special way, and it works for me. I never really know which one of the four training methods I'm using lol!


That's interesting. That does sound like it is effective. 

@rambo99, I think what you were doing was actually positive punishment, meaning you added a punishment instead of taking away something positive. I haven't been real clear on all the differences either, but was reading an article and thinking about the idea of withholding something to teach a horse, and it seemed like something I didn't use.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Yeah, I've always thought of -P as something that's not really useful for most animals(thinking 'time outs' & the likes), but I will frequently use withholding/removing feed - eg. if a horse is too eager, showing 'bad manners' or some such, they are 'blocked' from their feed. Don't know why it didn't occur to me before that was -P. So I do indeed use it. 

In another thread we were talking about adding an 'uh-uh' cue to signal the likelihood of a punishment if the behaviour is kept up. That works well with +P & can't see why it'd be any less effective with -P, to make that more effective/practical.

Rambo, 'hauling off & whacking' is an eg of POSITIVE punishment, not negative. Remember, in behavioural terms, positive & negative mean + & -. So when talking punishment, +P is adding something UNdesirable, whereas -P is removing/withholding a Good Thing. So if for eg you just stood there with his feed & didn't allow him to have it until he 'behaved', that would be -P.


----------



## AragoASB (Jul 12, 2020)

I thought this was a good example


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

AbbySmith said:


> If it takes her a while to lift the hoof and I have to ask more than once, I still click once I'm holding it, but I put it down again after I pick it out, and she just stands there with her head down and won't take a treat from me, I have to literally shove it into her mouth. ... I do end up using negative punishment that way, in that, I don't give her a treat even though she did lift her hoof.


Interesting. I'd personally want to analyse that more, and avoid that outcome, if you possibly can. I am thinking your eg may be more of a positive punishment tho, perhaps from her previous associations. Sounds like she is a bit depressed/anxious about getting things 'wrong', which is a common 'side effect' of +P. If she _WANTED_ a treat & you didn't offer her one, that could be -P, but that she didn't want one and you shove it in her mouth anyway, may well also be a +P for her. As she gave you her foot and then you put it down, and THEN you shoved something in her face that she didn't want was a bit late, regardless whether you meant it as R or P.



> I never really know which one of the four training methods I'm using lol!


If you're giving her a Good Thing that's +R/positive reinforcement. If you're removing a Bad Thing(eg. 'pressure') that's -R/negative reinforcement. If you're doing something unpleasant to her(smack for eg), that's +P/positive punishment. If you're removing/withholding something Good, that's -P/negative punishment.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

AragoASB said:


> I thought this was a good example


Good comments from @loosie.

I actually think the video mostly shows the use of positive punishment. The trainer pushes the horse away when he comes in rather than just withholds a positive. But maybe three kinds are used together? The positive punishment is followed by a release of pressure, so negative reinforcement. But also withholding the feed with negative punishment.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

gottatrot said:


> does anyone use negative punishment with their horses, i.e. withhold something pleasant to shape behaviors?


All the time, I think. Per Tom Roberts:

"_“It will profit you not” means that the horse will not be encouraged to follow a line of conduct other than what we have in mind for him. We withhold any gain – which means we quietly continue with our demands, whatever they may be. We persist. We quietly persist with our demands. This gentle discouragement of “quiet persistence” is something that horses seem to find irresistible._"

I'm not a behaviorist and don't understand how people break things into categories. But...

A horse wants to rush home. Every time he breaks into a trot, you turn him 180 degrees. You don't beat him. You let him choose the speed and you choose the direction. You don't get angry. Don't make him trot faster. Don't "Move his feet!" because the horse is already moving his feet. You just choose to let him use his energy in a different direction. When he slows, you turn toward home. If he accelerates again, you turn away from home. The "reward" is what he wants. You just don't give him that reward.

If Bandit starts bucking, I'll raise his head to reduce the severity of his bucks. But I normally don't punish him. Just wait him out and keep doing what made him unhappy in the first place. "_We will not run just because someone else ran_", for example. I think of it as, "_That is the wrong answer. Please try a different answer._" When he picks an answer I like, maybe THEN we'll do a run. Or not, and just do something different.

That may not meet the definition of negative punishment. "This will profit you not", to me, means think about the reward a horse is seeking. If it is being sought in a way you find objectionable, don't allow the horse the reward until his behavior is channeled into an acceptable form. But "negative punishment" may have a different flavor. I don't understand the terms in part because I have no interest in them per se.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

See, that's why I think trying to separate the types is kind of pointless. I have been a little interested in thinking about how they might work. But as in @bsms example, it is probably both a positive and negative punishment to keep a horse from heading home.

Apparently I do use negative punishment if I really think about it. I might let a horse graze when I get on, but if he walks off he loses the privilege. So I guess anytime a horses loses a privilege, that would be negative punishment.
I might leave a horse untied while trimming hooves, but if he wanders off I tie him. Apparently all four types or combos of them can be useful.

Personally I don't think any type is wrong if a horse understands it and the overall attitude of the horse remains positive. Some try to say only positive reinforcement is good, but some people also think it's wrong to tell kids they are in trouble and there will be consequences.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> The positive punishment is followed by a release of pressure, so negative reinforcement.


[/QUOTE]


gottatrot said:


> Apparently I do use negative punishment if I really think about it. I might let a horse graze when I get on, but if he walks off he loses the privilege. So I guess anytime a horses loses a privilege, that would be negative punishment.





gottatrot said:


> See, that's why I think trying to separate the types is kind of pointless.


Oh my! I think I just felt B.F. Skinner turn over in his grave😯


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> That may not meet the definition of negative punishment. "This will profit you not", to me, means think about the reward a horse is seeking.





gottatrot said:


> See, that's why I think trying to separate the types is kind of pointless. I have been a little interested in thinking about how they might work.


Yeah, you 2 know me well enough I think, to know I feel otherwise, as to the wanting to examine the 'nuts & bolts'. I just feel that I can do so much better if I really understand & examine the concepts. And as I want to help others do better too, I want to share that. But that's just the way _my_ mind works. I appreciate the 'nuts & bolts' don't matter to all. And some come to the same point in a totally different way. But even still, it basically all comes down to what works for the horse & what doesn't work - or as bsms/Tom Roberts puts it, does it profit him, or profit him not?

And I can well understand the attitude that it doesn't _effectively_ matter whether you're using + or - punishment, or neg. reinforcement for that matter. It's mostly 'academic'. I do however, feel it's important to understand the difference between those 'quadrants' and positive reinforcement, because I believe there is a big _effective_ difference. There are many 'side effects'(as in, undesired attitudes, behaviours, lessons...) that punishment(et al) can cause if not very careful, judicious in it's use. I believe vastly more than the 'pitfalls' of using positive reinforcement badly. So, I believe as well as 'careful' use, I think +R should be the predominant 'quadrant' focussed upon, and the rest minimised or avoided where possible (Not saying you can't create a 'monster' with +R if you don't know what you're doing, consider the 'whole picture'...)


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

The four quadrants of behavior modification when understood is a precise and technical description of how we and all other animals learn. The term or concept of _behavior modification _is important. If behavior is not modified by some event, the event is not part of the four quadrants of behavior modification. The animal's perception of the event is critical to the classification of the quadrant. A perception that is not always clearly known.

Behavior modification is an extremely powerful tool for effective communication with the animal world.

Negative Punishment:

To use an extreme example for clarity, consider locking or taking away the use of a cell phone and/or a computer from a teen aged girl as negative punishment. Examining the strong thoughts and emotions going on in her head should provide a clue to the long term effects it may have on the thoughts directed toward the punisher. The behavior will for certain be modified but in what ways? Will there be new behaviors emerge? There could be pages written on these thoughts. Again, perception is important.

Recent Brain Research:

B.F. Skinner's work was done pre-sixties, long before the recent brain research associated with the four quadrants. Even so, I think it is almost pointless to discuss the application, theory, use of, etc of any training method including of course application of the four quadrants without recognition of the emotional consequences of the training or teaching methods.

This is just so so so important to understand on a deep and personal level.

I do not make any claim to be any kind of an expert in any of this. I have been applying my mind to the topic on a daily basis in the recent months. I studied the topic intently in a psychology class what feels like a century ago.

When I taught my horse to turn his head away from me and more or less forward, I would click and treat the instant he turned away from me even though he could smell the tasty morsels in my treat bucket.

So.........was my withholding of a treat until he turned his head negative punishment for his mugging of me? Some might argue it was. I don't _think _was. If the horse could talk, his opinion would matter. But the click and treat when his head was in the chosen place was almost certainly a positive reinforcement normally referred to as a reward. He very quickly learned that to get a treat his head needed to be forward. (but not his eyeballs-so funny)

The quadrants can become quite a bit more messy in real life than they are in a book on paper. There has to be a real interest and a fair bit of understanding of them prior to going to the field with them to prevent every thing from falling into disarray.

Edit: I think one of the major problems, and I do think it is a problem, of most applications of all training/teaching methods, including the four quadrants, is a looking toward the outward expressions of following behavior. Yes, the all important behavior modification.

But what is just as important, and maybe more important in the long run, is the resulting modification of the unseen inward modifications of the emotions which has been historically mostly ignored with the horses.

Because of their high alert/fear factor, I'm beginning to think the horse is one of the most emotionally sensitive animals on the planet.


----------



## ACinATX (Sep 12, 2018)

If Pony wants attention but he's being too pushy and in-my-face about it, I turn away from him. If that doesn't work, I walk away.

I think of it as negative punishment because if he wants attention and is being nice about it, I will give him attention, so I'm withholding it in this case.

I guess a more clear case would be if we're doing some sort of training and he's getting rewards for doing the right thing, and then he does the wrong thing -- no reward. Usually in that case I just stand there for a few seconds, up to half a minute, until we reset and try again.

He definitely understands it and does not get worried about it. But he's not a worrier. I'm sure it works for him because every few training sessions he forgets that "hooooo" means to totally freeze, not stop and then turn to me to get a treat. After a few times of withholding the treat, he clearly remembers. You can see him thinking about it. In this case, he'll stop, start to turn toward me, then you can see the little lightbulb go off above his head, he stops turning, goes back to his original position, and waits. And the next time after that, he will just freeze, not turn at all.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Yes, @loosie, good points. It can be very helpful to have an ideal of using positive reinforcement the most. I do. 

There is a trend for people to feel the need to take it to extremes, which is too cumbersome to work for more than a fringe group. 

It reminds me of a big name trainer explaining how anyone could have a horse that followed the twitch of the finger, because his horse did. Then he mentioned that he had spent hours each day for many months tuning those responses. 
A) most of us have other jobs and responsibilities, and relationships other than with one horse. B) is the horse truly better off having to work on training for hours each day rather than enjoying a regular horse life? 

I have a hard time finding the desire to turn something like moving away from leg pressure that is so direct and simple, and apparently not very aversive to a horse into something very complicated and time consuming to teach. 

I don't need a clicker because horses are smart and understand "good boy" and "ah ah" very easily, and every horse I've known wanted to get the "good boy/girl" as soon as they knew what it meant. 

Horses actually have a desire to please us when they like us, so things don't have to be a bridge to a treat, or release. Rather, horses can be very pleased just to get a "well done" from us. They really enjoy teamwork and part of riding is feeling the pleasure the horse gets from accomplishing something with you.


----------



## ACinATX (Sep 12, 2018)

gottatrot said:


> Rather, horses can be very pleased just to get a "well done" from us. They really enjoy teamwork and part of riding is feeling the pleasure the horse gets from accomplishing something with you.


Yes, this is something I didn't understand about Pony for a long time. Either it was because I was too green, or maybe I was being inconsistent in saying "good boy," or maybe it was because we didn't have that relationship yet. With Teddy, it was clear that "good boy" was a huge reward for him. I think part of that is his anxiety about getting things wrong, though. But it took a while to realize that Pony liked to be a good boy, too. I think that really changed our relationship -- me realizing that he wasn't in it just for the cookies.

This reminds me of a thread I've been wanting to start for a while, about styles of learning. Maybe today is the day -- it's cold and nasty outside and I could either do that or clean the house. Yikes!


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> I don't need a clicker because horses are smart and understand "good boy" and "ah ah" very easily


All very true. Good boy can serve as a bridge signal just as a clicker can. The clicker does come into strong contention when making precise shaping for a certain form, say in jumping.

My horse has long recognized 'good boy' and eeeeehhhhhhh. But I do not believe this can replace proper and methodical +R training.



gottatrot said:


> It reminds me of a big name trainer explaining how anyone could have a horse that followed the twitch of the finger, because his horse did. Then he mentioned that he had spent hours each day for many months tuning those responses.
> A) most of us have other jobs and responsibilities, and relationships other than with one horse. B) is the horse truly better off having to work on training for hours each day rather than enjoying a regular horse life?


I am becoming more and more convinced that the belief that +R training just takes too long is a myth that keeps people away from +R training.

Early on, it is more time consuming. But over the life of the horse-human relationship, if a long lived life, I am becoming more and more convinced that +R is a time saver over the long run and a much safer training method.

Edit: These discussions are so important to me as a way of clarifying to myself what I actually believe and think.


----------



## Kalraii (Jul 28, 2015)

In a single interaction you can cycle through multiple forms. The grazing example is a good one really - are they being obnoxious and pulling you around while ignoring you? Prod/tap them on the side until they pay attention. Don't let them graze until they are focused on you. If they ignore you and pull their head shake the rope until they lift it. When they finally focus on you praise them and let them graze when they do - with a treat or a pat. I think positive reinforcement is so good because a lot struggles owners have with various animals and personalities is _usually _because the animal is either uneducated or insecure in their environment/handlers. Positive reinforcement fixes many things... fills many holes. With an insecure or confused animal positive/negative punishment might open the door initially but often doesn't get people very far, especially as many don't even understand them much less practice them constructively and fairly. Positive punishment in some cases also increases the risk of conflict but sometimes conflict is necessary for change.

For your example gotta is the behaviour due to anxiety? Are they hangry? Are they simply so excited that they are distracted and forget you're there? Has the animal actually been taught any manners in the first place (are we expecting too much?) Do you know the animal well and the extent of how well it knows/trusts you? The answer is different for all of those. For an anxious animal I have done a few things - fed them tiny bowls one after the other. Handfed them from their bowl. Given them half first and then did training with the second half 20mins later. From a safe distance or with a stick refill their bowl handfuls at a time. Sometimes doing nothing is best and over time the behaviour will subside as they become more secure. Also consider that if your relationship is thoroughly developed in other areas that the behaviour might naturally correct itself without needing to focus on it.

For a confident animal* I know well* and taught, I will use positive punishment (a tap or shout "hey!") as an initial warning because they aren't dumb and know better. I would be VERY cautious using positive punishment on any animal I've not developed that relationship/boundaries with or who doesn't know what is expected of it in that given situation. Positive punishment in my personal opinion can have faster and better results when there is a _trusting relationship _which might seem contradictory at first_. _An educated animal, ordinarily polite, that just forgot themselves? A smack on the rump, a pointy finger, a loud "NO!" is sometimes all that is needed, followed up by praise when they show you they remembered what IS expected of them. They have relationship with you and know that this is merely your way of expressing displeasure to XYZ behaviour. They can learn because they are not frightened and I consider it, in this context, like a reverse clicker if that makes sense  Positive punishment and fear don't always go hand in hand - but often does, in the wrong ones. Sometimes the animal is so sensitive that just a look or growl is enough. I find the error is in how much energy or the form of positive punishment, not the intent itself. "I want behaviour to stop" is what it is, at its core. Negative punishment is usually _safer_ for all parties but that is not to say it is kinder, either. It's also important to try have a set sequence when it comes to all this. Don't lead with positive punishment into reward/negative and suddenly next time lead with negative into positive. Spaghetti training leads to spaghetti results!

One is not worse than the other. But some are easier to wield, so to speak, for people that are lacking in either knowledge, eye, feeling, so on so on... positive is simpler, safer and kinder. Think about ALL the people out there that only try positive reinforcement and fail. It's not always because they are doing it wrong. It can be because the "regime" doesn't meet the needs of the individual. Its like taking lots of calcium and paying no attention to D3.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> The four quadrants of behavior modification when understood is a precise and technical description of how we and all other animals learn. The term or concept of _behavior modification _is important. If behavior is not modified by some event, the event is not part of the four quadrants of behavior modification. The animal's perception of the event is critical to the classification of the quadrant. A perception that is not always clearly known.
> 
> Behavior modification is an extremely powerful tool for effective communication with the animal world.
> 
> ...


I think technically yes, withholding the treat until a behavior happened would be negative punishment as @ACinATX describes.

Something those who believe in only using positive reinforcement seem to believe is that the other types are aversive to the horse so should not be used.

My opinion is that we don't have to be that sensitive if the horse isn't.
Horses are used to tolerating a lot of mild unpleasantnesses as part of life. They taste weeds they don't like. That doesn't put them off eating grass. Their friends kick and bite them. That doesn't stop them from hanging out and mutual grooming.

I think horses develop problems from severe or unjust punishment. They stay friends with us if we do things they mildly dislike at times, if the overall relationship is positive. There is no relationship in life that is completely positive.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Kalraii said:


> Think about ALL the people out there that only try positive reinforcement and fail. It's not always because they are doing it wrong. It can be because the "regime" doesn't meet the needs of the individual.


Great post but I'm confused about this part. My belief is that if +R is properly applied, given the situation and the horse, it just works. Particularly not understanding ( "regime" doesn't meet the needs). Could you help me on this?


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Right, @Kalraii. Like with an unhandled mustang you do not want to use positive punishment because all they have is fear and no trust yet.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> I think technically yes, withholding the treat until a behavior happened would be negative punishment as @ACinATX describes.


I think it would depend if the horse was aware that a treat was actually being withheld or if we were just not giving him a treat for some reason as often happens. How the horse actually experiences something is all defining.



gottatrot said:


> Something those who believe in only using positive reinforcement seem to believe is that the other types are aversive to the horse so should not be used.


I am moving in the direction of "those who believe in only using positive reinforcement". I do not believe in or think it is possible or necessary to avoid all types of aversive actions.

I do believe it important to avoid all aversives that cause a horse to engage in physical avoidance actions.

Anything that causes a horse to become aware to determining if something may or may not be dangerous is an aversive stimuli. When he becomes alerted, the threshold level increases. A weight shift away is approaching the level of an avoidance reaction. That's where it's best to decrease pressure, imo & understanding from those who claim to know.

It is impossible to even approach the pen in which said mustang is confined without becoming an aversive to the horse. The key though is I believe to keep it under critical threshold. Critical threshold is a term I just made up as I typed but I think it is descriptive of what I'm trying to get across.

While I'm here I want to say something else about using 'good boy'. Many people, perhaps most, do not realize they are using a classically conditioned bridge signal when they use 'good boy' but they never-the-less are.

Edit: I'm going to define my term "critical threshold" as the point where an increase of cortisol production above normal is likely to begin.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

When a child or friend is doing something they know you don't like and you say, "Oh stop it!", I do not classify that as positive punishment even though it may technically modify the behavior. RE: It gets messy in the real would.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I like the "This will profit you. This will profit you not." approach combined with "Quiet persistence."

First, it eliminates extremely common punishments like, "_Work him until he can barely breathe!_" - used on our pony Cowboy by someone with decades of experience. Or "_Hit him with a crop! Show him who the boss is!_"

Second, it eliminates the idea of "bad behavior". There is only behavior we want to see more of and behavior we want to see less of. Training for or against. No morality is assigned. No "bad horses".

Third, it makes us think about what the horse wants. WHY does he do something? What is his internal "reward"? If you try to impose a new behavior without eliminating WHY the behavior first started (or was reinforced), you are giving contradictory signals to the horse - the training equivalent of pulling on the reins and kicking the horse at the same time.

And best of all, that simple concept seems to work very well. Every time I've tried it - IF I can figure out what the horse is getting as his own, internal "reward". It forces me to look at every issue from the perspective of the horse - if I can. That is the hardest part. But I'm *sooooo* tired of people who won't ride without a crop, or who act as if every issue can be solved with a whip. Far too many of those folks in Arizona, including many who have spent decades "training" horses.

Combined with "Give & Take" - do something I want and then we'll do something YOU want - it seems very helpful. Seems to work well with kids, too. Wish I had thought of things that way when I was first a parent....


----------



## Kalraii (Jul 28, 2015)

trailscout said:


> Great post but I'm confused about this part. My belief is that if +R is properly applied, given the situation and the horse, it just works. Particularly not understanding ( "regime" doesn't meet the needs). Could you help me on this?


Basically one approach doesn't fit all and not just per animal - also for each individual behaviour that needs addressing. There have been plenty animals I've encountered where the human thinks or is seen as using positive reinforcement. But the animal clearly thinks otherwise. Dog/horse/parrot does something good. Owner uses positive reinforcement in the form of loud praise, petting, kissing, cuddling, picking up. The animal considers these things as positive punishment and only tolerates it because they have learned that tolerating it for long enough will make it go away. If the animal is aversive to the humans idea of reward but has learned to tolerate (or shutdown) how can the human identify that? "But I ALWAYS praise (_punish_) her when she does XYZ I don't know why she doesn't get it!" There are plenty personalities where negative reinforcement is a far greater reward than any positive and it can be very difficult for some people to try change their ways. And by negative reinforcement it doesn't necessarily mean intentionally adding stimulus either, these individuals can be struggling just in our presence or their normal environment. Some animals really struggle with eye contact or being looked at, especially by us. Little changes in body language can be the difference between positive/negative punishment/reinforcement alone for some individuals.

Animals as well that have been brought up "right" often have issues too. Doberman bought as a young puppy. Always biting father and child sons genitals.. even years later. They went puppy classes, had trainers over, all the right things. Unfortunately this behaviour can't simply be ignored, right? You can't just let the dog chew on your genitals and praise it when it stops. Some days were good, others were bad. This is a big dog. This dog had no defined way of distinguishing between "good" attention and "bad" attention - really common. Attention was attention. Shouting, smacking, praising, petting.. all it was one and the same. How to approach this situation when ALL of it is reward? Positive reinforcement alone wont fix this. Turn your back? Crate him? Lock him in a room? Negative punishment. He wanted to jump up and chew them. He will learn that behaviour gets him in time out. But now.. this huge dog is chewing a literal hole through the door. Peeing through the crate gaps up the walls. Howling and waking the baby. It can get far worse before it gets better but sometimes owners rather pick the devil they know than change their approach.

A last point above the hardest things I've found is to even set a regimen full stop. So many don't even HAVE a plan in place nor the time or want to implement one.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> Great post but I'm confused about this part. My belief is that if +R is properly applied, given the situation and the horse, it just works. Particularly not understanding ( "regime" doesn't meet the needs). Could you help me on this?


It is difficult to apply your theories of how to treat a fearful untrained horse to horses that are not fearful and are perhaps trying to get the handler to move away. 

Have you tried out your theories? It can be difficult to figure out a way to convey to the horse what you want. 

Let's say you want to teach a horse to sidepass with only positive reinforcement. 
You can't push on them, that is negative reinforcement. You can't tap on a leg for the same reason. 

Even if you wait for the horse to shift sideways and then reward, it could take a very long time for them to associate that this is what you wanted, since they may also have swallowed, blinked, breathed and farted just before the reward. Then to build on that further...very difficult. 

A "good boy" is not a bridge if no treat later follows it and the words are the only reward.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Kalraii said:


> Basically one approach doesn't fit all and not just per animal - also for each individual behaviour that needs addressing. There have been plenty animals I've encountered where the human thinks or is seen as using positive reinforcement. But the animal clearly thinks otherwise. Dog/horse/parrot does something good. Owner uses positive reinforcement in the form of loud praise, petting, kissing, cuddling, picking up. The animal considers these things as positive punishment and only tolerates it because they have learned that tolerating it for long enough will make it go away. If the animal is aversive to the humans idea of reward but has learned to tolerate (or shutdown) how can the human identify that? "But I ALWAYS praise (_punish_) her when she does XYZ I don't know why she doesn't get it!" There are plenty personalities where negative reinforcement is a far greater reward than any positive and it can be very difficult for some people to try change their ways. And by negative reinforcement it doesn't necessarily mean intentionally adding stimulus either, these individuals can be struggling just in our presence or their normal environment. Some animals really struggle with eye contact or being looked at, especially by us. Little changes in body language can be the difference between positive/negative punishment/reinforcement alone for some individuals.
> 
> Animals as well that have been brought up "right" often have issues too. Doberman bought as a young puppy. Always biting father and child sons genitals.. even years later. They went puppy classes, had trainers over, all the right things. Unfortunately this behaviour can't simply be ignored, right? You can't just let the dog chew on your genitals and praise it when it stops. Some days were good, others were bad. This is a big dog. This dog had no defined way of distinguishing between "good" attention and "bad" attention - really common. Attention was attention. Shouting, smacking, praising, petting.. all it was one and the same. How to approach this situation when ALL of it is reward? Positive reinforcement alone wont fix this. Turn your back? Crate him? Lock him in a room? Negative punishment. He wanted to jump up and chew them. He will learn that behaviour gets him in time out. But now.. this huge dog is chewing a literal hole through the door. Peeing through the crate gaps up the walls. Howling and waking the baby. It can get far worse before it gets better but sometimes owners rather pick the devil they know than change their approach.
> 
> A last point above the hardest things I've found is to even set a regimen full stop. So many don't even HAVE a plan in place nor the time or want to implement one.


Really good post. People pet horses when they don't like it too.


----------



## ACinATX (Sep 12, 2018)

gottatrot said:


> Really good post. People pet horses when they don't like it too.


This mystifies me. I know we've talked about it many times, but I don't understand how people cannot see that often their "rewards" are not considered such by the animal.

Pony loves attention, and for him attention is usually a reward. Teddy doesn't like attention. He tolerates it. For him, reward is "good boy" and turning off the pressure, and pressure can mean even looking at him. 

And then on to physical contact. My horses all know that when they get put back out in the pasture the first thing that's going to happen is I'm going to hug them. And they have to stand there and take it. They've learned to tolerate it. I told them all when I got them, "I will take care of you, and I will do whatever I can to make you happy and comfortable, but I OWN you and I can do what I want with you, so I'm going to hug you when I put you back in the pasture, and that's just how it's going to be." They really didn't like it at first (who wants to get choked on the neck?) but like I said have learned to tolerate it. I can't understand how anyone could think that something like this is a reward to a horse.

Ditto patting and slapping and rubbing a horse's face. People watch a video where a trainer rubs a horse's face as a reward, and now they think their horse must like that, too. Even wither scratching: horses don't nibble withers when they are working. They do it out in the pasture when they are relaxing. I think people don't understand how context dependent it is. 

Ultimately, I can't understand how people can do these things, the horse reacts by flinching or freezing or making a worried face, and they don't notice.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Kalraii said:


> Owner uses positive reinforcement in the form of loud praise, petting, kissing, cuddling, picking up. The animal considers these things as positive punishment and only tolerates it because they have learned that tolerating it for long enough will make it go away.


Well, here we're talking about someone that has no clue as to what +R is even about and has obviously not studied or even thought about it. I've seen a few YouTube videos of some of those.

This is why it's so important for the beginner to stick to food rewards as that is a universal positive for the horse.



gottatrot said:


> Let's say you want to teach a horse to sidepass with only positive reinforcement.
> You can't push on them, that is negative reinforcement. You can't tap on a leg for the same reason.


Really really simple. Done all the time. Using a conditioned target for them to follow. And then click and treat for the slightest movement in the desired direction. Turn on the forehand and hindquarters done the same way.

Same way a walrus is taught to do a back flip which is a movement totally foreign to him.



gottatrot said:


> A "good boy" is not a bridge if no treat later follows it and the words are the only reward.


A bridge that has been rewarded by something the horse likes becomes a reward in and of itself without a reward following. The strength of the bridge being a reward in and of itself will over time extinguish without further reward.

So a 'good boy' can certainly be perceived by the horse as a reward.


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

No, Negative Punishment is too abstract a concept for animals to understand. Hell, teenagers don't seem to get it, how could a horse/dog/parrot?


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

....................


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

gottatrot said:


> I'm curious, does anyone use negative punishment with their horses, i.e. withhold something pleasant to shape behaviors?
> 
> As I understand it, there is positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
> I definitely use the first three. Positive reinforcement, that is something I use a lot: treats, an encouraging voice, a break to eat grass. Positive punishment I use too: the horse threatens to kick, I give a slap and use a negative voice. Negative reinforcement or pressure/release is also something I use a lot: the horse won't walk forward, I apply pressure on the halter, when he walks forward I release it.
> ...


Well. Whenever Maverick chews his rope I take it away from him. He chews it less frequently now. But it took a long time for that to work. So I don’t think it’s a very good method, if I’m honest.


----------



## ACinATX (Sep 12, 2018)

DanielDauphin said:


> No, Negative Punishment is too abstract a concept for animals to understand. Hell, teenagers don't seem to get it, how could a horse/dog/parrot?


See above. It worked on my Pony. Like I said, I could see him thinking it through and then changing his actions. He's a smart guy, though. I think the issue is that they have to already understand what it is you want them to do, and that they will get a reward for doing it. If he more or less understands that "hoooo" means to freeze in place, but he just tends to forget, then he can be reminded with negative punishment. But if he had no idea what "hoooo" meant, let alone that he would get a reward for doing it correctly, then of course it would be useless.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

Reading replies to this thread, I’d like to say that I’ve often also thought about how sometimes an action can be multiple training tools at once. For instance, Maverick used to have a food “aggression” problem (i put quotes because I hate using the word ‘aggression’ because I don’t like using labels like that, but for the sake of not being here all day... y’know). Of course, that wasn’t really his problem. The family always gave him treats and he would come up to them pinning his ears and they would get scared and hand him a treat and back away. I asked them to stop that, that they were training him to be aggressive, but no one listens to the kid.

Anyway, to work on that issue, I brought a bucket of grain and treats into a roundpen, set it down, let him have a few bites, and then asked him to move away from it. He would pin his ears when I would try to do this, and I would increase pressure by becoming “bigger” looking by standing tall, and becoming a bit scary by locking in on him in a predator-like way, and more or less charging him. That could be considered positive punishment for pinning his ears at me, and if he turned to kick at me, he got a smack on the butt, which is also positive punishment. And not having his food anymore would qualify as negative punishment. I would then roundpen him for about 30 sec to a minute, however long it took before he became focused on me and not the food, and once he would do that, I wouldn’t really stop him, just stop driving, and back away, and let him have his food back if he wanted it. That was both negative reinforcement (due to my release of pressure of backing off of driving him) and positive reinforcement (letting him have the food back).

I would like to say, that I don’t like being that aggressive, and so I didn’t keep up with that method for very long even though it was working. Instead, once I felt it was SAFE to do so, I started making him wait before I poured his grain in his bucket. By this point, I had taught him a “stay” command— that was something that I taught him for safety reasons, for both of us. So I would approach with the grain, tell him to stay, and if he started getting antsy, I’d pinch a pressure point on his chest and have him back up, which could be seen as positive punishment, but it was more just to put him back where he started. He may have viewed it as punishment though. When he would straighten up and stop pinning his ears at me about it, I would release that pressure, which would be negative reinforcement, and then when he was still, not earpinning, and not acting impatient, I would pour his food in,make him wait another moment and not rush to the bucket, and then, when he’s still being still, I would then retreat and let him have his food— negative and positive reinforcement at the same time.I don’t feed grain anymore, but it really did help keep him nice and quiet and pleasant when I would feed him.

In my opinion, none of these methods are mutually exclusive nor are they meant to be used that way. They’re each just a tool in the toolbox.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

It’s an interesting concept and is rather like depriving a teenager of their iPhone because they didn’t do their homework.
Horses don’t have the same thought process as a human though so I’m not sure it’s effective in the same way.
Horses live in the moment, using the food aggressive thing as an example, removing the food isn’t teaching the horse a lesson not to attack you, it’s breaking the cycle of habit.

The scenario of ‘human feeds horse, horse attacks human because he doesn’t want to share food with human’ becomes a learned habit because it’s been successful.

Removing the food at the first sign of aggression also removes the horse’s need to drive the potential food thief away. No food, nothing to steal.

It might work if it breaks the cycle that the horse has gotten into but if the horse still doesn’t respect it’s human and still regards the human as a food thief, the old habit will soon return.

Horse’s have a better understanding of punishment in the way they deal with a potential equine food thief - the horse with the stronger personality will drive the other horse away.

I’ve generally found that food aggressive horses learn much faster if their human asserts their leadership and drives the horse away when it attacks. 
You have to mean it though.


----------



## SteadyOn (Mar 5, 2017)

I think negative punishment can seem to work in circumstances where it's so short-lived that it practically becomes positive reward and the line between them gets fuzzy.

I used to do morning grain at a barn where a very pushy gelding would always try to get into his grain before I even got it into his feeder. I would say "in the corner!" and push him over there, and not pour the feed in until he was in the corner and not trying to stick his head in the bucket, then I would pour the grain in, and say "okay!" and step back.

So in that case, is withholding the grain while he is being pushy a negative punishment, or is giving the grain when he does a desired behaviour (stands in the corner) a positive reward? Is it both? Does he understand the negative punishment part, or does only the positive reward part actually compute for the horse? I don't know.


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

loosie said:


> As she gave you her foot and then you put it down, and THEN you shoved something in her face that she didn't want was a bit late, regardless whether you meant it as R or P.


Yeah I know that much lol! I click while I'm holding her hoof, and try to give her a treat as I'm holding the hoof, but I can't really reach her mouth when I'm holding her back hoof lol!


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

AbbySmith said:


> but I can't really reach her mouth when I'm holding her back hoof lol!


That is exactly what the bridge signal is for!

The bell ringing for Pavlov's dogs had no value at all to the dogs.........until it became paired with a primary reinforcement....food. When that happens, the bell becomes a 'bridge signal' signalling that food will follow.

A click or a good boy has no value what-so-ever to the horse.....UNTIL.....it becomes paired with something the horse values as a reinforcer. It can be scratches if the horse is known to really enjoy a spot, but with food there is hardly ever if ever a doubt.

So if you charge the bridge, which is pairing it on multiple occasions on multiple days with food, the good boy or click, or whatever is chosen will become a bridge to the horse. The reward will be paired with whatever the horse was doing when the bridge signal was given. After the horse is solid, even more duration can be developed between the time of the bridge and the reinforcement.

So the deal is, bridge while holding the foot (after the bridge has been charged), then set it down and feed. The horse will say, hey I get fed when I let her hold my foot.

After a time the bridge can become what is known as a secondary reinforcer in and of itself.

An example. When I was young I and the other kids in the neighborhood used to go running toward the ice cream truck when we heard the bells. Not any bells, just those.

If I were somewhere today many years later and heard those bells, endorphins would be released into my brain even without any thought of getting ice cream. In fact, just sitting here thinking about it is causing a slight increase in my endorphins...at least it feels like it.

So I could probably be trained to some degree even today by using the same bells when I performed some behavior because the behavior would become associated with the endorphins released by the bell.

Even if I was aware of what they were doing, I'm sure I couldn't help but be affected to some degree.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Kalraii said:


> You can't just let the dog chew on your genitals and praise it when it stops.


You'll get no argument from me!


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

+R trainers all recommend using protective contact when working with any animal that has any prosibility of exhibiting dangerous behavior. Simple.


----------



## SteadyOn (Mar 5, 2017)

This whole discussion (and I admit I haven't read every post, heh, but I'm working on it) is reminding me of a Warwick Schiller video. (I know, I know, everything does!)

One of his principles is "Don't say don't; say do." Meaning that, saying "don't do this thing" to a horse is a whole lot less effective than saying "do this thing instead." As demonstrated here. Instead of saying "don't get into the food while I'm serving it," he has her communicate "DO go stand over there!"


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Warwick Schiller according to my perception is making a gradual transition to reward based training without scaring all the people off by using the +R jargon.

The +R people would say to reward an incompatible behavior until it has a stronger reward history than the unwanted behavior. By incompatible behavior is standing over there is incompatible with being over here and mugging for food while we feed.

It's hard to teach them NOT to do something without punishment. But teaching an incompatible behavior with reward is easy.

Shawna Karrasch simply teaches all the horses she works with to target and hold on a stationary target with many hanging around in various locations. If she needs to clean a stall or what ever it's just, "Go Target" and they are out of the way for cleaning, feeding, or whatever.

Train to 'go stand over there'. Same thing.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> A click or a good boy has no value what-so-ever to the horse.....UNTIL.....it becomes paired with something the horse values as a reinforcer. It can be scratches if the horse is known to really enjoy a spot, but with food there is hardly ever if ever a doubt.


A click has no value to a horse other than as a signal that a behavior was correct. The horse still might work for clicks alone without any tangible reward, if they enjoy being a team and figuring out what pleases you. That will not go away over time even if the horse never gets a reward again. But I believe a pleased voice is more rewarding to a horse than a click. 

Some of the animal behaviorists and trainers still believe animals are more machine-like and programmable than living, feeling creatures. If a horse likes you, they enjoy pleasing you. They will work very hard just to have the camaraderie of teamwork with you. They are herd and social animals. Horses will run together and try to match each others' movements for fun. Some days they won't be in the mood to be your partner, and when that happens, nothing you have "programmed" will work.

Horses can be taught many things that make no sense to them. If you teach them something and show them why they should know it, everything is different. I've seen where I've taught a horse something like weaving through a pattern of obstacles. The horse can do it fine after being taught how. But then I take the horse out onto a trail where we need to get through a few obstacles at higher speed. When the horse realizes that my vision is allowing my signals to get the horse through more quickly and easily than he could alone, suddenly he takes the way he responds to a new level. He tries to anticipate and responds enthusiastically, and soon it feels like the horse is reading my thoughts. Horses enjoy teamwork and if they see this kind of benefit, it can be a strong reward and incentive to work. 

Rather than following a rigid idea of what methods might be correct, I think training involves a lot of feel and intuition, reading the horse with flexibility to respond and change to their individual personality. No one who does that will be cruel to the horse.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

I understand looking at "conditioning" as mechanistic. I have felt the same for most of my life. I argued the same point in psychology class.

But I've moved past that objection. I really really believe it is an efficient and powerful way of communicating with the horse in a way the horse actually understands what we are saying in that way.

I would have been just as vociferous or more than you at one time. But the concept of the horse learning they are allowed to say no but wanting and choosing to say yes is too powerful for me to turn away from.

That concept is something I have deeply desired since my first horse. +R to me has shown that it is clearly possible. That desire in me and the possibility of obtaining it is the driving force for the path I have chosen to follow. It is simply impossible to maintain a horse below a critical or evasive threshold using negative reinforcement. I am not saying -R has to be cruel. It has a bad rap from the past but many are now way below cruel with it. But it simply does not represent the relationship I desire having with a companion animal.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> I understand looking at "conditioning" as mechanistic. I have felt the same for most of my life. I argued the same point in psychology class.
> 
> But I've moved past that objection. I really really believe it is an efficient and powerful way of communicating with the horse in a way the horse actually understands what we are saying in that way.
> 
> ...


There are many correct ways. Positive reinforcement training is great. It is definitely not the only method that creates a horse that sees their human partner with positivity and true affection. 

What you are inferring is that only those who have used purely positive reinforcement methods have a truly good relationship with a horse. Also that those of us who use mixed methods do not give the horse the choice to say no and choose to say yes instead. 
Not to mention, I believe every training method, even +R involves coercion of the horse. A horse will learn that you won't leave them alone until they do something for you, and that is part of why they choose to say yes. It is not that they care more for their humans if they use positive reinforcement versus other methods. 

I will submit that no matter what type of relationship you have with a horse, their relationship with their best horse friend will be better. That relationship will not be based only only positive reinforcement, because horses don't operate that way with each other. As I've said, no relationship with another creature can be only positive. It is simply impossible. Even if you believe you will only present positive things to a horse, their feelings can still be negative at times. Even the person at work who always acts super nice can get on your nerves. They might get on your nerves more than the person who is more real and straightforward, who simply says "cut it out" and moves on rather than bugging you all the time.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> But the concept of the horse learning they are allowed to say no but wanting and choosing to say yes is too powerful for me to turn away from.


As a long-term goal, I strongly prefer for a horse to choose to say yes to what I want because they've come to want what I want. But this doesn't rule out a NEED to sometimes say no - as in "_Absolutely not!_" Insisting on positive only seems unrealistic.

I prefer the concept of "_Fences don't chase horses._" A horse can graze inches from a barbed wire fence. As long as he doesn't press into the barbed wire fence, he is OK. And he knows the fence is no threat - unless and until he chooses to violate the boundary. Once a horse learns about a barbed wire fence, the horse will not worry or feel threatened by one. But the horse must first learn that the barbed wire fence is formidable - that a horse who does push hard into a barbed wire fence will suffer for it!

I think it is important to set boundaries and those boundaries can easily be enforced with negative consequences - provided the horse learns that fences don't chase horses.

I also distinguish between learning, "_If I do X, it means I want you to do Y_". It is wonderful to teach new things as much as possible with positive reinforcement and without punishment. But horses are thinking beings with a will of their own. In the real world, I am unlikely to ever get Bandit to leave his mates and shelter and water and head out across rocky trails into a hot desert covered with spines by just getting on his back, no reins, no nothing - and just...*inspire* him to do so! I'm not an Elf Lord in a Tolkien story.

It can be hard work and will almost never be the easiest answer for him. Like a lot of creatures, including humans, Bandit will often choose what is preferable for the short term over the long term. Many of us - and I most certainly DO include me in this - fight weight issues because there are no immediate bad consequences to eating chips, donuts or cake!

I love running. More so than riding actually. But there are many days getting my rump into gear and pushing out across the first 1/4-1/2 mile is tough. And my run a couple of days ago? Did 3 miles without a single stride feeling fun.

I don' think horses are any different. Bandit seems to enjoy our rides well enough - not a great thrill, but OK by him - once we're out and moving. But he would almost never leave the corral unless he also knew that I could and would enforce my will. *He's just not that into me*. And there aren't enough treats in the world to lead him very far from his mates.

Doesn't mean I spend a lot of time punishing him. And like a barbed wire fence, I don't chase him. I don't seek him out to punish him. But I set boundaries and those boundaries can include, "_If you won't follow me from the corral to the saddle, or stand still while I put a saddle on you, you will be made unhappy._" Don't know if it is because Bandit is lacking in sweetness or I'm lacking in equine charm, but I won't get much riding done on positive only. And Bandit understands me and accepts me the same way I accept him. When Bandit tells me no, it is very likely he'll eventually back it up with "punishment" directed at me. But within certain constraints (fences), we get along fine.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

BTW - my horses stay calm at feeding time because they don't like getting hit with buckets or chased around by a near-psychotic bifocal-wearing old man....


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

gottatrot said:


> I have a hard time finding the desire to turn something like moving away from leg pressure that is so direct and simple, and apparently not very aversive to a horse into something very complicated and time consuming to teach.


Yes, which is why I started a thread recently to further consider reasons we may want to do that. I've since found no good ones, generally speaking. Altho I've always thought it is very dependent on the horse in question & his emotions & previously conceived attitude - ACinTX's new thread is a good eg of that, that it sounds like her Teddy could indeed 'need' 'purist' +R training, while other 'quadrants'(assuming used well & balanced) are perfectly acceptable for most horses.



> I don't need a clicker because horses are smart and understand "good boy" and "ah ah" very easily, and every horse I've known wanted to get the "good boy/girl" as soon as they knew what it meant.


With us supposedly the smartest animals on the planet, I find it interesting that I think using a clicker or other unique noisemaker may be more for _us_ to 'program' ourselves. At least, I really believe it helped me grasp 'marking' behaviours in a timely way, when I first started learning about it, and I've since taught many other people, and I think it seems to reduce/remove the 'messiness' that seems to be innate to people learning this to begin with. So, again, maybe just the way _my_ mind works, but I suggest people use a short, sharp, unique noisemaker when they're learning at least.



> Horses actually have a desire to please us when they like us, so things don't have to be a bridge to a treat, or release.


Hmm, I don't know that I agree with that bit. Perhaps, as herd animals who have a heirarchy, IF they see you as a respected(& respectFUL) trusted leader, they _might_ have a bit of a desire to please you, but I'm inclined to think they really just have a desire to please _themselves_ and if pleasing you satisfies some desire, in whatever respect, that may come across as a DTP the handler. Just like dogs. 

As for the horse not needing actual release/+R to feel 'rewarded', I definitely think that's not down to a DTP us. Just make abstract 'nice' noises, not associated with any R to an untrained horse & see what you get. It will be zilch. The reason that 'praise' works on it's own is because it has been previously associated with actual reinforcement - it is a learned response, praise has become a 'conditioned secondary reinforcer', in behavioural terms.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm more with @gottatrot on horses pleasing humans. I think they can find us sources of pleasurable social interaction. Once Bandit and I get out on a trail, he seems to enjoy our working together as a team. I believe horses come to really enjoy a feeling of togetherness with a human and that pleasure becomes a positive reinforcement. But in most cases, a horse will chose the HERD over the HUMAN. And I don't blame them. It is who they are.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

gottatrot said:


> Right, @Kalraii. Like with an unhandled mustang you do not want to use positive punishment because all they have is fear and no trust yet.


And yet, soooo many cop 'round penning' as their first real interaction with humans - no wonder horses often don't want anything to do with people...


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> I like the "This will profit you. This will profit you not." approach combined with "Quiet persistence."
> ...


There are many posts here that I sorely wish I could do more than 'like', and this is one of them - very well & simply put.


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> Rather than following a rigid idea of what methods might be correct, I think training involves a lot of feel and intuition, reading the horse with flexibility to respond and change to their individual personality. No one who does that will be cruel to the horse.


Totally agree! I don't use specific methods, I use what works best for me. 
As you guys were talking bout a "good boy" being more rewarding than a click, I had some thoughts...
I use a good boy, as a 'bridge' if I want them to say, loft their hoof. Since this is hard for my girls it may take them a while to lift it. When I feel them shift their weight to prepare to lift it, I say good girl. And when they actually lift it, I click. If I'm close enough to their mouth, I also treat them. Just my thoughts lol!


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

ACinATX said:


> Ultimately, I can't understand how people can do these things, the horse reacts by flinching or freezing or making a worried face, and they don't notice.


Because I think, to a large degree, they just _don't_ think, they aren't considerate, respectFUL of the animal. Many seem to think of pets - & perhaps more so horses, which you can 'use' as objects that they own that they can make do stuff they want. They just don't seem to give much thought to the fact that it is a sentient being too, or consider how the animal might view - or want to view - something. The 'catch phrase of the day' with horses seems to be 'respect' - the horse MUST 'respect' your space, respect your leadership... etc. But people generally aren't taught to be respectFUL TO the horse, which takes understanding & empathy. For that matter, to a large degree, seems kids these days often aren't taught to be respectFUL to anyone... it's not unique to horses.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

But how does a horse learn what profits him? A click and a treat of course!

I do believe and agree that horses, dogs, people, me, and other animal do what brings them the minimum displeasure and the most pleasure.

When a herd is threatened by a mountain lion, do they worry about the other guy? No. They try to get as far into the center of the rampaging herd as possible so as to be further away from the attacker. Let the other guy look out for himself.

There are exceptions of this instinct being over ridden but who knows what rewards come from over riding the instinct?

So no, I don't think horses do things just to please us. I think they do things that put them in the most pleasurable state. It's up to us to convince them what we want to do is fun for both of us. Not that different from convincing a friend to, 'c'mon, it'll be fun. Lets go! Not trickery or deception although I once considered it so. And I think +R is the surest avenue to obtain the horse having fun doing what we want to do.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

loosie said:


> They just don't seem to give much thought to the fact that it is a sentient being too, or consider how the animal might view - or want to view - something.


This is so true. It is just a huge huge leap to deep down truthfully consider the horse as having every single right that we have with nothing withheld.

As one of the pigs in Animal Farm proclaimed, "We are all equal here, but I'm more equal". (or something along those lines)


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

jaydee said:


> It’s an interesting concept and is rather like depriving a teenager of their iPhone because they didn’t do their homework.
> Horses don’t have the same thought process as a human though so I’m not sure it’s effective in the same way.
> Horses live in the moment, using the food aggressive thing as an example, removing the food isn’t teaching the horse a lesson not to attack you, it’s breaking the cycle of habit.


Yes, horses being 'in the moment' beasties, won't likely learn from abstracted 'consequences' - eg. I am losing my phone because I didn't do my homework. That doesn't matter whether we're talking -P or otherwise. But _assuming you find an effective -P for the situation/horse_, I don't see why they cannot learn, to use the same eg, 'I am not getting my phone because I am not _doing_ my homework'. IOW, it is instant association, and if they DO get their phone when they are DOING their homework, the absence will be strong(especially if somehow phone makes doing homework easier, better). 

In the same manner, if every time the horse goes to attack you, you remove their feed, and only allow them the opportunity to eat when they are being 'polite', yes, they _will_ learn not to attack you. I'm not getting why you think that cannot happen.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

SteadyOn said:


> So in that case, is withholding the grain while he is being pushy a negative punishment, or is giving the grain when he does a desired behaviour (stands in the corner) a positive reward? Is it both? Does he understand the negative punishment part, or does only the positive reward part actually compute for the horse? I don't know.


To that, I'd say yes to all of the above. It is, as in most situations, not 'clean cut' but a combination. And is an eg, IMO, where it simply doesn't matter whether it is one 'quadrant' or another.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

ACinATX said:


> Ultimately, I can't understand how people can do these things, the horse reacts by flinching or freezing or making a worried face, and they don't notice.


Back to this again, I think that sort of eg is why it's important to understand these principles at work, to look at the whole picture & realise how the horse sees whatever specific. Eg. you can turn something unpleasant like a smack on the neck(punishment) into a 'conditioned reinforcer', but if your aim is just to be nice or reward the horse for something, why would you bother to do it with something innately UNdesirable? But many people apparently like a slap on the back themselves(not me, it's a punishment to me), and just assume that it therefore is to all, so they do it to the horse without considering. 

My MIL is a back slapper. I generally tolerate it, and I understand she's not doing it with the intention of punishing me, but just the opposite. But she doesn't seem to notice I'd rather she quit it.

Animals at the vet, or groomers are a 'point of contention' in this respect too - when the dog for eg. is on the table, frightened & being subjected to something unpleasant, and the vet nurse is cooing 'goood boooy!', intending it to be rewarding & comforting for the dog... there's one eg why I think it's so important to understand the principles, in order to understand how the animal may view something. In order to be more effective in our communication, to actually convey what we intend.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> But how does a horse learn what profits him? A click and a treat of course!


Oh no! Not at all! A horse already does stuff because doing it gets him something he wants. He walks to X so he can drink. If that water hole dries up, he'll try to find water elsewhere.

If someone has a stargazer, the cause is often because lifting his head gives the horse relief from the bit pressure. If it gives even momentary relief, that is enough for it to "work" for the horse. Two options to solve the problem are 1) Stop hanging on the bit (!), or 2) Make certain a raised head does NOT give even a moment of relief. Keep the pressure going until the horse drops his head just a fraction and THEN release.

The key to using "*This will profit you. This will profit you not.*" is to figure out what "profit" the horse is already getting from a behavior. Then withhold that "profit" to decrease the behavior, and ensure that "profit" to increase it. A treat is a bribe. A "profit" is what a thinking animal gains from a behavior. But it only works if the rider can start understanding the horse instead of merely thumping his chest and saying, "_Me Big Boss. You My Toy_." Unhappily, far too much riding is rooted in: Man is King. Horse is Serf. Bow Down, Horse, to Master!



trailscout said:


> Not that different from convincing a friend to, 'c'mon, it'll be fun. Lets go!


Except riding often isn't going to be the most enjoyable option for the horse. When I invite a friend to go do something, I don't then climb on his/her back. And Bandit goes out into the desert. It is WORK. But I can alternate times of work with moments of grazing, and Bandit then finds it less objectionable.



















But less objectionable isn't the same thing as the most fun he can have.....


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

DanielDauphin said:


> No, Negative Punishment is too abstract a concept for animals to understand. Hell, teenagers don't seem to get it, how could a horse/dog/parrot?


Hi Daniel, nice to 'see' you here again.

I think I said early in the thread, that I too thought of -P as something largely useless to horses, but after mulling over all this, I can't exactly grasp _why_ I thought that now! I think it comes down to your perception of the term & how timing & considering other associated specifics is important. Eg. if ANY 'quadrant' is abstracted by time(eg. applied _after_ the behaviour you want to effect), there are too strongly opposing motivators(fear for eg), or it's not consistent, clear, then it will be 'too abstract for the horse to understand'. But I don't see why -P HAS to be any more 'abstract' than any other quadrant.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

loosie said:


> Hi Daniel, nice to 'see' you here again.
> 
> I think I said early in the thread, that I too thought of -P as something largely useless to horses, but after mulling over all this, I can't exactly grasp _why_ I thought that now! I think it comes down to your perception of the term & how timing & considering other associated specifics is important. Eg. if ANY 'quadrant' is abstracted by time(eg. applied _after_ the behaviour you want to effect), there are too strongly opposing motivators(fear for eg), or it's not consistent, clear, then it will be 'too abstract for the horse to understand'. But I don't see why -P HAS to be any more 'abstract' than any other quadrant.


Yes, I am glad to have started this thread because I've learned a lot and come to the conclusion that negative punishment can be useful if done as @loosie mentions. I'm also glad to be taking the time to understand these concepts better, just to have a better grasp of what I am actually doing sometimes.

@bsms makes some great points. Even if I might need some help making the choice to go for a run some days it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. Part of making things positive for horses is convincing them that even though you coerced them into going out for a ride (for example), once you were out there they enjoyed it. My mare Halla sometimes was reluctant to leave her friends when we were still at the pasture, but once we were headed out she grew eager, and she loved galloping with another horse. 

Regardless of individual opinions, I think it is constructive to be discussing these things between people who all obviously have the horses' best interests at heart. That is different from trying to talk about these concepts with some old school trainer who thinks the horse should do things "no matter what" and that the horse's opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

trailscout said:


> This is why it's so important for the beginner to stick to food rewards as that is a universal positive for the horse.


It is NOT at all a universal 'positive'(I take it you mean +R) any more than a pat on the neck is a universal aversive. For eg. shoving food into an unwilling mouth, *** someone described earlier, is likely to be a punishment. Food is however, _commonly_ a strong motivator and a generally practical +R.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

AbbySmith said:


> I use a good boy, as a 'bridge' if I want them to say, loft their hoof. Since this is hard for my girls


I see what your problem is - donkey Jennies are just too smart not to take offense at being called 'good boy!'


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

bsms said:


> Oh no! Not at all! A horse already does stuff because doing it gets him something he wants. He walks to X so he can drink. If that water hole dries up, he'll try to find water elsewhere.


This I of course get. But what profit is there for a horse to carry us down the trail? If trained using avoidance escape methodologies, I would suggest the profit is the escape and avoidance of things more unpleasant than carrying us down the trail and that if given the choice and being aware they were given a choice, they would simply stop and graze or lie down in the shade or sun depending on the weather.

Edit: I respect Tom Roberts as one of the early practitioners recommending and using reduced strengths of aversives in pressure/release training.

Never-the-less, I have always interpreted the phrase 'This profits you, this profits you not' as 'This gets you a release of pressure, this does not'.

Am I misunderstanding?


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

loosie said:


> It [food] is NOT at all a universal 'positive'(I take it you mean +R) any more than a pat on the neck is a universal aversive.


This is of course technically true. I'm not certain as it remains an unknown to me, but I at least suspect that a horse would not look at a dill pickle as a positive although I do. 

As far as shoving food into a horse's mouth, the horses I've been around would all reject this even if the food were desirable to them. They prefer to inspect what they take into their mouth.

So of course, food should be both something they enjoy and that they are only offered.

With that lengthy qualification, food is a universal positive.and is taken as so and spoken of as so by most trainers without the addition of lengthy qualifications.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> But what profit is there for a horse to carry us down the trail?.....if given the choice and being aware they were given a choice, they would simply stop and graze.....food is a universal positive


You use "profit" to encourage a certain behavior, and "not profit" to discourage a certain behavior. For going out on a trail, it can mean not accepting the horse's choice to turn around and go home, so that spinning 180 "will not profit" the horse. You don't necessarily ACTIVELY punish, but arguably using the reins and legs, etc is a form of negative interaction. In that sense, telling the horse to do ANYTHING that isn't the horse's choice could be considered punishment - but at some point, excessive rationalization leads to words meaning something very different from what they generally mean.

And there often IS "profit" for the horse carrying us. Bandit thinks of me as his staff officer, there to offer advise on where to go next and to help analyze potential threats. That is "profit" to a horse who doesn't want to face threats alone! And as @gottatrot mentioned, once a horse gets out and gets moving - like me after the first 1/2 mile of jogging - the horse may enjoy it. But you have to get over the hump and get out a ways first. Horses, like humans, can be lazy. And like humans, they can also enjoy the feeling of power and athleticism found in using their bodies:
-----------------------------------------------​_"The French say, when speaking of a horse that shows restiveness, "il se defend" - he defends himself...There is much truth in this expression, and it is one that riders should constantly bear in mind, for insubordination is most commonly the result of something having been demanded from the horse that it either did not know how to do or was unable to perform...

...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*...

..Horses don't like to be ennuye, and will rather stick at home than go out to be bored; they like amusement, variety, and society: give them their share of these, but never in a pedantic way, and avoid getting into a groove of any kind, either as to time or place, especially with young animals. It is evident that all these things must be taken into account and receive due attention, whether it be our object to prevent or to get rid of some bad habit a horse may have acquired; and a little reflection will generally suffice to point out the means of remedying something that, if left to itself, would grow into a confirmed habit, *or if attacked with the energy of folly and violence, would suddenly culminate in the grand catastrophe of restiveness*..."_

- On Seats and Saddles, by Francis Dwyer, Major of Hussars in the Imperial Austrian Service (*1868*)
-------------------------------------------​I love that quote, and love that it was written over 150 years ago! That said, Bandit would prefer grazing with his mates in a pasture (if we had one!). But like many horses, he is an agreeable fellow and, once moving, often seems to ENJOY 'exercising his powers' - and that is what entitles so many horses "_to the name of a noble and generous animal_".

Food may be a near universal positive for horses but it is also the lowest and crudest form of positive. Horses are capable of much more, and a good horseman looks for positives - "profits" - that transcend mere bribery. If you can engage the horse's mind and spirit, and get the horse to think WE are doing this as a team, then the horse will work very hard without any sugar cubes. Part of my approach to riding is based on the fact that once Bandit accepts responsibility for doing X, he then does X with a determination and energy I can never command him to give.
------------------------------------------------​"_Therefore, everywhere - out-of-doors or in the haute ecole - success with horses is to him who applies this maxim of Baucher...

'*Let him think that he is our master, then he is our slave.*' *There dwells an eternal equestrian truth!* 

'The horse is the sole master of his forces; even with all of our vigor, by himself, the rider is powerless to increase the horse's forces. Therefor, it is for the horse to employ his forces in his own way, for himself to determine the manner of that employment so as to best fulfill the demands of his riders. If the rider tries to do it all, the horse may permit him to do so, but the horse merely drifts, and limits his efforts to those which the rider demands. On the contrary, *if the horse knows that he must rely on himself, he uses himself completely, with all of his energy*.'_" - 5 May 1922

-- Horse Training Outdoors and High School, Etienne Beudant (1931)
--------------------------------------------------​I'm a lowly trail rider. No one will ever ask me to teach them how to ride. But I've repeatedly seen what Etienne Beudant says: We can gain control by losing it. If we can convince the horse he wants to do X, he will do X - and do it in a way no command of ours - and no bribed action of ours - can match.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

loosie said:


> Yes, horses being 'in the moment' beasties, won't likely learn from abstracted 'consequences' - eg. I am losing my phone because I didn't do my homework. That doesn't matter whether we're talking -P or otherwise. But _assuming you find an effective -P for the situation/horse_, I don't see why they cannot learn, to use the same eg, 'I am not getting my phone because I am not _doing_ my homework'. IOW, it is instant association, and if they DO get their phone when they are DOING their homework, the absence will be strong(especially if somehow phone makes doing homework easier, better).
> 
> In the same manner, if every time the horse goes to attack you, you remove their feed, and only allow them the opportunity to eat when they are being 'polite', yes, they _will_ learn not to attack you. I'm not getting why you think that cannot happen.


Probably because I’ve tried the same tactic in other similar situations and it’s never worked other than its breaking the habit by removing the scenario where the behavior is happening, i.e. the food is removed from the scenario so no reason for the horse to attack the human any more.
Apart from the length of time it takes to break the habit, if the behavior is caused by total lack of respect for the ‘human’, the behavior will return as soon as the scenario returns to its original state, if the horse still has no respect for the human.

Horses do that type of thing ‘because they can’.

This sort of exercise can work in things like a horse that wants to bolt home because the rider has always allowed it to canter or gallop home. 
That type of habit cycle is one created by the human so can be turned around by insisting the horse walks home until it learns that anything faster is on the rider’s terms.


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

loosie said:


> I see what your problem is - donkey Jennies are just too smart not to take offense at being called 'good boy!'


Lol! 🤣 I used that term generically. I definitely use good girl. Lilly would have a fit if I called her a boy! She gets mad when I call her the "Chubby Girls"


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

loosie said:


> Hi Daniel, nice to 'see' you here again.
> 
> I think I said early in the thread, that I too thought of -P as something largely useless to horses, but after mulling over all this, I can't exactly grasp _why_ I thought that now! I think it comes down to your perception of the term & how timing & considering other associated specifics is important. Eg. if ANY 'quadrant' is abstracted by time(eg. applied _after_ the behaviour you want to effect), there are too strongly opposing motivators(fear for eg), or it's not consistent, clear, then it will be 'too abstract for the horse to understand'. But I don't see why -P HAS to be any more 'abstract' than any other quadrant.


Yes, it's because of the timing. Good timing, as proven long ago in clinical settings is a response within about 1/4 second. Timing near that mark will allow the animal to link things as Cause and Effect. When timing is as late as about 3/4 of a second, their comprehension falls off about 80%. Things that happen seconds later might as well of not happened at all. This is why I say that Negative Punishment is too abstract. The timing is off too much for the animal to be able to link the cause and the effect. That's just a fact. What we may perceive as having happened may well seem different, but that's about as common as can be in the horse world too... And it isn't just horses, P- just isn't an effective strategy for training an animal. It doesn't even work that well with humans, in all honestly. There must be an ability to associate and reason that animals just don't possess, meaning they literally lack the part of the brain required for such thought to occur. Science...


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

trailscout said:


> With that lengthy qualification, food is a universal positive.and is taken as so and spoken of as so by most trainers without the addition of lengthy qualifications.


I guess it must just come down to experience that you say this. It's far from true. There are many, many egs where a horse may not want to eat even... molasses covered carrots. I think it's something that people do generally understand & is getting OT tho.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

DanielDauphin said:


> Things that happen seconds later might as well of not happened at all. This is why I say that Negative Punishment is too abstract. The timing is off too much for the animal to be able to link the cause and the effect.


Yes but... I don't get why you're thinking the timing of -P is _necessarily_ off? Why do you feel it's impossible for -P to be well timed any more than other 'quadrants'? 

**I too have always thought of -P as not useful for animals, because it was 'abstract', but this thread has made me analyse that thought, and I can't actually work out why I thought that now!

For eg... To teach a horse to take food 'politely' from my hand, I will offer it, but if they go to take it with their teeth or some such, I close my fist, remove my hand _when_ they're reaching with their teeth. Of course, it takes some repetition, but that's generally all I do to teach horses 'food manners' in that way.

For Jaydee's eg of food aggression at 'dinner time', I may well be prepared for +P too, in order to remain safe(& depending, I might want to start lessons with a fence between us), but my main tactic is also withholding/removing the food when the horse is 'acting up'. To offer it only when they are being 'polite'.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

loosie said:


> molasses covered carrots


Yuck! I prefer pickles. I'm talking about normal horse food. I suppose I should have included that in my disclaimer.

I did not intend to suggest that any creative 'designer food' was always a universal positive reward for a horse. Sheesh!

I have a question. If I was deep deep in the forest where you could not hear me and I said something, would I still be wrong?


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

Okay so I've been thinking about some of the things said on here and I don't usually post much in threads like this cause it's still pretty new and confusing to me so I try and just do my own thing cause it works for me. But, I have been thinking about it, so I will try and articulate something I have thought of, sorry if it doesn't make by sense...
I cannot remember who said it but they were talking bout something like horses don't know that they pleased their master, they only do it so they are comfortable. Or something along those lines. I don't remember exactly. Well I got to thinking that if a horse can tell your anxious/nervous/stressed/excited while you're riding him, why can he not feel what your going through while you're on the ground? I think that horses can tell that you are pleased with them. Now, I'm not saying that horses will do things just to please you, they may eventually if they trust you enough, but that is not where we start. I think that in the beginning of training, negative reinforcement isn't going to help. If you ask for a horse's hoof and they don't give it you, snacking them isn't going to help. They don't understand why they did wrong. We need to strive to ask for things in a way that makes sense for the horse. Not for us. My lilly, tries her very best but if she doesn't understand,she's bit gonna get it right. I still give her a treat even if she didn't do what I wanted her to do, because we are still in the beginning of training, and if she never gets a treat for even trying, why would she continue trying? I think that horses do go for what puts them in the most comfortable position. I think that they do know that if they lift their hoof, they get a treat, and they are happy. Things are taught to horses by association. If that makes sense. Horses associate things together. When they walk past a bucket and a loud noise or something goes off, and they spook. They will be scared if the bucket, cause that is what they saw first. If you feed them treats in the same spot at the fence every morning, they are going to associate treats with that spot. 
So if you train them with treats, they will associate, that they feel good when they lift their hoof. 

I have trained many sheep with this theory if association. Now, I know bovines and equines are different, but I'm going to share one of my experiences anyhow. 
There was a really cute sheep that I loved, and she wanted the treats that I had, but she didn't want to be pet. So I began feeding her treats so she became comfortable being around me. Eventually I would start petting her, _as she ate the treat_. She got used to me petting her as good, because she _associated_ the petting with the good feeling of eating the treats. Once she got used to that,I began to pet her first,then feed the treat. If she walked away as I was petting her. I let her. I wanted this to be _her_ decision, not mine. 
This ewe is still friendly towards me to this day. I probably did this association training, with her two years ago. And she still comes right up to me when I walk in the pen, and let's me pet her all over and she just stands there. I feed her treats sometimes, but not always anymore. I have done this with many many sheep, so much so, that I have a little band or herd of friendly ewes that follow me round the pen. I have also successfully done this with pigs as well. 


I'm not sure you guys were able to make any sense out of what I said, but I really do appreciate these type of threads so I can try and articulate and remind myself, what I really think. And how I train.


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

loosie said:


> Yes but... I don't get why you're thinking the timing of -P is _necessarily_ off? Why do you feel it's impossible for -P to be well timed any more than other 'quadrants'?
> 
> **I too have always thought of -P as not useful for animals, because it was 'abstract', but this thread has made me analyse that thought, and I can't actually work out why I thought that now!
> 
> ...


I would mostly question whether or not most of the examples given actually constitute negative punishment.
For instance, the food removal until they have a better attitude could just as easily be characterized as positive reinforcement. If you simply removed the food every time they acted up, and completely walked away for 20 minutes would it still work out the same way? I doubt it, thus my opinion. I did not carefully read every post here, but it was apparent in skimming that a whole lot of what was presented wasn't actually what they thought it was, which is fine. Whatever works and however they need to consider it, but if we're using the definitions, then we should be true to what they actually mean. 
I've no doubt that P- would eventually have an effect, but if you actually measured the time it took, number of cycles, and so forth, I think it would clearly be the least useful of the 4 quadrants. My guess is it would lose by several orders of magnitude. I'm all for experimenting and trying new things, so if Quadrants are new to you, or something in here sparked a curiousity, then go for it. No harm will be done. I've wasted loads of time trying stuff over the years. No worries.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

trailscout said:


> I did not intend to suggest that any creative 'designer food' was always a universal positive reward for a horse. Sheesh!


As always it seems, you have chosen to take me in a way I didn't intend. Others don't seem to take me wrongly & 'bite' at everything, & I'm thinking that if you were deep in a forest & you heard a voice you thought was mine, you'd be arguing against whatever was said.

Anyway, re above, tho it's off topic, no, I'm not talking about 'designer food' or some such 'sheesh!'. ANY food. I just gave that eg as something many domestic horses would (generally) find extremely attractive.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

bsms said:


> You use "profit" to encourage a certain behavior, and "not profit" to discourage a certain behavior. For going out on a trail, it can mean not accepting the horse's choice to turn around and go home, so that spinning 180 "will not profit" the horse. You don't necessarily ACTIVELY punish, but arguably using the reins and legs, etc is a form of negative interaction. In that sense, telling the horse to do ANYTHING that isn't the horse's choice could be considered punishment - but at some point, excessive rationalization leads to words meaning something very different from what they generally mean.
> 
> And there often IS "profit" for the horse carrying us. Bandit thinks of me as his staff officer, there to offer advise on where to go next and to help analyze potential threats. That is "profit" to a horse who doesn't want to face threats alone! And as @gottatrot mentioned, once a horse gets out and gets moving - like me after the first 1/2 mile of jogging - the horse may enjoy it. But you have to get over the hump and get out a ways first. Horses, like humans, can be lazy. And like humans, they can also enjoy the feeling of power and athleticism found in using their bodies:
> -----------------------------------------------​_"The French say, when speaking of a horse that shows restiveness, "il se defend" - he defends himself...There is much truth in this expression, and it is one that riders should constantly bear in mind, for insubordination is most commonly the result of something having been demanded from the horse that it either did not know how to do or was unable to perform...
> ...


This was a very good post. 
This is a great quote *"Food may be a near universal positive for horses but it is also the lowest and crudest form of positive. Horses are capable of much more, and a good horseman looks for positives - "profits" - that transcend mere bribery. If you can engage the horse's mind and spirit, and get the horse to think WE are doing this as a team, then the horse will work very hard without any sugar cubes."*
Yes. 

I was reading and watching some videos of Via Nova trainers, since one was referenced by @trailscout as a proponent of positive reinforcement only. 
The first trainer, Gilly Slayter wears spurs and carries a crop, so apparently the horse won't just jump everything out of the joy of positive reinforcement training. 





Watching more videos. With an open mind, I honestly don't see horses that are happier learning with these methods than others. There is pressure going on, it's just that it has been changed from physical pressure to mental pressure. This horse appears to tolerate the work. He knows he doesn't have a choice to simply walk away and not work, because even though he is not wearing tack, he is still being held to the work until the trainer decides he is done. This is just a method of training, but it is not superior to other methods for the horse. I'd be very interested to see studies on the cortisol levels of horses going through this type of training versus more traditional pressure and release to teach backing up.





This guy's horse responds well and seems nicely relaxed around him. His philosophy is also to have the horse be positive and happy. This is how I have horses back up (using a halter and lead), and it's so simple, and I don't see how it is any less stressful to use the positive reinforcement method in the video above. Plus, working on it is very short, which is more positive for the horse. And if you give treats for each successful step, the horse learns even faster.





I agree with @DanielDauphin that negative punishment is the least useful, and probably only useful as an adjunct to other types of reinforcement.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

DanielDauphin said:


> I would mostly question whether or not most of the examples given actually constitute negative punishment.


Yes absolutely, and just like the question of whether negative reinforcement necessarily needs punishment as precursor, it does seem to be a little hazy & different people seem to have different perceptions, even just in behavioural circles. So we need to be clear on people's definitions when we're discussing. 

For my part, I like to stick to the most basic definitions; +R is addition of something desirable to strengthen a behaviour. -R is removal of something UNdesirable in order to strengthen a behaviour. +P is addition of something undesirable to weaken a behaviour and -P is removal of something desirable in order to weaken a behaviour. So, using those definitions, my egs were definitely -P. I don't get why 'completely walked away for 20 minutes' or any such comes into it at all. But perhaps your definition of -P includes doing something after a behaviour, for x-amount of time? If that's your definition, then I agree wholeheartedly that would be next to pointless. But then, animals needing instant associations, possibly no more pointless than using the other 'quadrants' in the same way.



> For instance, the food removal until they have a better attitude could just as easily be characterized as positive reinforcement.


Yep, we were talking about that earlier in the thread, that it's often not 'clean cut' black & white isolated use of one 'quadrant' only. It's often a... hazy shade of winter.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

I was interested to see what positive reinforcement training looks like under saddle. It really is no different from what many of us do. I use treats this way quite often. But the rider uses negative reinforcement (pressure/release) in the form of rein and leg aids like everyone else. 




For those who want to try it, I'll submit it is a lot easier when you are outside to pull over and let the horse eat grass for a few moments than to hand feet treats on a horse with a long neck. 





I've been looking for any demonstrations online of riding work beyond just getting on and walking around that involve positive reinforcement only, and can't find any. They all seem to involve the tried-and-true pressure and release system of teaching horses to respond to leg and rein cues. It seems to be something that can mostly be used for ground work, teaching a horse to stand for mounting, etc. It reminds me a bit of the Parelli fad that went on a few years back, and out of ten or twelve people I knew that did it, only one actually rode their horse.

Horses can really enjoy going out and exercising, and even with a traumatized horse, eventually you're going to want them to stop thinking about treats coming from behind their head and start focusing on the work. It's OK to ask horses to work. The rest of us work for a living, and they understand moving over ground as work just as they do searching for food and water.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

AbbySmith said:


> I have trained many sheep with this theory if association. Now, I know bovines and equines are different, but I'm going to share one of my experiences anyhow.
> There was a really cute sheep that I loved, and she wanted the treats that I had, but she didn't want to be pet. So I began feeding her treats so she became comfortable being around me. Eventually I would start petting her, _as she ate the treat_. She got used to me petting her as good, because she _associated_ the petting with the good feeling of eating the treats. Once she got used to that,I began to pet her first,then feed the treat. If she walked away as I was petting her. I let her. I wanted this to be _her_ decision, not mine.


This is great! You didn't know it, but you were doing a perfect job of classically conditioning both yourself and the act of petting. And animals don't forget.

Your description is exactly what I did a few years ago to gentle a Jersey heifer that had seriously injured her owner who wound up in the hospital and needed lengthy recovery. Yep, big ole sharp horns and all. That heifer would come to me the instant I climbed the fence and lay her chin on my shoulder to make it easier for me to scratch her favorite spot under her neck. I began by only putting food in a dish and gradually worked up to her eating out of my hand and finally 'air petting' her with one hand while I fed with the other until I could finally pet her. Many times I needed to back off the air petting as I saw her get a little nervous. By the end I could handle her all over and was the first to ever put a milking machine on her after she calved.

She finally learned to enter the milking parlor with all the loud noises and confusion. All without restraints or compulsion of any kind. It took a while and a bit a patients but using any other method would have resulted in her being turned into hamburger. She became a really beautiful mature Jersey cow. I went to state in high school judging dairy cows so have a bit of a developed eye.

I'm certain she would still remember me. I have fond memories myself. I want that relationship and feeling with a horse.

Edit: I think you know a lot more about training animals than you've been letting on


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Comparing +R training to feeding sugar cubes was done by one who clearly stated in another post that they had no knowledge, understanding, or interest in +R training. It shows.

Tera Nova has many clients, most actually, that have a background in natural horsemanship's pressure/release that bring horses to them with problems they have not been able to solve. Tera Nova trainers use +R and target training to solve the problems but do not demand the owners make a complete transition to +R but simply hope that the results will have as lasting effect on the owners as it does on the horses.

+R does not use leg pressure as is used in pressure/release training. They use tactile cues that are impossible to distinguish by the observer from pressure/release cues. Shawna trained her first personal horse as a baby, now 27, using pure +R. Riders that only know pressure/release training/riding can ride her horse exactly the same as any other horse. But it's only the touch of a tactile cue that gets the trained associated response. With an associated increase in seeking system emotions I'll add.

Fairhorsemanship and Connection Training are ok sites. The second actually features Shawna Karrasch and I believe were trained to some degree by her, but they do some things that Shawna does not.

BTW, as far as +R training horses beyond walking around in a round pen, the very first horse Shawna worked with was a show horse that went on to win a cool 1 Million at a competition ridden by Beezie Maddin of the Maddin Ranch where Shawna first began her career of working with horses.

Shawna has 37 year training animals. 10 at SeaWorld and 27 with horses. She has worked with literally thousands and thousands of horses. In my opinion, most other trainers compared to her are almost in the class of backyard trainers.

Search YouTube for liberty training and you'll find lots of videos with people yanking their horses all over the place with ropes. They are a total joke. But for someone that wants to reject liberty training they would serve as good fodder for rejection.

Edit: Oh yeah and BTW, as far as the time it takes to train, Shawna limits sessions to 5-10 minutes or even as few as 3 minutes with no more than 3 per day. She claims it takes 12 to 24 hours for the brain to grow new pathways and horses are often better the next day without additional training.

The big problem for many horse owners is that their horses do not live on their property so they do not have 15-20 minutes to work with their horse an a daily basis.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

I want to add a note about the Jersey I gentled and befriended. 

At first is was largely about the food but gradually evolved to the point where most often she would turn away from the food seeming to prefer just the interaction with me. It was really curious to me at first when she wasn't interested in the calf manna she really liked until it became apparent she preferred being scratched and groomed all over and just interacted with. This is something all +R practitioners all finally learn, that it really and absolutely is not all about the food.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I dislike a lot of English riding. I have lots of reasons for why I dislike it. But I also have a problem: When I look around, it seems lots of horses ridden English are fine. Happy even. Thriving. And there are probably just as many unhappy western horses as unhappy English horses. Reality doesn't match my beliefs.

Feel the same way about this discussion. My horse and I get along fine. Yes, I've even punished him! I've been known to jump in his chili with my boots on. I've thrown rocks at his butt. Chased him around with a poop scoop screaming, thrown buckets of feed at him. And....we get along fine. I've slugged my horse in the side with my fist and...he didn't care. I've chased him across the corral and then had him follow me 30 seconds later. He isn't stressed about me. And he sometimes fusses back at me. And I don't stress over it. If I enter the corral to do something, he leaves the other horses and comes over and investigates. Or hangs out next to me. I can chew him out, punch him in the shoulder, and a minute later he's...happy and relaxed.

In fact, I've seen a LOT of horses trained with actual punishment who seem happy. I'm not a big fan of punishing horses. I prefer Tom Roberts' approach and have discussed it (and quoted it) here. But nothing in my experience with horses says horses cannot like someone who has punished them, provided the punishment is for something they understand and is proportional.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Sorry, but I do question a horse liking someone who punishes them.

Dogs will appear appeasing when punished whether they deserved it or not, (assuming a dog can actually 'deserve punishment')

Children will also form an attachment toward an abuser. It sounds counter intuitive, but it can be read about all over the place in both news and regarded psychology articles and scientific periodicals.

The attachment seems to be a way of avoiding more abuse or punishment.

Punishment, if it is real punishment, causes fear. I fail to see how that could contribute to any positive type attachment associated with endorphins etc.

As far as a horse understanding the punishment they receive, I'll go to the old saw, a horse is a horse is a horse. They do what works for them and if it causes punishment they can't otherwise contend with, they stop what ever they were punished for. That's it. That's all of it. They will form an avoidance reaction for what ever they were doing and likely toward the punisher also which they may well suppress in order to avoid more punishment.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

bsms said:


> In fact, I've seen a LOT of horses trained with actual punishment who seem happy.


Then I would suggest you've seen a lot of shut down horses. Shut down horses are typically categorized as calm, respectful and obedient.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> Comparing +R training to feeding sugar cubes was done by one who clearly stated in another post that they had no knowledge, understanding, or interest in +R training. It shows.
> 
> Tera Nova has many clients, most actually, that have a background in natural horsemanship's pressure/release that bring horses to them with problems they have not been able to solve. Tera Nova trainers use +R and target training to solve the problems but do not demand the owners make a complete transition to +R but simply hope that the results will have as lasting effect on the owners as it does on the horses.
> 
> ...


Adding positive reinforcement to help a horse through things is something most trainers do. To me that is nothing unusual or worth touting on a website, especially because we have established that most of us use at least three methods of operant conditioning. What I am debating is if using only positive reinforcement is actually a superior method of training. It is my belief that using a great deal of positive reinforcement is the best way to go. Using only positive reinforcement is not some ideal I personally think it is necessary to strive for. 

I was reading about a study that showed neither positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement was less stressful when teaching young horses to load into a trailer. 
Positive, Negative Reinforcement in Horse Training Compared
I can't find the link now, but I also was reading about a study that showed horses responded better to negative reinforcement when they were not stressed or fearful, and to positive reinforcement when they were nervous or afraid. 
If you read through some of the articles on positive reinforcement theory, there is some false information. This is from 
Part 3: Application Differences Between Positive and Negative Reinforcement | Mustang Maddy

"In negative reinforcement, you must maintain control of the behavior. This means that _if you begin asking for a behavior you must stick with the escalation of pressure until the horse responds in some way._ A good trainer will reward the horse’s smallest tries towards the correct behavior and be able to identify these in order to set the horse up for success and avoid frustration and fear. But either way, you must stick with the pressure until the horse shows a sign of responding correctly, otherwise you will accidentally reward the resistance. I call this an “accidental release.” For example, the horse pulls back, the lead rope snaps, and he gets a release of pressure, hence he is rewarded for pulling back. So even though a sensitive trainer will be able to read and reward a horse’s small efforts towards the desirable behavior, releasing pressure and giving up on a behavior before the horse answers correctly is really only damaging to the horse as he is rewarded for an incorrect behavior and becomes even more confused.

In positive reinforcement training, however, if the animal isn’t getting the behavior, no problem. The animal is given the choice to simply perform a different behavior or a smaller approximation with no aversive consequence. I was shocked and impressed with this new concept as I saw it appear throughout my time with the marine mammals. Of course, why hadn’t I thought of that before now! The trainers called this concept the “redirection technique.” The *redirection technique* is a _technique used to ask for other, easier behaviors when the animal becomes confused or withdrawn before returning to it in order to maintain behavioral momentum and prevent behavior breakdown and aggression."_

It is not true that with negative reinforcement you must escalate pressure until you get a response if the horse is not understanding what you are asking. You are certainly not rewarding resistance if, for example, you press on the horse's side and the horse does not understand to move away, and does not find the right answer. In negative reinforcement training, the animals also can be given the choice to simply perform a smaller approximation with no aversive consequence. Good trainers do this all the time. They wait for the slightest lean away from the pressure, and then remove the pressure. They don't push harder and harder to try to elicit a response if the horse does not yet understand what that pressure means. 

I'll just submit that with a hotter type OTTB, positive reinforcement training did not make a horse that was safe to ride in a scary setting for this trainer. She opted to not ride and only let him run around and do some work when loose from the ground, which I'm sure riding without a saddle or bridle in this situation would have been unsafe. So that was a good decision. However, most likely after the amount of training spent on the horse, she could have ridden in this setting with more traditional training, and the horse would probably not have had a higher stress level than this.
Retired Racehorse Project 2019 | Mustang Maddy

This article was interesting:
Negative Reinforcement and the Positives it Can Have

Negative reinforcement and even positive punishment are quite natural for horses, and as @bsms said, they do not create fearful or shut down horses if used properly. From the moment a foal is born, the mother uses negative reinforcement to show the baby what to do. If it comes down to safety or teaching lessons when the foal is older, the mother will add positive punishment. Negative reinforcement with correct timing is a great way to teach horses, because they understand it very naturally.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

trailscout said:


> Sorry, but I do question a horse liking someone who punishes them.


It isn't about the horse liking being punished, its about the nature of the 'beast'.

I'm not suggesting that we ever want our horses to treat us like a horse but there are things that we can learn about their perceptions by watching how they treat each other.

Horses in a field will frequently have little spats with each other over seemingly trivial things and yet five minutes later they're the best of buddies again. Its not that they enjoy the spats, its that its in their nature to accept them and not hold a grudge, provided the spats are constant and in between them, they're the best of friends and trust each other.

Ive had two horses that hated being groomed because (a) they were ticklish and (b) they'd been allowed to dictate their desire to never be brushed by biting and kicking their humans. When grooming was necessary, both had been sedated with ACE/ACP.

When they came to us they had to adapt to my daily regime of daily grooming, frequently before and after riding and sedation was not an option.

All it took to persuade them that considerate grooming was not going to rip the skin of their flesh or kill them was one good hard whack with a short piece of sawn off wooden broom handle. 

I had both horses for a long time and had great relationships with both of them, they both come high on my list of best horses I've ever owned.

It doesn't work with all horses so a Plan B is always needed.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> +R does not use leg pressure as is used in pressure/release training. *They use tactile cues that are impossible to distinguish by the observer from pressure/release cues.* Shawna trained her first personal horse as a baby, now 27, using pure +R. Riders that only know pressure/release training/riding can ride her horse exactly the same as any other horse. But it's only the touch of a tactile cue that gets the trained associated response. With an associated increase in seeking system emotions I'll add.


That strikes me as amusing. Using a cue that is released when the behavior is accomplished is negative reinforcement even if you try to label it to fit into another belief system. Either that or I also only use positive reinforcement too, because my horses respond to tactile cues. They also seek for what I want, and offer new behaviors with positive emotional responses.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> Sorry, but I do question a horse liking someone who punishes them.....Then I would suggest you've seen a lot of shut down horses.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, but the idea that Mia and Bandit were and are shut down horses is ridiculous. I had 7 years with Mia. Almost 6 now with Bandit. But since my relationship with them doesn't match your theory, you tell me I haven't experienced what I know I have?

If someone has an experience that contradicts your theory then they must NOT have had that experience? Mia and now Bandit view me as an advisor more than a boss and we like it that way. Neither of them would have any respect, however, for a human who won't go toe-to-hoof with them. And I *mean* "respect", not "obedience". I know the difference even if a lot of natural horsemanship trainers are confused about them.

I don't "like" English riding, _but I'm willing to admit millions of horses disagree with me._ You can "_question a horse liking someone who punishes them_", but you might want to open your eyes to what others are seeing: *Horses punish each other all the time! Without resentment!* There is nothing unnatural or even very objectionable to them about fair, justified punishment.


trailscout said:


> Punishment, if it is real punishment, causes fear.


No. It doesn't. It...just...does...not. ABUSIVE punishment will cause fear. Irrational punishment, just random acts of violence, will. But punishment doesn't need to be abusive, irrational, etc. I couldn't guess how many times I've "punished" Bandit. And we're pals. If your theory doesn't accept that as possible, then your theory needs to change.


jaydee said:


> its that its in their nature to accept them and not hold a grudge...


Well put. Much more succinct and to the point than my own rambling!


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

trailscout said:


> Sorry, but I do question a horse liking someone who punishes them.
> 
> Dogs will appear appeasing when punished whether they deserved it or not, (assuming a dog can actually 'deserve punishment')
> 
> ...


The entire basis behind "Natural Horsemanship", which was a good one before it got perverted into overpriced rope halters, is treating the horse the way horses treat horses. The main type of conditioning used by the alpha mare is positive punishment. Horses have far more body language signs of threatening than they do of affection. Those are simple facts. You can muddy the waters all you want, but it doesn't change those facts one bit. I've dealt with thousands of horses in my career and beyond any shadow of doubt, my experience has informed my opinion that horsepeople who fail at punishing effectively create horses that at best are a Pain In The ****, and at worst are quite dangerous. 

Horse herds do not create these types of horses, well-intentioned, soft-hearted people do.
I'll also say that punishing well is a path. You can go off of that path on both sides. Pure positive reinforcement has its problems, as does over-punishing, or abusing.

I don't have the time to watch all of those videos, but if that Seaworld lady is who I think she is, her initial videos were absolute trainwrecks. I very seldom publicly criticize another "professional" but the lady I am thinking of was absolutely off of her rocker and practicing some very dangerous behaviors. The wife and maybe the husband had previously been employed at Seaworld. The video that I am thinking of is a husband and wife doing groundwork with a sorrel filly for a local news story. They were food treating the filly through an obstacle course, at liberty (they never rode her) and the horse was threatening them the entire time, even mock kicking at the husband on camera. They laughed it off and praised her "spirit". Nothing can disturb the narrative...
If those are the same people, hopefully they have learned a lot since those days, because they sure as hell were going to get a lot of people hurt.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

gottatrot said:


> For those who want to try it, I'll submit it is a lot easier when you are outside to pull over and let the horse eat grass for a few moments than to hand feet treats on a horse with a long neck.


Bummer that people are posting vids, that I can't watch atm because of my rubbish internet. Perhaps the above comment is related to one of those?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

trailscout said:


> Punishment, if it is real punishment, causes fear.


If that were true, there are an awful lot of us walking around thinking we're using punishment, but it's not 'real'.



trailscout said:


> Then I would suggest you've seen a lot of shut down horses.


If that were true, most horses would be 'shut down' to eachother - as almost all, IME, punish eachother...


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> Adding positive reinforcement to help a horse through things is something most trainers do


Most trainer don't even understand the basics of positive reinforcement. They hand a treat and there, I reinforced positively.
.https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/119279/positive-negative-reinforcement-in-horse-training-compared
From the article:
Quote: The team randomly divided each age group into a positive reinforcement group and a negative reinforcement group. They gave the positive reinforcement horses a food reward each time they stepped toward the trailer. Unquote

They just proved they have no clue what +R is even about. All the objections I read are absolute nonsense. Just as I stated at the outset, the gave a treat and concluded they were administering +R. They are dumb dumb and worse but I won't say it here.

I'll skim the rest of the posts but I doubt there is anything more to say than I've said.



gottatrot said:


> "In negative reinforcement, you must maintain control of the behavior. This means that _if you begin asking for a behavior you must stick with the escalation of pressure until the horse responds in some way._ A good trainer will reward the horse’s smallest tries


Maddy calls removal of the applied aversive a reward. I disagree. I believe it is simply removal reinforcement. Shawna in one podcast or video quipped that the horse is not walking around saying, "hey, could somebody put some pressure on me so i can experience the removal?" but instead is walking around saying, "Hey, could I get some grass?"

Reward is just a word of course, but my problem with it is that it appears to suggest the same thing is happening in the horses brain during an aversive release that happens during a positive reinforcement. And those two are in no way related so different words are better to describe each.

That said, Maddy has been a mega huge inspiration for me. She also says the horses need to go into -R after recovery from trauma using +R. Shawna again disagrees from her 37 years experience. I am so impressed with what Maddy has done in such a short time, but she only began +R 2-3 years ago.



gottatrot said:


> It is not true that with negative reinforcement you must escalate pressure until you get a response if the horse is not understanding what you are asking.


Yes, it is true if you consider the increase in time duration as an escalation and it is. Doesn't have to be pulling harder to teach to lead. You use a certain amount of pressure and stand there and wait until they get tired of it and move forward. Even though the pressure is the same, the discomfort will increase along with the time. If you don't believe it sit on a lump on one hip that doesn't bother you and wait a while and it will increase in discomfort.

If the pressure is released without at least some little try, the horse will have been taught that which you don't want him to be taught. Hmmm, if I wait the lady will get tired or bored and go away or at least stop pulling on me.



jaydee said:


> there are things that we can learn about their perceptions by watching how they treat each other.


To me, that's toutamount to claiming we can learn how to deal with and teach kids more effectively by watching how they interact with one another at recess. Not that that's not important for other reasons, but I disagree that is the path to learning to teach them.



DanielDauphin said:


> The entire basis behind "Natural Horsemanship", which was a good one before it got perverted into overpriced rope halters, is treating the horse the way horses treat horses.


This is patently false. Talk to Pat P. about that. Natural Horsemanship is basically a more gentle form pressure/release training. Has nothing to do with how horses treat horses. Horses are fully aware we are not horses and do not interact with us as the same.



loosie said:


> If that were true, most horses would be 'shut down' to eachother - as almost all, IME, punish eachother...


Shut down horses do not exist in the wild.

When a horse faces fear or aggreasion, the reaction is fight, flight, or freeze. In the wild if fight is denied or not a chosen option, flight is always available.

In captivity, we have ropes, pens, chains, and whip they cannot escape from. And they have learned that fighting is not possible. So they freeze internally. PTSD sets in. Their eyes become dull. Yep, they are calm and they will do as directed. But the life is gone from them. I've seem more than I care to see. 



gottatrot said:


> That strikes me as amusing. Using a cue that is released when the behavior is accomplished is negative reinforcement even if you try to label it to fit into another belief system.


Then you need to reread and rethink. The pressure is not released AFTER the response when using a tactile cue. With a tactile cue there is a touch and release prior to the behavior just as in a vebal cue. If a verbal cue of trot is given, do you hold the sylible trrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooootttttttttt until the horse begins troting or do you just say trot. Same with a tactile cue which is conditioned as a secondary reinforcer only AFTER the bahavior has been taught using +R methods.

I hope I haven't missed any important comments but my fingers are getting tired and Keno is looking into the windo adjacent to my desk.

But it's been fun. Too tired to check for typos. Just read past them.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

I agree that not punishing effectively and stepping off the wrong side of the path causes problems. 

I was just watching a Warwick Schiller video on horses that nip and bite. It was good information. He says that you should understand most of the time the horse is trying to interact with you, and if it is about playing, then you should give the horse attention.





What he doesn't get into is that if the horse has a long history of this, you may need to give a lot of direction to show him how to do this. For example, John Lyons says that if a horse bites or nips, you should focus on his head and rub him hard and annoyingly until he doesn't want to engage. But if the horse enjoys the rough play, because he likes playing biting face games with other horses, even if it hurts, he might just keep trying to engage and since you are rough, try to use his teeth a lot. In other words, he might not interpret your attempts to annoy him as punishment.

If the horse is wanting attention, like Schiller is saying, you might have to show him that it is fine to lip you and rub his muzzle on you, but you don't want him to use his teeth. That might involve rewarding him with interaction when he does it nicely, and giving him negative verbalization, a smack, or a yank on the halter when he does bite.
Positive reinforcement only people would say that directing to another behavior and not punishing the biting will work. However, if the horse has a strong drive to play and interact in this way, it will keep coming up. To me it seems better to simply teach the horse the rules of the game. A lot of people can't handle this, and teach the horse to be rude. They think they are correcting a horse by pushing on his face, but they are only really playing a game in the horse's mind. 

@trailscout says if a horse is displaying dangerous behaviors with positive reinforcement methods, they are kept behind a fence and handled that way until the behaviors go away. I know personally that some horses won't show a behavior until for example they are being led, due to their history. So I don't see how you can eliminate the behavior they only do when being led in a scary place, if you never actually lead them. Dangerous behaviors don't just go away on their own because you've always been positive with a horse. If you are working with a horse that bolted away with riders, nothing you teach them during groundwork and positive reinforcement will affect that behavior until you are finally riding the horse and discovering what caused the bolting. 

This trainer to me reinforces what @DanielDauphin is talking about. This mustang was started with positive reinforcement, but then began trying to dominate the handler. He needs to understand that humans are different from horses and he cannot dominate them. He is not scaring the horse, but he is communicating to the horse that he has the ability to move the horse out of a space if he wants to. 





That is where I believe "positive reinforcement only" trainers are misleading. They discuss physical contact with a horse and avoid it. Some get down to bareback and bridleless as the ultimate way to communicate. However, horses primarily communicate and put pressure on each other without making physical contact. Yet they put a lot of mental pressure on one another through body language and moving space. If you watch the positive reinforcement training, they aggressively take away horses' space, and control the horse. They also do what horses do, which is even though a horse is loose, another horse can control and make the other horse follow them. This mental coercion is a type of domination and is a natural behavior, but it still involves negativity. Having a horse follow a target is a form of pressure as much as having a horse follow a soft feel on a rein is. There can be a reward at the end, either way. Perhaps with the rein cue, the "bridge" might be a verbal encouragement, and the reward a nice carrot after the ride. 

I think dog trainers are more honest. When they train a dog to heel, they understand that this is the dog working, and that if the dog is brought back when he leaves, the dog will soon stop trying to leave. People who work horses at liberty want you to believe that the horse feels free to leave at any time. The horse knows this is his work, and it is not that he "loves" the person and wants to be with them, but he has been trained to "heel off leash." 
I'm not saying it's wrong to teach a horse to heel off leash. It's just that it is a form of training that is not superior to any other. If a horse follows commands from a neck rope, he is effectively wearing a bridle around his neck.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> Then you need to reread and rethink. The pressure is not released AFTER the response when using a tactile cue. With a tactile cue there is a touch and release prior to the behavior just as in a vebal cue. If a verbal cue of trot is given, do you hold the sylible trrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooootttttttttt until the horse begins troting or do you just say trot. Same with a tactile cue which is conditioned as a secondary reinforcer only AFTER the bahavior has been taught using +R methods.


That is the same with any negative pressure training. Once the horse knows a cue, you don't hold pressure until the response. If you ask the horse to slow, you will ask and release (this is the basic half halt cue). If the horse knows the cue, he will respond. If you want the horse to back up, you give a tug back on the halter and then release. In the videos of people riding with "positive reinforcement," the leg was applied and the horse moved over. In some cases the horse did not move, so the leg was applied again. Just the same as we do every day with horses that have been taught via negative reinforcement methods.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Here is a horse with a strong drive to play bite. The positive reinforcement training was to replace the behavior with another behavior incompatible with biting. To me it doesn't look like the horse has any long term desire to stop the behavior, and the handler has to constantly redirect him. He kicks his legs up to relieve stress (starts about 2:30). 

My horse had a similar drive when I got him, but I consider that I've been much more effective than this since he may attempt the behavior once in a session of handling him, and with a reminder that it is not allowed he stops doing it. 

I believe for this horse Warwick Schiller's method of giving the horse some of the attention he craves within parameters might be helpful, or else positive punishment to tell him to stop. The method being used is not very effective.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> Shut down horses do not exist in the wild....So they freeze internally. PTSD sets in. Their eyes become dull. Yep, they are calm and they will do as directed. But the life is gone from them. I've seem more than I care to see.


I've seen it too, but that has nothing to do with MY horses or with the horses of many folks who do use punishment at times. You can punish a horse without abusing him. And a dog. And a child. The proof is in the horses. And in the dogs, and the kids. Millions of 'em, all around the world. That some people punish badly doesn't mean all punishment is bad.

PS: Horses pressure other horses in a corral. Bite and kick in punishment. While some horses are bullies, many others are not. Horses punish horses without creating fear and PTSD. We can as well.


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

Trailscout,
I've no idea who you are or what your background is. That being said, I know exactly where you are in your horsemanship. I commend you on searching for answers. I'd say be careful where you learn those answers. The facts regarding certain things, like what the definition of R- is, don't care about your thoughts or feelings.



> Trailscout said:
> This is patently false. Talk to Pat P. about that. Natural Horsemanship is basically a more gentle form pressure/release training. Has nothing to do with how horses treat horses. Horses are fully aware we are not horses and do not interact with us as the same.


Ma'am (I assume you are female) with all due respect, the person you just named is the patron saint of commercializing and emotionalizing, thus ruining, the aforementioned topic of natural horsemanship. He's responsible for making more dangerous horses than any person in history. I know because I've had to fix a ton of them. All the while the owner is still spouting idealistic crap about unicorns and loving them into the trailer.

I have done this for a living for a very long time and certainly don't need to be taught or corrected by someone as green as you obviously are. What is patently false is what you perceive R- to be. Those terms have been defined, scientifically, for nearly 7 decades. It is not up to you to decide that it isn't really that. Continue with your learning. Search for answers and new questions. You just might be a bit more respectful to those who have forgotten more than you know, and a lot less apt to teach until you have more than just barely formed opinions based on something you read someone you don't actually know said on the internet...

Since others have posted a bunch of videos on here and the terms have been so wrongly used, allow me to offer some highly researched clarity as to what those terms actually mean.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> Positive reinforcement only people would say that directing to another behavior and not punishing the biting will work. However, if the horse has a strong drive to play and interact in this way, it will keep coming up.


The horse will do what the horse does based on what has the strongest reinforcement history. (i'm regurgitating here)
So if it keeps coming up, the incompatible behavior does not yet have the strongest reinforcement history.
I think Shawna calls it counter conditioning of an incompatible behavior or some such.



gottatrot said:


> @trailscout says if a horse is displaying dangerous behaviors with positive reinforcement methods, they are kept behind a fence and handled that way until the behaviors go away.


Now I'm laughing. No, trailscout doesn't say that nor does anybody else I've read. They are TRAINED while using protective contact. "TRAINED" TAUGHT.

They are not simply put behind a fence to wait for the behavior to go away. It won't. Depending what the dangerous behavior is, the normal procedure would again be teaching an incompatible behavior and building the reward history until it is the strongest.

And of course there will be trust building just because of the non-aversive nature of the interactions.



gottatrot said:


> This mustang was started with positive reinforcement, but then began trying to dominate the handler.


If this is true, the trainer didn't have a clue to how to use positive reinforcement. Stuff like that is what gives it a bad name. That scenario is impossible to have happened following Shawna Karrasch's teaching.



gottatrot said:


> The horse knows this is his work, and it is not that he "loves" the person and wants to be with them, but he has been trained to "heel off leash."


I agree the horse does not lead at liberty because he loves the person, but he is not trained to heel off the leash. A horse properly trained is doing a game that has become fun for him. He is doing it for himself because it feels good. He doesn't know why because he hasn't been able to keep up to date on endorphins, if he would even care.



gottatrot said:


> That is the same with any negative pressure training.


Yes, to a well trained rider and horse, I believe I mentioned that most people could not discern the difference. But the difference remains to be of huge magnitude because of how they were trained and what is happening in the brain during the training and the difference in what is happening in the brain during a -R cue and a +R cue. Sorry but you need to dig much more deeply into this.



gottatrot said:


> In the videos of people riding with "positive reinforcement," the leg was applied and the horse moved over. In some cases the horse did not move, so the leg was applied again. Just the same as we do every day with horses that have been taught via negative reinforcement methods.


Didn't watch the video but it sounds again like improper training by people who didn't really understand what they were doing.

I can only relate to one pod cast where Shawna was detailing to some degree how she taught her personal horse leg cues. The behavior was first solid solid based on clicker, reward, and probably a target. After that she conditioned her hand on the side of the horse about where the leg would be. And reached over to do the other side. It was basically taught as a secondary reinforcer with the same value of the clicker.

When the secondary reinforcer is given as a cue, the brain says Oh boy, good stuff! When the -R cue is given, the horse says I'd better do abc or xyz is gonna happen. If everything is light, minimal additional cortisol, but additional cortisol never-the-less and no increase in endorphins.

I don't know if anybody else in getting anything out of this but it's really helping me to put it on paper instead of it just being in my brain. There's a theory about what writing does to your thinking.

I didn't watch the YouTube video of the horse biting. I've watched way too many garbage videos about similar by uninformed people. Don't know if this is one but sounds like it.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

DanielDauphin said:


> You just might be a bit more respectful to those who have forgotten more than you know


Agree on the Pat comment. I have experience with a horse a so called Pat trainer screwed up.

Don't mean to be disrespectful of past trainers using the best methods they are aware of. At one time steel tractor tire were consdered the best there was. Who needs rubber tires. Those that said rubber was better, lasted longer, had better traction were not being disrespectful of those that had 50+ year of experience with steel tractor tires. They were just better for a multitude of reasons. 

I have a friend that ran 40 high end mares for twenty years with most babie sold before they were born. He has several tons of experience with horses including broc riding and even tried a buffalo for $5 one time at a rodeo. A real friend and a real good guy by anybody that knows him.

When we were talking about my upcoming plans to adopt an unhandled untrained mustang, he told me the fastest and easiest way he had ever seen done was to put enough pebbles in a milk jug to make the rattle real good and tie it around the horse's neck and turn him loos. In twenty four hours he said I could walk right up to him. He's not a young guy. Definitely old school. I didn't argue with him. I 'spect you and him might agree on a lot of stuff.



DanielDauphin said:


> I know exactly where you are in your horsemanship.


You're one smart feller! 

But I'm going the route of the rubber tractor tires.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

DanielDauphin said:


> Since others have posted a bunch of videos on here and the terms have been so wrongly used, allow me to offer some highly researched clarity as to what those terms actually mean.


Sorry, I learned what those terms meant in a psychology class over 50 years ago. University of Arkansas. Go Pigs!

I watched the video on classical conditioning up to Little Albert which I read about during a psychology class over 50 years ago. May watch the rest when I have time just to see if the guy ever makes a point.

The thing is, pressure release is operant conditioning. All training is one form or another of conditioning. That said, it has only been in the last 20-30 years that research has discovered what happens in the brain during various types of conditioning that are used by you, Pat, or anyone else.

+R has so many advantages that companies are even pivoting towards it. Incorrectly in many if not most cases. But it IS the rubber tractor tire of the future.

Someday pressure/relief training will be looked back on as most now look back on snubbing a horse to a pole in a coral and letting them fight it out until they either broke their neck or settled.

By the way, my horsemanship began with driving a team of horses several years before you were even born.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

That was a very good video by @DanielDauphin, thanks for sharing it. 

@trailscout, so what I'm getting from you is that when done properly, there are no downsides to using only positive reinforcement. It always works. Still, apparently most people can't figure out how to do it, since according to you every video that I've mentioned is someone doing it wrong. If nearly everyone is doing it wrong, and it requires whole hearted devotion, there are no downsides and nothing to criticize, then it seems only useful to a few fans and not the general horse world. 
I am finding a lot of the information on this thread useful, but it does not seem that you are open to alternative ideas, so I have to put you in the category of someone who will not debate logically but only return to dearly held beliefs. 

What I've learned over the years is that no one has everything right, and the more open-minded you are, and the more flexible to change, the better off your horses will be. At the end of the video posted above, @DanielDauphin says, "Use all the tools that are available to you." Right on. And the more tools you have, the better off you'll be.


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

trailscout said:


> When we were talking about my upcoming plans to adopt an unhandled untrained mustang, he told me the fastest and easiest way he had ever seen done was to put enough pebbles in a milk jug to make the rattle real good and tie it around the horse's neck and turn him loos. In twenty four hours he said I could walk right up to him. He's not a young guy. Definitely old school. I didn't argue with him. I 'spect you and him might agree on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> You're one smart feller!
> ...


Again, you're talking about a bunch of info that's been around since the 1940's as though it's cutting edge. It isn't. It's very well understood and has all been tried by many who've come before you. The good survives and there's always some green kid who thinks everyone else is dumb and they've found the holy grail that in actuality has long since been discarded by those who actually have the knowledge and experience. New to you and "new" aren't the same thing. 

VERY few people have the skills to deal with those things and not endanger the horse and themselves in the process. Again, that pegs a romantic/emotional/naive frame of mind rather than a pragmatic/logical/thinking state. Which of those two frames of mind do we work to get horses in again and why?
You haven't asked, but I'll say it anyway: If you haven't started at least 100 head of plane old planned pregnancy/backyard horses, you have absolutely no business even stepping in the pen with an unhandled mustang. You aren't doing right by yourself or the horse. That's all the free advice you're gonna get from me. I'm done with this thread now. I suspect that mustang you want is going to teach you a bunch of the hard lessons you need to learn. Good luck and I hope it doesn't kill you.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> I agree the horse does not lead at liberty because he loves the person, but he is not trained to heel off the leash. A horse properly trained is doing a game that has become fun for him. He is doing it for himself because it feels good. He doesn't know why because he hasn't been able to keep up to date on endorphins, if he would even care.


From what I see in the videos, the "fun" the horse is having is similar to the "fun" I heard about in the Parelli games. Right, they were playing with the horse. Now I've played games with horses, and a horse having fun is a very animated creature. There is a huge difference between a horse doing rhythmic steps or rearing on command to a horse actually playing. They put a goofy expression on their face, often with ears pointing different directions. They make sudden changes in direction, and their limbs go all over the place. That is fun for a horse. But recently, you said horses you didn't think horses have a sense of humor. How can a horse have fun without a sense of humor? 

This is what a horse looks like that is actually playing and having a good time. It is very uncoordinated and goofy.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

DanielDauphin said:


> That's all the free advice you're gonna get from me.


I appreciate you not charging me.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> so I have to put you in the category


And I have put you in the category of someone who arbitrarily categorizes people.



gottatrot said:


> Use all the tools that are available to you.


Whips, spurs, four way hobbles. Go for it. Have fun.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

DanielDauphin said:


> The good survives and there's always some green kid who thinks everyone else is dumb


Green kid. I love it!! Be an octogenarian this year sonny.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

DanielDauphin said:


> That's all the free advice you're gonna get from me.


I appreciate you not charging me.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> Green kid. I love it!! Be an octogenarian this year sonny.


Please be careful then. Untrained horses are not always straightforward to work with. Try to choose one with a mellow personality, because some mustangs are highly reactive and challenging even for experienced trainers. There is a trend currently of new horse owners getting mustang foals. There is one at my barn who has no experience with horses at all, and now has an 8 month old mustang. Luckily, it appears the foal will remain a small pony once full grown, but I am keeping my eye on things. There have been a number of concerns already such as the new owner believing the horse would allow handling right away, the horse is being kept completely alone, and small children are being allowed in the pen.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Thank you gottatrot. I will be carefully following Shawna and others recommendations of using protective contact. My new round pen is fully erected now except for welding the sides that were one the under side of the fabrication table. About 20 hours left. At 2-3 hours a day it'll still take a while. My BLM application is all filled out except my signature and a date.

The pen is 7 feet tall with 7 rails a foot apart formed in a decagon with an 8x8 shelter attached. All watering and feeding will be done from the outside and I put a long rake together to clean the horse biscuits from the pen.

I'll be doing approach retreat from outside the pen with dishes of good stuff, (i may even break precedent and use OATS? OMG!. He or she will be voluntarily coming to me in order to interact long before I actually enter the pen.

I've done some dumb things but I didn't survive this long by being plumb stupid 

I will start a journal. If it's a he, he will be RICO!


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

trailscout said:


> Shut down horses do not exist in the wild.
> 
> When a horse faces fear or aggreasion, the reaction is fight, flight, or freeze. In the wild if fight is denied or not a chosen option, flight is always available.
> 
> In captivity, we have ropes, pens, chains, and whip they cannot escape from. And they have learned that fighting is not possible. So they freeze internally. PTSD sets in. Their eyes become dull. Yep, they are calm and they will do as directed. But the life is gone from them. I've seem more than I care to see.


Your first sentence simply proves my point. The rest is just not what we were talking about. I get the idea you felt the need to explain that because you assumed it is what's going on & that we are all clueless about it. Seems that the rest of the world (that aren't +R fanatics) are also clueless idiots too.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

DanielDauphin said:


> That's all the free advice you're gonna get from me. I'm done with this thread now.


Hey! Don't lets let it destroy yet another good discussion on the subject! For my part & I think many others, we value your input. How about you stay & discuss with the rest of us, and we get back to the OT we've been side...swiped from??

I'm still interested in your answer to your definition of -P, to understand why you feel it's _necessarily_ too abstract? Pardon if you answered that in your vid you shared - which I can't watch because of crap internet ATM.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

I hope you can watch the video, @loosie. It's about classic conditioning versus operant conditioning, and I hadn't really thought of the first as being related to unconscious association that you can't really control once the association has been made. Although it is an unconscious association, training can break that association and cause the reaction to be "extinguished." Of course that sometimes is not very easy. 

Sometimes I have thought of it as teaching the horse that what they are afraid of won't actually kill them, because with extremes of behavior they sometimes need to live through something such as having the rider or saddle stay on instead of come off in order to begin extinguishing the association that caused the extreme reaction. This is different from flooding, I believe, or at least it is one type of flooding that can be necessary with a horse that cannot otherwise be safe for humans to work with.

Dauphin says that this is behind most problem horses, which I agree. Although my first problem horse's conditioned response was not caused by humans, so I have seen that it's not always a human problem. A sensitive and reactive horse might have ended up with the issue on their own, just loose in a field and having a bad experience they associate with something, and which gets triggered when they are being ridden or handled. In the video he contrasts classic conditioning with operant conditioning, which contains the sub-types we have been discussing on this thread. Those are related to conscious decisions the horse makes, and are most of the training that we do, in particular negative reinforcement.

Assuming we agree with the premises in the video, which I do, if a horse has made an association through classic conditioning that causes an extreme reaction, how could positive reinforcement alone extinguish that association? Is that possible? Let's say a horse is triggered into extreme bucking by a certain sound. That is not something you can replace with a different behavior, because it is related to the unconscious mind just like when a person gets a panic attack with physical symptoms but has no idea what triggered it. I've been able to get the horse to the other side of this by stopping the bucking. Once the trigger happened without the behavior, the horse's subconscious (I guess) stopped associating those things together. But this had to happen a few times in order to break the cycle. 

Editing to add: In humans, beta blocker medications can sometimes stop panic attacks in a similar way. They stop some of the symptoms that have been caused by the trigger (racing heart, high blood pressure), which can break the association and stop the trigger from causing the attack. This is similar to helping a horse tolerate the trigger without having a reaction. 

@trailscout, I am positive no one who has participated in this thread so far considers that brute force and pain tactics with horses can be considered "tools" to use. Many of us including myself have rehabilitated horses that have had those kinds of tactics used on them in the past.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> I hadn't really thought of the first as being related to unconscious association that you can't really control once the association has been made.


I quite emphatically do not believe the association made in classical conditioning happens without conscious thought.

The discovery stumbled upon by Pavlov was made when the study of such things were in its infancy. The conclusion at the time was that it was as directly connected to the brain as the Dr's rubber mallet when he strikes the knee of a patient to cause his leg to react. It is still thought by many today to be that direct and presented as such.

Classical conditioning is not direct.

There is memory, recognition, and thought involved. Before the age of 6 YO I lived in a small town with an ice cream truck during the summer months. We kids would go running toward the truck when we heard the bells, but not as mindless robots.

It was........hey i think i hear the ice cream truck.........yeah, that's it.......you got money........yeah.....let's go!

I'm certain our salivary glands increased in secretion on the way.

Now salivary gland secretion is for certain an involuntary response that we have no direct control over. But we can control it indirectly. If we choose to just think about some food we really like, we can cause the secretions to increase. Then we can choose to think about something else and cause them to decrease.

Thinking of classical conditioning as a mindless happening is what turns a lot of people off from it including me in the past. People want to engage the horse's mind as do I. If I did not believe classical conditioning engaged the horse's mind, I would not be pursuing +R as I am.

Our 'good boy' is classically conditioned. It was just a jumble of sounds until the horse recognized and remembered good associations with those jumbled sounds.

The video was skillfully produced to convince people of what they wished to be convinced of. The guy was close to making fun of Pavlov at the outset. The video simply was not an objective presentation of the subject.



loosie said:


> If that were true, most horses would be 'shut down' to eachother - as almost all, IME, punish eachother...


This suggested to me that you thought I was saying horses were shut down as a result of punishment in and of itself, which of course is not what I was saying. They must be denied both fight and flight to become shut down. When they punish each other in the wild or in a domestic setting, they have one or the other of fight or flight available. But with humans working with them, they do not have either of those two options, or at least their perception is that they don't as they have learned the human is an overpowering force, except for the unusually powerfully minded horse.



gottatrot said:


> "Use all the tools that are available to you." Right on. And the more tools you have, the better off you'll be.





gottatrot said:


> I am positive no one who has participated in this thread so far considers that brute force and pain tactics with horses can be considered "tools" to use.


I am happy to read the disclaimer on the proposition of 'using all the tool in the tool box'.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> I quite emphatically do not believe the association made in classical conditioning happens without conscious thought.
> 
> The discovery stumbled upon by Pavlov was made when the study of such things were in its infancy. The conclusion at the time was that it was as directly connected to the brain as the Dr's rubber mallet when he strikes the knee of a patient to cause his leg to react. It is still thought by many today to be that direct and presented as such.
> 
> Classical conditioning is not direct...


I can find no other source other than your own statements of opinion that confirm classical conditioning could be considered voluntary. From what I read, more modern times have not changed the definition. By definition it is pairing an involuntary response with a stimulus. There is no learning involved in classical conditioning, the response comes naturally without learning anything. Going to buy ice cream is not an example of classical conditioning. Endorphins releasing and causing the heart rate to elevate when a person hears ice cream truck bells would be. This I am repeating from what I am reading online from behavioral psychology sources, so if there is another source to contradict, please enlighten me. 

If classical conditioning _were_ voluntary, how would that change positive reinforcement training? I don't understand the significance. Or is the problem what I described earlier, that if a horse has a behavioral issue related to a classic conditioned response to a trigger, then there would be no solution with positive reinforcement only?


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> I can find no other source other than your own statements of opinion that confirm classical conditioning could be considered voluntary.


Here's one for starters. Learning and Conditioning: Cognitive Influences | SparkNotes

Edit: Here's another but you'll need to pay for it or get access through an institution with a subscription.









Classical conditioning in a cognitive era


Classical conditioning as a body of laboratory techniques and the phenomena which they have generated has a long history in behavioural science. Today…




www.sciencedirect.com





Edit again: How Cognition Affects Conditioning Processes | Study.com

Search under 'cognitive influences of classical conditioning' and you'll find more.

Little tip I use for searching topics that you may or may not do is to first do the search under the best description I can think of then redo my search terms using terms on sites that address what I was looking for. The search terms above were about my fourth evolution of search terms.

Note: This is a real good example that just because you can't find anything supporting what I believe is not in any way conclusive that there is no support for what I say.

Here's a pretty good one that's actually free!









4 Theories Of Learning | Classical, Operant Conditioning, Social, Cognitive


✅ Four Theories of Learning: Classical conditioning theory, Operant conditioning, Cognitive learning, Social learning, pdf, ppt, ob & examples.




www.geektonight.com


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

I haven't read this whole thread in depth but it makes me feel like some kind of monster because I've never given my horses treats as a reward, or don't make riding "fun" for them, or don't train for desired behaviors with pets and nice words. 
😬


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> Here's one for starters. Learning and Conditioning: Cognitive Influences | SparkNotes
> 
> Edit: Here's another but you'll need to pay for it or get access through an institution with a subscription.
> 
> ...


What you're talking about is a different thing. Some of the articles are applying "conditioning" as a blanket term and mixing descriptions of operant conditioning in with classical. They also are not using the word cognition to apply only to conscious behavior. Here is a quote:
How Cognition Affects Conditioning Processes | Study.com
"...So, does that mean that cognition isn't involved? Not at all! _Cognition can happen subconsciously,_ as well as consciously. In the case of classical conditioning, the cognitive process involved is *association*, or having two things linked in the mind. When Louise forms an association between pain and the stove, that's a cognitive process...."

Your links are not supporting your claim, and the only one that seems to is an article with opinion about how conditioning might apply to business and not one about research. I've read that there is some variety of response based on personal preference, but those still seem to be on a subconscious level rather than a conscious choice. 

As in the studies of more than one taste being given, and the subject only associating being sick later with an aversion to one taste. That choice of which taste to associate was later debated as actually having been on a subconscious level. It was a cognitive process, but not a conscious choice. This also has been shown to only affect humans in the studies I saw, and not animals. In the study on rats where they seemed to have some differential control over their responses, it was later shown that rats have an instinct relating to being able to decide which foods might be poisoning them, which muddied the waters. It was not clear that there was evidence the differences were based on a conscious thought. 

I'm still wondering why it would matter if classical conditioning was only on a subconscious level versus a conscious one, when it comes to positive reinforcement training.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you think I could hear the ice cream truck bells and start salivating without knowing why?

And what about extinction? Do you think this also happens directly without me saying or thinking, hmmm, the bells have been ringing but no truck?

I must be reading parts of the articles different than you as they seem to support what I've said to my prospective.

The reason for the notion of direct conditioning as in the knee jerk reflex was that there was little to nothing known at the time about mind and what was going on so they decided any effort in that direction would muddy the water.

But it has been determined it is NOT mindless robotic conditioning. It is true that the thought of chocolate will cause most people to increase salivation. Or the sight. Thought, sight, hearing all involve several parts of the brain that was not even dreamed about in 1904.

The bells on the ice cream truck were associated by memory to ice cream which the thought, sight, or memory sound DOES elicit and unconditioned response of salivation. But there is considerable brain work going on before hand.

If the articles didn't convince you, I'm at a dead end. But to think there is a direct line from sound to the salivation buds is beyond me for anyone who understands a modicum about brain function.

The water fountain would NOT make a person need to urinate if they were blind (and i guess I should add deaf. Eyeballs don't have nerves running straight to the urination valves. Memory, recognition, and (cognition) are all involved.

Speaking of categorization, I categorized the video as purposely designed and created so as to obfuscate rather than elucidate to the gullible and unsuspecting viewer.

And an FYI just in case you don't already know. The behaviorist of Skinner's day including him and some today vehemently insist that mind and thought does not even exist, that everything any animal, including us, is pure robotic conditioning. Do you believe that too??


----------



## Gradelover2000 (Jan 3, 2021)

i really don't think negative punishment does anything but ruin a horse and can make bad behaviors worse. that said i have had a few situations where i had to be more forceful than i would like. example I've been pinned to the fence a few times come feeding time and had to be more forceful to get my mare to back off even then i wouldn't consider it negative more of stronger pressure to get her to move.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Gradelover2000 said:


> i really don't think negative punishment does anything but ruin a horse and can make bad behaviors worse. that said i have had a few situations where i had to be more forceful than i would like. example I've been pinned to the fence a few times come feeding time and had to be more forceful to get my mare to back off even then i wouldn't consider it negative more of stronger pressure to get her to move.


I believe you are speaking of positive punishment where something unwanted is added, as in a smack, where negative punishment is something taken away that they want.

The terms get confusing if not used almost every day. I've been known to misstate them also.

I agree with everything you said about positive punishment.


----------



## Creeping_Charlie (Mar 25, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> I'm curious, does anyone use negative punishment with their horses, i.e. withhold something pleasant to shape behaviors?
> 
> As I understand it, there is positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
> I definitely use the first three. Positive reinforcement, that is something I use a lot: treats, an encouraging voice, a break to eat grass. Positive punishment I use too: the horse threatens to kick, I give a slap and use a negative voice. Negative reinforcement or pressure/release is also something I use a lot: the horse won't walk forward, I apply pressure on the halter, when he walks forward I release it.
> ...


I’d like to say I don’t. But that wouldn’t be true. I think we all have time to time. Sometimes when they are a real jerk. Sometimes it’s Insticnt and you can’t help it..... I think it’s ok most times like a herd member would of just ignored being kicked. The would kick back!! But al I try to do is make the wrong things hard and theright things easy


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

loosie said:


> I'm still interested in your answer to your definition of -P, to understand why you feel it's _necessarily_ too abstract? Pardon if you answered that in your vid you shared - which I can't watch because of crap internet ATM.


For you, Loosie, I'll respond. And, btw, you don't need to watch that video, it's simply a basic defining of terms with common examples and then the Schedules of Reinforcement. You certainly understand all the basics covered there.

Anyway, to your point about the timing be necessarily off. I suppose that it wouldn't necessarily have to be, but in practical applications it would be very hard to do a pure training with P-. 
I'd say the most common poor example that I hear about is a horse having a bad ride and the rider tying them up to "the patience tree" _to think about what he's done wrongly. _The timing involved there means that there's no way that a horse can relate the time being tied up to the bad ride. There's definitely value in tying horses up, but it's a misconception of what the horse is mentally capable of to think they can make that connection. 
If we were looking more simply at something like a horse being pushy for a treat and you simply remove the treat, then it gets difficult to be pure about the method and thus discern what was effective. Did the behavior become what we wanted because we discouraged bad behavior, or because we rewarded correct behavior? That's why I brought up walking away for 20 minutes each time. That way the time gone would negate the reintroduction of the stimulus and thus negate R+ being the actual reason for the improved behavior. I don't see how P- can be effective from a time management standpoint. It may eventually have an effect, but I can't see the time it would take being as affective as the other quadrants.
I'd also say that I think_ horses are far more motivated t_o *avoid unpleasant* *things* rather than *they are* *attracted* *to pleasant things. * That's simply how they are wired, thus motivated. This is, of course a generality that will have individual exceptions. As I said before, P- is even fairly ineffective when used to discipline more complex animals, like people. It definitely has an abstract nature that requires one to link two things that are always separated by time. The teenager who has had their phone taken away will remember periodically why the phone was taken away. There's no way a horse could do that. The teenager will also test that boundary way more frequently than they will an electric fence that dispenses justice dispassionately and immediately. Timing is inescapable and very important to P-, as is reflection on the cause.
It simply is abstract in nature and never really exemplified in nature. One could say that it takes loads of training, beginning with stories of ants and grasshoppers to 3 year olds and people still don't do the work to prepare to avoid bad things that happen to the unprepared.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

@trailscout, it is a subconscious association. A water fountain might make a person feel the need to urinate through classical conditioning if their mother ran water as part of potty training. Running water itself does not create an instinctive need to urinate, but if an association has been made to our subconscious it can. 

It's not a direct line, it is an association. If two things are not linked together, the brain will never make the association. The association is not one you are born with, it is created. Some things like the smell of chocolate are associations our brains made long ago. 

With panic attacks, a person has a frightening experience, and something during that experience such as a sound or smell gets associated in the subconscious. Later on, if the person hears a similar sound or smells a similar smell, it will trigger a physical reaction with the symptoms of fear in the body. The person will usually have no idea why their body is behaving this way, and that can in itself cause fright. This can perpetuate the problem. 

I have had one panic attack. My dog was almost killed and I spent a brief amount of time in a vet office in a state of high emotional stress. A couple weeks later I went to pick up some pills, and was standing in a very calm state looking at some pictures of puppies on the wall when suddenly I felt my body break out in a sweat and my heart started racing. It took me a minute, but I realized something in the office had triggered my subconscious that something bad was going to happen because of the previous association. Because I understood panic attacks, the physical reaction did not then make me afraid, and I worked on getting my breathing and heart rate to slow. That was classical conditioning and there was no conscious association on my part.

The reason it is important in horse training is because horses have these associations that cause serious problems for them. For example, a horse is ridden for a few months. One day, the rider slips when getting off and gets stuck in the stirrup for a moment before falling to the ground. This startles the horse, and when the horse runs, they slip and land on the saddle, causing pain. Unfortunately, the subconscious of the horse relates the creaking sound the saddle made just before this happened with the frightening event. Now when the person is mounting, or even randomly riding, the saddle squeaks a certain way and within an instant the horse gets a hit of adrenaline and panics, sending him into a bucking fit. The rider falls again and it's not as bad as the first time but it makes the association even stronger. Now the horse has a problem of "random bucking."

Extinction will not come from the horse thinking this through and deciding he'll be OK the next time he hears the saddle squeak. The association has to be broken. Unfortunately, the rider may not know exactly what the trigger was for the horse, and may attempt reconditioning the horse to things but never replicate that sound which triggered the subconscious. Extinction will only come if the horse can have the trigger happen again and not have the big frightening event, so the horse will have to tolerate it a few times until the physical symptoms diminish and the association is gone.


----------



## Yoshimoto the frosty roan (Dec 16, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> I'm curious, does anyone use negative punishment with their horses, i.e. withhold something pleasant to shape behaviors?
> 
> As I understand it, there is positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
> I definitely use the first three. Positive reinforcement, that is something I use a lot: treats, an encouraging voice, a break to eat grass. Positive punishment I use too: the horse threatens to kick, I give a slap and use a negative voice. Negative reinforcement or pressure/release is also something I use a lot: the horse won't walk forward, I apply pressure on the halter, when he walks forward I release it.
> ...


Horses are a lot like our children when our children bad we take things from them we take privileges when I train horses if a horse wants to kick me I self defense if a horse wants to be bad the punishment the horse gets is he punishes himself when I walk away with food if my horse went to push at me and doesn't want to listen to me but punishment is to run around me until I say stop so depending on the format you're referring to as punishing a horse you got to make sure the horse knows what they did wrong so if you punish them and nurse and are looking at you like you're hurting them and you're abusing them then they obviously didn't get the message and the correct way to them they're thinking oh my gosh she's trying to hurt me I got to fight back those that's the wrong way but for instance if your horse goes a bite your hand when you go to give them a treat pick the treat away repeat it until the horse gets it right that's the best punishment it's a punishment with a reward because they get what they want and you get what you want and so when when situation I never will hurt a horse so if you're referring to the whipping department of punishment horses don't understand that if they attack you and try to push you and move you and you take a dressage whip or a lunge rope get them in the same place as another horse will get them at the right time with the right type of pressure that won't hurt them but it will give them a message then that's okay because you're protecting yourself and you're telling a horse it is on and that is actually a language horses would actually understand like I said I don't use whips I only use when necessary so like if you have an aggressive horse the best way to handle that is to keep a dressage whip with you they're shorter and a closer to a horse but it depends like I said on what the situation is as well that's all I can say so yeah the answer the question you can discipline a horse for bad behavior but when they do the right behavior make sure you give them something good for that so they know that in the end they did right from wrong because just like a kid if you punish a kid and a kid doesn't understand a punishment and why they're being punished then you're going to have a rebellious child on your hands a child that's going to act out even more and horses are exactly the same way


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If positive punishment makes horses worse, why do so many of us who sometimes use it have wonderful horses? Does EVIDENCE count? Or does any contrary evidence just get rejected for failing to conform to a pet theory?

Read a book once about why people sometimes do incredibly dangerous things. One of the answers was subconscious association with non-dangerous times that overrode what their rational thinking would otherwise have told them not to do. It argued, IIRC, that emotions are subconscious thought based largely on memories - memories that are processed directly instead of being run thru the rational thinking process first. That can save us sometimes. People may be aware of a dangerous person they have not consciously seen. But it can kill us sometimes too.

Horses have incredible memories and perhaps their emotions are subconscious "thoughts" without the brain power to analyze like a human could. The combination of an incredible memory and the lack of an analytical ability results in the emotional animal that is both enticing and frustrating.



DanielDauphin said:


> I'd also say that I think_ horses are far more motivated t_o *avoid unpleasant* *things* rather than *they are* *attracted* *to pleasant things. * That's simply how they are wired, thus motivated.


Agreed. Strongly. Once some boundaries are set and backed if needed by unpleasant things happening, then we can and truly OUGHT to seek ways of "attracting" the horse to what we want to do. It certainly is more enjoyable to work with a willing partner than a sourpuss. But without setting boundaries, and without sometimes insisting that the human gets to do some of what the human wants even if it isn't at the top of the horse's list, how does anyone ride? How would I ever make riding out into the desert more pleasurable to Bandit than just hanging out with his tiny herd?


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Very interesting @bsms. 



trailscout said:


> And an FYI just in case you don't already know. The behaviorist of Skinner's day including him and some today vehemently insist that mind and thought does not even exist, that everything any animal, including us, is pure robotic conditioning. Do you believe that too??


That is interesting. It doesn't really match the idea of operant conditioning that Skinner came up with, however, which involves conscious decisions. 

I don't use classical conditioning in horse training, I only sometimes have to fix problems it causes. It does not seem useful, because if you tried to use it you might end up making associations you didn't mean to.
But operant conditioning, which includes negative punishment and positive reinforcement is very useful. It involves conscious thought and decision making on the part of the horse. The most common conditioning I use when training is negative reinforcement or pressure and release. The second most common is positive reinforcement. I rarely use positive punishment and almost never, if ever negative punishment. 

Negative reinforcement is the day-to-day work with a horse. I want the horse to pick his head up off the grass where he is grazing, so I pull on the lead. I want the horse to step over because he is getting too close to where I have another horse tied, so I push on his hip. I want the horse to give me some space so I touch his cheek to signal him to move his head away.

I was watching a video by Shawna Karrasch where she answered a question by someone with an OTTB that was anxious and rushing on the trail with other horses. It was very basic advice, just desensitize the horse to having other horses going faster by starting with horses going slow nearby and rewarding the horse for staying calm. That's not a negative comment, simply a neutral one. Good advice, same as most other trainers will give you. 

Anyway, I was wondering if there are any videos of Shawna riding? I can't find any online, or any photos of her on a horse in action. I wonder if she rides or only does ground training. It makes sense to me that positive reinforcement can be useful for ground training but not very useful for riding where it is very difficult to avoid using pressure/release techniques. But I wouldn't take advice on training a horse for ridden work from someone who is not a good rider.

I don't see how positive reinforcement only training could ever become mainstream. Most people want to ride their horses.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

DanielDauphin said:


> I'd say the most common poor example that I hear about is a horse having a bad ride and the rider tying them up to "the patience tree" _to think about what he's done wrongly._




Yes, bad - but unfortunately IME too, common example of 'training'. I was trying to consider on only appropriate, well timed applications of it though.



> If we were looking more simply at something like a horse being pushy for a treat and you simply remove the treat, then it gets difficult to be pure about the method and thus discern what was effective. Did the behavior become what we wanted because we discouraged bad behavior, or because we rewarded correct behavior? That's why I brought up walking away for 20 minutes each time. That way the time gone would negate the reintroduction of the stimulus and thus negate R+


Oh I get you now - yes, that's what I was getting at about 'shades of grey' - it can be hard to sort out if one 'quadrant' is the one or the only in many instances. But aside from academic discussion of it, does it really matter which specific is coming into play, if it's being understood & applied effectively? 



> I'd also say that I think_ horses are far more motivated t_o *avoid unpleasant* *things* rather than *they are* *attracted* *to pleasant things. * That's simply how they are wired, thus motivated.


Yep, I agree. That is ONE big reason why food - or any other +R, or -P is NOT 'universally' effective. If there is a bigger focus on getting out of discomfort, getting safe, whatever, that's always going to trump a 'reward' IME. In fact, offering +R(food or otherwise) in a 'bad' situation can actually backfire, just associate the +R with the Bad Thing - not sure if it was this or another thread I... niggled about vet nurses cooing 'whos a good boy' at dogs undergoing unpleasant stuff...



> As I said before, P- is even fairly ineffective when used to discipline more complex animals, like people.


Agreed, but I think it depends a lot on motivation for the 'bad' behaviour in the first place too - for eg. kid loses their phone privilage because he 'talked back' to his mother, but he might be extremely angry about being punished, if he felt Mum was being unfair. Of course, have to leave out all the rationalising on an animal's part, but at a basic level I think that's the same.



> It definitely has an abstract nature that requires one to link two things that are always separated by time.


Hmm, if I withhold food for a 'misdemeanour', if I take food away and only bring it back the instant they quit the behaviour, that is _not _abstracted by time. But back to was it the removal of food, or the +R of the latter behaviour(good manners for eg) that was the clincher? But if I just remove food because of 'wrong answers' & don't bring it back, then it _can't_ be on the money, time-wise.

So... maybe it is impossible to use -P well, if not 'joined at the hip' to +R... so impossible to clarify as one or the other. But to me, that's just academic(you might have already gathered I love to get down to nitty gritty on that note), but it doesn't really matter in the 'real world' so long as we understand the principles & how to apply them effectively.



> The teenager will also test that boundary way more frequently than they will an electric fence that dispenses justice dispassionately and immediately.


No question about that either. Now, just to get my electric fence consistently working again, despite kangaroos & neighbour's goats taking it out, so the new horses can really learn not to test my boundaries!

Maybe I've just gone full circle on this thread & will go back to thinking of 'the 3 quadrants of behaviour modification'... as are effective with animals, as I've pretty much always left out -P in my thinking. I tend to overanalyse stuff... can you tell?? But I think this discussion has helped me iron out my... head!


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> , that emotions are subconscious thought based largely on memories - memories that are processed directly instead of being run thru the rational thinking process first. That can save us sometimes.


YES!! I know you also reiterated below that bit as regards to horses, but I want to say that is exactly the kind of thinking I recon animals do - they remember in emotions, if you like. I originally read of this idea from Temple Grandin(she has a book 'Thinking In Pictures'), and I think that was originally largely just her 'assumptions' if you like, without (much?) science to back it up, but it just seemed like such a 'duh' thing to me when I read how she put it - my response to her words was just 'Of course it is! How could I not have known that?'


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

gottatrot said:


> I don't use classical conditioning in horse training, I only sometimes have to fix problems it causes. It does not seem useful, because if you tried to use it you might end up making associations you didn't mean to.


Hmm, but doesn't the last bit apply to anything, and aren't we often making associations we didn't mean to - just the more you understand, the more careful & skilled you become, the more you can be conscious of NOT doing so. 

I would say I DO 'use' classical conditioning every time I interact with horses, in that I want them to associate my presence with 'nice feelings', associate the saddle with 'oh boy!' not 'oh no!' feelings... doesn't that count as 'CC'?

And I would say I frequently see/have to deal with problems created from CC. For eg. sight of ropes/people/float... whatever causes fear.

I think the major difference between CC & OC is just in conscious application. We are often unconscious of the associations being made by CC, until they become a problem.


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

loosie said:


> Maybe I've just gone full circle on this thread & will go back to thinking of 'the 3 quadrants of behaviour modification'... as are effective with animals, as I've pretty much always left out -P in my thinking. I tend to overanalyse stuff... can you tell?? But I think this discussion has helped me iron out my... head!


I think we are on the same page now. I wasn't trying to be confusing and this discussion did force me to put words to some thoughts I've had for a while, so it was a good thing in that manner. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. If someone wanted to play with P- and be a purist about it, I doubt they are going to really mess anything up too badly. I don't thing their time will be productively used either. That's all I'm saying. My time is valuable, thus I want it to be used wisely and productively.

I would still strongly encourage anyone transfixed by pure R+ training to be cautious and go into it with their eyes wide open. We want our horses thinking and not reactive/emotional, but we often make decisions on our horse stuff exactly the opposite. We go with what seems romantic and emotionally fulfilling, whether or not it actually makes logical sense. And I'd say the same thing about adopting a mustang. They recruit good trainers for those competitions (I know because they've approached me several times) and even those experienced pros still don't get 30-40% of the horses that start, prepared enough to go to the show. Unhandled horses are no joke and you are doing the horse and yourself a disservice if you jump into that pond with less experience that is needed, which is WAY MORE than you probably think. 

Back to the R+ Purist Training, a gung ho 50lb dog and a gung ho 1200lb horse have different outcomes in terms of personal safety for you and those around you. You really should watch some of those videos a bunch of times and get past the "magic" of it and start really paying attention to the horse's body language. I'm seldom as impressed with those horses "thoughts" and that "relationship bond" as those trainers seem to be. It would seem to any objective person to be foolish to avoid use of the tried and true training methods at your disposal to try and prove some personal point. Across disciplines/breeds/events, good training is good training and it will always be recognized by competent, respectable, and experienced people.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

gottatrot said:


> I'm curious, does anyone use negative punishment with their horses, i.e. withhold something pleasant to shape behaviors?
> 
> As I understand it, there is positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
> I definitely use the first three. Positive reinforcement, that is something I use a lot: treats, an encouraging voice, a break to eat grass. Positive punishment I use too: the horse threatens to kick, I give a slap and use a negative voice. Negative reinforcement or pressure/release is also something I use a lot: the horse won't walk forward, I apply pressure on the halter, when he walks forward I release it.
> ...


"positive punishment" LOL.
Punishment, by definition is something negative. Just because we learn from it does not make it a positive. The results may be positive, but the very nature of "punishment" is something negative.

Anyone who has done much training will have "punishments" they will use, just as horses have punishments they use with each other to teach as well as fight (they kick, bite, and can even ram their body into one another).

Usually more is gained with the reward approach, but bad habits need to be taken care of and rewards don't generally have much value in stopping a bad habit. Horses are usually sensitive to the concept of punishment so it generally does not require much. Usually not even something that creates pain (although depending on what you are doing it is often unlikely that we actually "hurt" the horse....i.e. you will never hit a horse in the hind quarter hard enough with you hand...or fist... to match what they feel when another horses disciplines them with a kick there). It's the concept of knowing they are being told what they did is unacceptable (and that they find what you did annoying so they don't want it repeated...it's punishment for something "bad" and they know it's punishment). The most common issues I've encountered with, mostly other people's, horses is the desire to nip me when taking their front feet or saddling them which is supper easy to correct by quickly raising up my elbow sideways so it catches them under the jaw. We are unable to deliver enough pressure to even hurt a person that way, but horses hate it so they learn pretty quick that not nipping will prevent that negative action. Taking their foot back when I'm holding it is the other common issue, but that's easy to solve by doing it stages from short to longer times with rewards for each time they let me choose when they can have their foot back, but that's not a punishment. Positive reinforcement, but not a punishment, because it it's a punishment it's negative, even if the results are positive.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

loosie said:


> ...So... maybe it is impossible to use -P well, if not 'joined at the hip' to +R... so impossible to clarify as one or the other. But to me, that's just academic(you might have already gathered I love to get down to nitty gritty on that note), but it doesn't really matter in the 'real world' so long as we understand the principles & how to apply them effectively...
> 
> ...Maybe I've just gone full circle on this thread & will go back to thinking of 'the 3 quadrants of behaviour modification'... as are effective with animals, as I've pretty much always left out -P in my thinking. I tend to overanalyse stuff... can you tell?? But I think this discussion has helped me iron out my... head!...


I agree. It might just seem like a lot of yammering to some, but this discussion has helped me and I think I'm where @loosie is.


loosie said:


> YES!! I know you also reiterated below that bit as regards to horses, but *I want to say that is exactly the kind of thinking I recon animals do - they remember in emotions, if you like.* I originally read of this idea from Temple Grandin(she has a book 'Thinking In Pictures'), and I think that was originally largely just her 'assumptions' if you like, without (much?) science to back it up, but it just seemed like such a 'duh' thing to me when I read how she put it - my response to her words was just 'Of course it is! How could I not have known that?'


This is really good to think about, I agree.


loosie said:


> ...I would say I DO 'use' classical conditioning every time I interact with horses, in that I want them to associate my presence with 'nice feelings', associate the saddle with 'oh boy!' not 'oh no!' feelings... doesn't that count as 'CC'?,,,
> 
> ...I think the major difference between CC & OC is just in conscious application. We are often unconscious of the associations being made by CC, until they become a problem...


Of course, you're right. I hadn't realized that. Very good points. 


DanielDauphin said:


> ...*We want our horses thinking and not reactive/emotional, but we often make decisions on our horse stuff exactly the opposite. We go with what seems romantic and emotionally fulfilling, whether or not it actually makes logical sense...*


In an earlier post you said something similar and I forgot to comment. To me that is a great thought. I'll remember that concept. 


DanielDauphin said:


> And I'd say the same thing about adopting a mustang. They recruit good trainers for those competitions (I know because they've approached me several times) and even those experienced pros still don't get 30-40% of the horses that start, prepared enough to go to the show. Unhandled horses are no joke and you are doing the horse and yourself a disservice if you jump into that pond with less experience that is needed, which is WAY MORE than you probably think.


I've been around the mustang makeover scene too, been around TIP trainers at different barns also. One trainer I observed taking a couple of horses for only several rides before being able to ride them on the beach and on trails with no problems. The same trainer had horses he decided he would not be able to train at all, and several he pawned off to unsuspecting buyers when he could tell they would take a long time to train.

A couple of those stayed in the area I was in so I knew what happened to them. One bucked off a trainer, she declined to work with her and the owner took her home. The owner made an error and scared the horse, and the mare jumped over a fence and impaled herself on a post, and died. That was one I didn't consider very reactive at all. Another one never ended up being ridden in the three years I was there. The owner was too intimidated and didn't want to hire a trainer. He also was not a very difficult horse to work with. I offered to help but she had some idea that she would only bond with the horse if she was the one that trained him. But she didn't have the skills.


DanielDauphin said:


> ...You really should watch some of those videos a bunch of times and get past the "magic" of it and start really paying attention to the horse's body language. I'm seldom as impressed with those horses "thoughts" and that "relationship bond" as those trainers seem to be....


I think experienced horse people will look at the horses' body language and see that the horses are not looking free and happy or expressive as is claimed, but rather cowed and subdued. The horse in the backing up video I posted has his head unnaturally low and his posture is tense. He looks like opposite of a relaxed and happy horse to me. 

I've been to a few animal acts where dolphins, killer whales and elephants do tricks. It has never left me with a good feeling about the animals' lives. I'm not against training animals to do things but I don't like animals appearing very unnatural or doing choreographed things for simply esoteric reasons. To me the horse in the video appears to be moving very unnaturally.


----------



## Mckain-jackson (Feb 14, 2021)

Easiest thing anyone can do is stop thinking horses or any animal for that matter are any different then us. Try to use your own life experiences as a common ground. Then once you feel like you can relate to the horses behavior respond in a manner you would handle yourself towards anyone else.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

DanielDauphin said:


> I think we are on the same page now. I wasn't trying to be confusing and this discussion did force me to put words to some thoughts I've had for a while, so it was a good thing in that manner. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. If someone wanted to play with P- and be a purist about it,...


Yeah, me three, as to putting words to thoughts, which helped clarify for me. Yeah, each to his own about whether or not people want to be 'purist' about... whatever. Just no need to get rude towards those who don't share your view. ;-) For my part, whether or not I've 'really' used -P or not, it hasn't wasted any of my time, because I'm no purist & it's just one part of the whole picture. 



> We go with what seems romantic and emotionally fulfilling, whether or not it actually makes logical sense. And I'd say the same thing about adopting a mustang. They recruit good trainers for those competitions (I know because they've approached me several times) and even those experienced pros still don't get 30-40% of the horses that start, prepared enough to go to the show. Unhandled horses are no joke and you are doing the horse and yourself a disservice if you jump into that pond with less experience that is needed, which is WAY MORE than you probably think.


Oh mate, hit a nerve why don't you... I WISH they did that here, but we have an annual brumby comp here, that they aren't all that choosy as to who the horses go to, and I've known personally of some... doozies. That shouldn't have been let alone with a well trained horse, let alone a feral. And in working as a trainer at a couple of rescue orgs, I grind my teeth often, about well meaning but clueless people 'making' horses into... messes. Not fair on the horses at all.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

its lbs not miles said:


> "positive punishment" LOL.
> Punishment, by definition is something negative. Just because we learn from it does not make it a positive. The results may be positive, but the very nature of "punishment" is something negative.


Lbs we are talking about behavioural terms, aka 'the four quadrants'. On that note, 'positive' means adding something & 'negative' means subtracting - so a positive punishment is say, a hit, a kick, a spurring, while negative punishment is removal of something 'good'.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Mckain-jackson said:


> Easiest thing anyone can do is stop thinking horses or any animal for that matter are any different then us. Try to use your own life experiences as a common ground. Then once you feel like you can relate to the horses behavior respond in a manner you would handle yourself towards anyone else.


I think this is also a valuable point, depending how you look at it. Humans can think rationally(well, many of us can anyway ;-) ), which animals have extremely limited ability for. Humans can connect 'abstracted' ideas, which animals can't. Humans have a verbal language, to explain misunderstandings, motivations, etc to eachother. And of course, we're omnivorous beasts who need shelter, while horses are herbivorous prey animals evolved to live in the wide open. All of those points need to be understood & considered first I reckon. But THEN... yes, regardless of what species we are, we all learn in essentially the same manner. We do what works for us - what 'profits' us, and we quit doing what doesn't. We all have feelings, of pleasure, discomfort, fear, etc, and so empathy & respect FOR the horse goes an awful long way to respectFUL training.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Since there has been some concern expressed in this thread regarding my safety in my considered decision to adopt a wild unhandled feral/ aka mustang horse, I wanted to make this comment:

Due to my advanced years and associated decline in physical strength, agility, and overall stamina, I would not and will not consider adopting an unhandled wild horse with the objective of gentling and training it myself using conventional pressure/release training which has been done beautifully and successfully my many makeover competitors.

But the strength, stamina, and fitness required using +R training is fully within my physical abilities.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence of that is the retired PhD in the field of biology and behavior modification who has gentled over 600 wild horses at her facility using +R principles that have gone on to adoptive homes . The horses must lead, load, and be good with their feet to become a candidate for adoption.

The BLM has expressed that a horse over 10 YO is untrainable as I read on one of their sites. I emailed her at her facility to ask her opinion on that. 

She replied "totally trainable". In fact she said they had received entire gathers from the Forest Service that had all age ranges and all were successfully gentled.

Along with that I have been devouring everything I can on +R training along with a critical eye. 

So based on the successes that have been achieved by others at a similar age and fitness, I see no problem with the safety of the training with the approach and safety I will be using.

And I am guardedly confident of success.


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

Mckain-jackson said:


> Easiest thing anyone can do is stop thinking horses or any animal for that matter are any different then us. Try to use your own life experiences as a common ground. Then once you feel like you can relate to the horses behavior respond in a manner you would handle yourself towards anyone else.


See, I think that one of the worst things we've done for animals was humanizing them. Horses, dogs, livestock, "fur babies"; and dreaming up romanticized human characteristics for something that on the most basic level just wants to eat, reproduce and not be eaten by a predator. 

Animals do not experience emotions the way we do, I can't call my horse names and tell her I'm going to send her to be glue if she doesn't act right, and expect any kind of result or understanding. But I could yell nasty things at my best friend and she will experience emotions because of what I said, and probably whack me with a fry pan.

I can however speak to the horse in a language it understands using body language and using different energy in my body language, for example.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

QHriderKE said:


> See, I think that one of the worst things we've done for animals was humanizing them. Horses, dogs, livestock, "fur babies"; and dreaming up romanticized human characteristics for something that on the most basic level just wants to eat, reproduce and not be eaten by a predator.
> 
> Animals do not experience emotions the way we do, I can't call my horse names and tell her I'm going to send her to be glue if she doesn't act right, and expect any kind of result or understanding. But I could yell nasty things at my best friend and she will experience emotions because of what I said, and probably whack me with a fry pan.


Moving away from 'negative punishment' again, but...

I agree with the first paragraph above. While still believing it has also been one of the best things we've done. In the past, animals were treated as objects to be used(_generally/commonly _- of course there have always been those who thought differently)... Then along came Anna Sewell & Walt Disney, et al. OK it isn't realistic, wasn't meant to be, but it got people thinking about the way animals might see things, how they feel. That they _have_ feelings, emotions - seems biizarre to me but there was a time, not so long ago that many people believed & were taught, animals didn't have emotions. That got the ball rolling on animal welfare, considering more than it took to just keep the animal alive & working. 

But yeah, many/most people don't understand how animals think & learn still. Somehow they just don't seem to consider it's any different to humans, so they 'anthropomorphise', assume the horse understands our 'language', assume a lot of unrealistic attributes, feelings, reasoning... etc. 

To the second bit you said "Animals do not experience emotions the way we do" I don't agree. And your eg. seems to be a question of understanding, not emotion. Your friend speaks your language, understands what you're saying, so gets upset. To the horse, you're going 'Blah blah blah'. If you're saying it in an angry way, there is still absolutely going to be an emotional response, and if you tried saying that in 'horse language' - eg. scare the bejesus out of it, make it think it's going to die - you're absolutely going to see even stronger emotions than you will in your friend.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Agree with @loosie. Thinking of a horse as a magical being that can tap us into some special connection with the universe...harmful to horses. Thinking of the horse as a sensitive child to coddle, or a schemer cleverly plotting against us at night in the stall...bad for horses. The other extreme is also very bad. Thinking of the horse as a purely instinctual animal without feelings, rational thoughts, memories, close friends...bad for horses. Horses don't hold grudges. If we punish them fairly for kicking at us one day, they will not be stewing over that and resenting us. However, if people treat them unfairly they will be wary and self protective. Horses have powerful emotions like us, like dogs, and other animals. Studies are showing that animals can do many things we had decided they can't, such as show empathy toward others. They don't rationalize about emotions the way we do. They don't decide if emotions are good or bad or try to override them. 

I've been around people who believe in both extremes. I've had people say to me, "Do you see that look in his eye? See? He is thinking about how he can get back at me. What is he planning?" That is when I am with @QHriderKE and say he is thinking about eating some grass.
I've also had people tell me their horses should do everything they said, when they said it, and if they didn't they would get rid of them and try to find another more robotic horse. If the horse had any objections, I witnessed them going after the horse with hard punishment until the horse cowered. The horse was not allowed to have any opinions.

There is room for balance here. We can understand the horse has opinions and feelings, and memories that shaped him. He has a unique personality different from any other horse just like no two humans are exactly alike. We can also believe the horse is an animal, and does things mainly for horse reasons and follows horse instincts, so we don't have to take it personally if he doesn't seem to want to have the type of relationship with us that our dog might. The idea of a "bond" with a horse seems to get many people off track. In my opinion it's better to think of it as a friendship. A horse can be a close friend if you learn to work together well as a team, and if he has positive feelings about you. It can be a special relationship, and the horse might prefer having you work with him than other people. If you truly had a "bond" with a horse, they would not tolerate you leaving and would call out repetitively like horses do when being weaned. That would be rather pathological, wouldn't it?

@trailscout, what will success look like to you? Do you plan to ride the horse? My thought is that hopefully you will have someone in mind to give the horse a home at some point, thinking that the horse will still be around in 20 years and I don't know many who can care for horses at 10 years past your current age. At that point, will the horse be rideable for someone? Or would you expect them to keep an expensive pet? Hopefully you have a good friend who will agree to this.


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

Okay, so I've been with you up to this point. 


gottatrot said:


> If you truly had a "bond" with a horse, they would not tolerate you leaving and would call out repetitively like horses do when being weaned. That would be rather pathological, wouldn't it?


I think that is possible. At least for me it has been. My little donkey, Tim, would bray when he saw me, and you could hear that he was happy, and when I left, he would bray and bray for me to come back, when I left, you could hear how sad he was. It was very depressing, but very cute knowing he loved me. So I think that it is possible to have that kind of a connection with a horse, but I also believe that sometimes people get sidetracked on that fact, and think that if they work with the horse for long enough, the horse will trust them with their lives and not think for themselves. I think this is where people get caught up in things. A connection comes or it doesn't, we cannot force that. We can be a good person, and train the horse to the best of our possibilities, but we can't force a connection with a horse. 
Plus, if horses had that "connection" with everyone, and didn't think for themselves, that could end _very_ badly. For the horse, and for the rider. I think that if you have a connection, you need to have that trust to work both ways. Yes, you can expect your horse to trust you, but you need to be willing to trust your horse. And listen when he is trying to tell you something.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm just happy when people start thinking about horses thinking. Too many around my part of Arizona act as if a horse is an ATV: Press button, horse responds. It shows up all the time in many books, too: An outside rein "controls" the horse's shoulder, for example. No, an outside rein is just a request the horse do something - and what response one gets depends on what the horse was trained to do. Maybe replace the word "cue" with "request"? At least everyone here accepts that horses ARE creatures who think and feel!

PS: For the last few months my oldest daughter has been taking care of our horses while we search for a new place to live. A few days ago she told me Bandit did things and then looked at her and LAUGHED. She said she knew it wasn't possible but she swears he does things just to laugh about it.

Scientists say that isn't true. But my wife, both daughters and my farrier all agree: Bandit has a sense of humor. If he doesn't, he sure FAKES a sense of humor well! Trooper and Cowboy? They just get annoyed at Bandit's antics.

Maybe I'm sentimental and reading things into it. Or maybe there is a reason we all get the feeling Bandit laughs at us....


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> @trailscout, what will success look like to you? Do you plan to ride the horse? My thought is that hopefully you will have someone in mind to give the horse a home at some point, thinking that the horse will still be around in 20 years and I don't know many who can care for horses at 10 years past your current age. At that point, will the horse be rideable for someone? Or would you expect them to keep an expensive pet? Hopefully you have a good friend who will agree to this.


First, great post. Only one or two sentences I might change a little, but only a little.

My plan is to ride the horse if he chooses to allow me. Fingers crossed. Success will be a calm happy horse that enjoys life and being a horse. Riding will be a bonus.

His life after my life has been heavy on my mind. At first I was planning to get a 20 YO domestic horse that would be good for walking for another 10 years which at that time I might decide to not ride and he would be getting close to horse heaven. But after looking at a few prospects with bad feet and other problems, I decided I had enough problems with horse health already.

I've wanted a horse that was raised in the wild with the resulting super strong feet and bones and metal health and gnarly trail wise knowledge and finally pivoted to a mustang, even though it may be a year or more before I will be able to safely ride him/her.

I plan to teach tactile cues that will feel like a -R rider with light hands in order that he could be used by someone else. What age I will get is unknown at the moment. Depends on what is available when I make an appointment. Over six is the highest choice on the forms and is what I checked.

When I get back into finally! riding again, if I can't get acquainted enough in the area to be certain of his/her non-slaughter future after I'm gone, I may decide to have the horse euthanized at my demise. Sound harsh, but better than living a life out in the confinement of a long term BLM holding pen or a trip across a border. And if I eat right, got to bed on time, and stay outta the bars at night, who knows, a 10 YO may be 30 when I'm gone afteren joying life for 20 years. He'd be at least close to ready by that time.

So that's where I am at the moment. Don't think I haven't fretted over that question plus the same possible question with the horse I have.

I had to have my very first pet put down a few days ago. Somehow I had succeeded in avoiding that up until now. Eyes swelling as I type. Loved that dog.

So that experience has caused me to consider your important question in earnest.

Edit: I actually think your question is the first thing that should be addressed when a prospective new horse owner is asking about horse ownership related stuff.


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

bsms said:


> I'm just happy when people start thinking about horses thinking. Too many around my part of Arizona act as if a horse is an ATV: Press button, horse responds. It shows up all the time in many books, too: An outside rein "controls" the horse's shoulder, for example. No, an outside rein is just a request the horse do something - and what response one gets depends on what the horse was trained to do. Maybe replace the word "cue" with "request"? At least everyone here accepts that horses ARE creatures who think and feel!


Totally love this! My first instructor was teaching me how to ride and he called it "asking". Actually my instructor now says that too. They tell me to "ask him for a trot" it whatever. I really liked that, cause it helps remind me that we are supposed to be working as a team, not one person over powering the horse.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

AbbySmith said:


> My little donkey, Tim, would bray when he saw me, and you could hear that he was happy, and when I left, he would bray and bray for me to come back,


Praps that's one reason I love donkeys so much - they're more demonstrative in many ways about that sort of thing I think, compared to _most_ horses I've known. And they sound SOOO sad when they're braying at you to come back! I've had a number of horses who, despite having mates in the paddock, get vocal & really excited to see me, and apparently upset(& vocal) when I go. Have one at the mo like that... and baby horse is being weaned ATM so she has 'latched on' to me more & vocalises & gets stressed when I leave her. More so than when her 'uncles' she's living with leave her. But I don't think it's that common with horses. I don't know why, whether it's just 'horses' or the way they're trained & treated from birth, or that we'd need to be living with them for them to feel this way for the most part... dunno. But all of my horses come when called, most come to the fence when they see me outside, and they appear happy to 'play my games', whatever they are, will usually willingly leave their friends to 'come play'. I often decide who I'll ride by just taking the first one that gets to me. So... just because they don't all vocalise or stress about me leaving, I don't believe that negates any 'bond', but that there are different 'levels' and different ways a horse can 'bond' with someone.



> I think that if you have a connection, you need to have that trust to work both ways. Yes, you can expect your horse to trust you, but you need to be willing to trust your horse. And listen when he is trying to tell you something.


And THAT cannot be said enough. I think the biggest reason the 'catch cry of the day' grates on me so much - because to my mind, 'respect' is also a 2 way street - People go on about a horse's 'lack of respect' and that he MUST respect you & you should MAKE him respect you. But IMO you can't force 'respect' any more than you can force trust - it must be EARNED and that requires being respectFUL OF the animal.


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

loosie said:


> Praps that's one reason I love donkeys so much - they're more demonstrative in many ways about that sort of thing I think, compared to _most_ horses I've known. And they sound SOOO sad when they're braying at you to come back! I've had a number of horses who, despite having mates in the paddock, get vocal & really excited to see me, and apparently upset(& vocal) when I go. Have one at the mo like that... and baby horse is being weaned ATM so she has 'latched on' to me more & vocalises & gets stressed when I leave her. More so than when her 'uncles' she's living with leave her. But I don't think it's that common with horses. I don't know why, whether it's just 'horses' or the way they're trained & treated from birth, or that we'd need to be living with them for them to feel this way for the most part... dunno. But all of my horses come when called, most come to the fence when they see me outside, and they appear happy to 'play my games', whatever they are, will usually willingly leave their friends to 'come play'. I often decide who I'll ride by just taking the first one that gets to me. So... just because they don't all vocalise or stress about me leaving, I don't believe that negates any 'bond', but that there are different 'levels' and different ways a horse can 'bond' with someone.


That is interesting. I did kinda realize that horses weren't nearly as vocal as donkeys are. Even my grumpy donkeys bray occasionally, but I know some other horses that definitely express their respect for me much more than the donks so, and they don't ever neigh (i almost wrote bray lol). I really only ever hear one pony bray when I pass her pen while holding straw. I think that it is good to note that horses can show love, or appreciation, in other ways, rather than just expressing it vocally. 


loosie said:


> And THAT cannot be said enough. I think the biggest reason the 'catch cry of the day' grates on me so much - because to my mind, 'respect' is also a 2 way street - People go on about a horse's 'lack of respect' and that he MUST respect you & you should MAKE him respect you. But IMO you can't force 'respect' any more than you can force trust - it must be EARNED and that requires being respectFUL OF the animal.


I think it is very important to understand that! Because, how are you ever going to understand that the horse is trying to tell you that he is in pain? Or something is off? I like the way you put it that way, "Respect is a 2 way street".


----------



## rambo99 (Nov 29, 2016)

I've been reading the replies finding this very interesting. Weather here has warmed up enough to actually be able to work with an ride my horse. 

Today I rode ice bareback and we had a few issues. Ventured out to ride power line, ice hadn't been off property for over two weeks. Had a small snow bank to go through. Ice stopped head went up and wasn't going to walk through. 

I ask with my legs for him to walk on nope he backed up. I then smacked his neck with reins, and asked again he walked on through the snow bank. I petted his neck and said good boy. 

Got down the path a ways and he once again balked wouldn't go forward. All it took was me picking up the reins like I was going to smack him. When I asked him to walk on he went no hesitation. I had a few treats in my pocket so stopped him an gave him a treat. The rest of our ride was trouble free he willingly went were I asked. 

I kept the ride short and when we got home i gave him another treat. Then some much enjoyed scratches where he's itchy. Turned him out with some nice fresh alfalfa hay to munch on. 

I find doing stuff like this keeps him happy an next time I go to get him,he meets me at gate.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

AbbySmith said:


> Okay, so I've been with you up to this point.
> 
> I think that is possible. At least for me it has been. My little donkey, Tim, would bray when he saw me, and you could hear that he was happy, and when I left, he would bray and bray for me to come back, when I left, you could hear how sad he was. It was very depressing, but very cute knowing he loved me. So I think that it is possible to have that kind of a connection with a horse, but I also believe that sometimes people get sidetracked on that fact, and think that if they work with the horse for long enough, the horse will trust them with their lives and not think for themselves. I think this is where people get caught up in things. A connection comes or it doesn't, we cannot force that. We can be a good person, and train the horse to the best of our possibilities, but we can't force a connection with a horse.
> Plus, if horses had that "connection" with everyone, and didn't think for themselves, that could end _very_ badly. For the horse, and for the rider. I think that if you have a connection, you need to have that trust to work both ways. Yes, you can expect your horse to trust you, but you need to be willing to trust your horse. And listen when he is trying to tell you something.


Good post, and I agree. I think it would be pathological if the animal was not just saying, hey I'll miss you (or your treats or pats), but if he was acting like a weaned foal, stressing and thinking the world was unsafe because you were gone. But that is the type of bond I believe some people think they have with their horses. Like the horse thinks they are their dam. That's why I think friendship is a better way to think of it, just me personally to think about how I want a horse to be. 

I think my horse Hero is part donkey because he is extremely vocal. He likes to talk out loud about his feelings - grunting, squealing, groaning, snorting, nickering, etc. People we ride with laugh to hear him expressing his thoughts about the terrain, the weather, everything. 

There seems to be a lot of evidence in my opinion that animals have a sense of humor. For example, there was a study with rats that taught them to play hide and seek, and they made the sound scientists believe is their version of a laugh when humans found them. While they were hiding they stayed perfectly silent. 

I read a book written about dogs that were used for sledding. One dog figured out the exact length of another dog's rope next to his kennel, and enjoyed setting his bone just exactly where the other dog could not reach it. Then he'd watch the other dog get all excited, come rushing over and find that he could not quite get it no matter how hard he tried. That is humor, isn't it? 

I've also observed horses purposefully doing things to annoy other horses. There was a horse that obviously did not like the other horse to pull the tail flap on his blanket and wiggle it up and down, but the other horse would keep sneaking up and doing it whenever the first horse let his guard down. That the other horse could not prevent it seemed a great joke, judging by the pleased expression of the one doing the trick. 
Do Animals Have a Sense of Humor?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

^Thanks for that link Gotta. I'm interested to read more on that, just haven't got around to it. Seems a lot of people cannot fathom animals having a sense of humour, but growing up with cats & a donkey, you can't tell me they don't! 

Oh and budgies, galahs & cockies - parrots certainly seem to have a strong sense of humour. I remember camping in a swag in a forest in WA, waking up to a sudden pain on my cheek, wondering what all these gumnuts were on my swag... before being hit by another one. I looked up to see, high above, a line of black cockies, taking it in turns to drop nuts on us! What's that, if it's not a game, for game's sake?


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

...but the bit that really 'got my funny bone' was that you can train bees to be pessimistic!


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

loosie said:


> ...but the bit that really 'got my funny bone' was that you can train bees to be pessimistic!


I'm sure there is more to it but it makes me imagine all these happy little bees flying around certain they're going to find lots of flowers today. Then the scientists mess with them, and now they're flying around all grumpy thinking "I'm probably not going to find any flowers...ever since I saw that black cat my luck has been terrible."


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

🤣🤣🤣


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Can a true partnership with a horse fully exist if the human part of the partnership uses any degree or type of punishment in interactions with the horse?


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

trailscout said:


> Can a true partnership with a horse fully exist if the human part of the partnership uses any degree or type of punishment in interactions with the horse?


What do you call a "true partnership"?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> Can a true partnership with a horse fully exist if the human part of the partnership uses any degree or type of punishment in interactions with the horse?


I don't expect my horse to be my 50:50 partner. Maybe 60 me, 40 him. 75:25 would be OK too. He's just not going to get the option of saying, "_No, I don't feel like being ridden today. Schedule an appointment with my secretary for later next week._" Same with the way we travel. I may know crossing a rough section will cut 2 miles off our return trip. He doesn't do maps, so he doesn't know.

I try to bring him into what we are doing. I give him responsibility for doing certain things. In that sense we are partners. Crossing the desert, I take responsibility for deciding our next 100 yards of travel. He has near total responsibility for keeping us out of the cactus for the next 20 yards. Between the two distances, we interact. We also do give and take. I want to run down the next 100 yards of wash. But then we may stop and he gets to take a minute to eat. Bandit fully understands that. I don't think he even WANTS to be a full partner.

But that does mean I get to insist. Not 100% of the time. But when I need to take charge, I will. And use negative consequences to motivate him to obey when he prefers a different solution. Because otherwise we cannot be a partnership at all. We cannot be partners unless we go out and do something together, but Bandit rarely feels - in the present moment - like leaving his friends and going to work hauling me around. Once we get out? Like me jogging, he seems fine with it then.

Also: My horse sometimes provides me with negative reinforcement. If pushed to go where he truly objects, he may buck. Depending on the reason he is objecting - based on my feel and knowing him for 6 years - I may honor that bucking and back down. Or tell him it is too important and he just needs to bear down and obey. I don't get angry or resentful when he "punishes" me. We can have a heated dispute and then 60 seconds later be totally good with each other. I don't need to "win" every issue. Neither does he.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

QHriderKE said:


> What do you call a "true partnership"?


I'd have to think about that. Partnership with one's horse is talked about a lot but haven't ever tried to pin a precise description of it. I do think it would need to be egalitarian in some way just as a true friendship has to be. As I think about it, I do think it would include the ability of the horse to say no without negative repercussions.

I reckon a partnership could be 60/40 as it often is in a business partnership, but I think I'm meaning 50/50. I remember reading several years ago Pat Parelli saying he wa 51/49 with the horse. To me that still smacks of a little superiority of one partner.

I think what is more important to me would be an "attitude" of equality.

What would YOU call a true partnership??


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

trailscout said:


> What would YOU call a true partnership??


So I know this question wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to answer it anyway, hope that's okay!

To me, a true partnership with a horse is kinda what we discussed earlier, a 2-way street. Me trusting the horse, and the horse trusting me. I don't think that one should overpower the other, but rather, we should be humble enough to realize that we may not know everything that's going on, and we need to respect the horse, and what he is trying to tell us. Now, this doesn't mean we have to let the horse get away with things. For example, if the horse is refusing to move out, and you _know_ there is nothing there to be afraid of, and he is just being lazy or ignoring you, then you may slap his neck with the reins as @bsms described. 

But if you are out on a say, a trail, and your horse refuses to move out, he might be trying to tell you something. 
I work with one horse quite often, Daisy, and it is very hard to lead her around, cause she is very spooky, and has been allowed to get away with a lot before coming into the rescue. 
When I lead her, I need to be aware, and note if she is spooking at something, or simply refusing to go forwards. Cause there is a difference between the two. 
Sometimes, she simply doesn't want to go forward. In these cases, I lead her diagonally and get her to shift her weight around. This usually works, and after leading her diagonally in a different direction about 3 or so times, she begins to listen to me, and we're good to go.
Other times, she is genuinely scared of something. For example, 3 weeks ago, I was taking her out of her pen, but she had to walk past a puddle of blood that was there from earlier in the day when they had butchered two pigs there. Daisy had no idea what it was, and was _not_ going through it thank you. I'm just gonna go home, and eat my hay, bu-bye! 
I did let her turn away, but I continued her in that circle and got her to face the blood once again. We did this a couple times, but eventually, she would stand there, and she stood and smelt the air, like she was unsure of what she should be doing. I would try and lead her forward, and she wouldn't move. So I would move her sideways. Not even diagonally forwards, but sideways. I moved her sideways, back and forth, a couple of times. And once she began being comfortable with moving near the blood, I would simply, lead her forward a little, and continue the back and forth leading. I didn't change anything, or stare there at her, expecting her to _not_ move forward, I simply moved her forward, and then instantly reverted back to doing what she was comfortable with...leading her back and forth sideways. 
Eventually, she began to trust me that I wasn't trying to hurt her, or lead her into a trap, and she allowed me to lead her forward, straight past the blood. 
When we got past it, I turned her back around and got her to approach the blood again. She did great! She walked right up to it, and sniffed it a bit, then got bored and begun looking around. So I turned her away and continued with what I was doing with her.

Other times, I'll be leading her, and she'll refuse to go forward, and she'll throw her head up high, and begin to back up. In moments like these, I know that when she does this, there's ice in front of us, and she _will not_ walk on ice, for the life of her. In moments like these, I am able to lead her a different route, away from the ice, or around it, and she goes just fine.


So I think that having a partnership with a horse is something like this. Daisy has learned that she doesn't have to back up when she doesn't want to walk over the ice. She just stops now, and I lead her a different way. 
But in times like the blood, I could have led her a different way. I could have led her out about 3 different ways, but since going past blood was a dumb reason to not go past it, I made her go past it, and in the end, she was okay with it!

So as I said in the beginning, trust is a 2-way thing. If you don't trust the horse, why would the horse trust you? We need to recognize that sometimes, the horse is trying to tell us something.

Just my thoughts and I'm sorry if they don't make sense lol! I haven't been around or worked with, nearly as many horses as most of you have, so everything I say is just from my limited experience, and from what I've read.


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

trailscout said:


> What would YOU call a true partnership??


An unrealistic, romanticized notion.

While I enjoy riding my horses immensely, I also use them for work so a 50/50 deal would result in me getting absolutely nothing accomplished most days. 

I'm still paying attention to the horse so that I can know horse has had enough for the day, like taking a young horse to the branding pen and they might only have 20 minutes in them that day, not physically but mentally. Or when a horse needs a minute of rest while climbing a particularly big hill, for example. I think horses thrive with good leadership more than a "partnership" or "bond". Especially if there's ever a chance that the horse will end up in someone else's hands in his lifetime. 

I trust my horses and they trust me (if they didn't, they wouldn't do all the crazy things I ask of them), but it doesn't mean that they get to throw a fit at crossing a creek and we just go home because the horse is allowed to say no.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

As I've thought about it, I do not believe a true or real or actual partnership can exist between a rider and a horse if the training was accomplished with pressure/release training and ridden the same.

I do believe it is possible using +R properly based mostly on what others have accomplished and my fledgling experience with it.

And yes, that includes working cattle with all the challenges that have a way of happening. I've worked cattle in some very challenging terrain. But that was on a -R horse ridden as a -R horse.

My upcoming project is among other things being done or attempted precisely to prove to myself if my belief is or is not an unrealistic, romanticized notion. We'll see.


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

trailscout said:


> As I've thought about it, I do not believe a true or real or actual partnership can exist between a rider and a horse if the training was accomplished with pressure/release training and ridden the same.
> 
> I do believe it is possible using +R properly based mostly on what others have accomplished and my fledgling experience with it.
> 
> ...


So you are insisting I do not have a partnership of any kind with these horses? Or a good relationship with them? Or anyone who uses any pressure/release training cannot have a partnership with a horse? If you are, that is a completely ridiculous assumption. 

From what I've seen of this +R training, it's looks likely to create horses that will be labeled as problem horses/useless if they end up in the hands of someone who doesn't strictly follow that method of training. Just like parelli trained horses, you're looking at a complete restart with a lot of problems and unlearning to do along the way unless you are a parelli follower yourself.

I suppose all this debate over these specific training methods seems all a little much for me, being as I believe that if you can train a horse that can be enjoyed by nearly anyone who may own it over the course of it's life (things happen and maybe you one day won't be able to keep the horse you thought you'd keep forever) would be the best case scenario for everyone. I sleep better knowing that I've set my horses up for a good life, with or without me, than knowing I fed him treats for letting me pick his feet that day.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> I do believe it is possible using +R properly based mostly on what others have accomplished and my fledgling experience with it.
> 
> And yes, that includes working cattle with all the challenges that have a way of happening. I've worked cattle in some very challenging terrain. But that was on a -R horse ridden as a -R horse.
> 
> My upcoming project is among other things being done or attempted precisely to prove to myself if my belief is or is not an unrealistic, romanticized notion. We'll see.


If +R training was truly an equal partnership as stated, the horse would be able to decide what he wants to do and then just do it. This is not the case with training, just as when training a dog to walk off leash. Just because you do not apply a physical punishment, that does not mean a horse has a choice to do whatever he wants if you continue showing him there are only certain options. 

For example, in this video the trainer is teaching a horse to lead at "liberty," which is what they call off lead training. At 4:15 the horse decides to move away from the correct position. The trainer shows him this option is wrong and changes her position to what it is supposed to be. That means she is controlling the decision. Whether she does it with treats or pushes him into place, the effect is the same. The horse does not choose, he is taught what he must do. The horse cannot simply run away and decide not to participate. She will go after him and give treats to get him back into the positions she wishes. It gives the appearance of free choice, but the trainer is controlling what happens. 





I am well experienced with this kind of pressure, because I have trained dogs to fairly high levels of obedience so they go over jumps and retrieve off leash. When a dog heels off leash, of course they are free to run away. But they won't, because you have trained them that it is futile to do so, because you will bring them back and put them in the right position again. That means they don't really have the choice to do so. You are controlling them. This is different from when you give the release cue, and then the dog will often run off with a burst of energy because he is now actually free to make his own decisions. The horse or the dog is working during training, not having fun. This includes trick training. There is a huge mental difference.

You can teach a horse to ground tie by dropping the reins, and then rewarding him for standing. If you keep reinforcing this, horses can get to the point where you just drop the reins and they freeze where they are. Even if you apply no negative reinforcement or positive punishment to achieve this, the horse is not free to make his own decisions. He is held by the training and will stand even if he wishes to walk away (some horses might, but many won't). Is this a 50/50 partnership? No. You have say over what the horse does. 

I'll say that when I am at work, I have a partnership with my coworkers. We are equals. We each have our own responsibilities, that we are primarily accountable for. If I have a patient and my coworker has a patient, we will communicate with each other our ideas for what we think the other nurse should do. We'll say the person should call the doctor, hold a medication, get someone up out of bed. These ideas are often well received, but ultimately each nurse has to make the final decision and is responsible for their own patient. 

To me this is the kind of partnership I have with a horse. There are some things the horse can be more responsible for, as @bsms says. The horse knows that he should slow down and drop his hindquarters going down a certain hill. I might communicate with him that I think he should go faster and remain upright, but that is ultimately his responsibility to decide and I need to let him choose. He might think the sand looks great for a gallop. I can see there are hidden dangers and must insist that he goes slow. He may not like my decision at the time, but that doesn't mean I have become a dictator and we are no longer partners. He needs to allow the vet to give him a shot even if it hurts. He needs to take wormer even if he doesn't like the taste. Those are decisions I must make, and it means the horse does not get to decide everything about himself. My responsibility is a bigger one, because it is not an equal partnership. 

A horse cannot be an equal partner with us, because he cannot think about the consequences of every action that I can. If he doesn't want to walk today, his arthritis will worsen. If he doesn't feel like letting me put on hoof medicine, his thrush will eat away his frog. My friend's horse Nala sometimes prefers to untie herself and go back up the hill to her friends. That is a decision in the moment, but if her owner thinks ahead for her, she knows that Nala enjoys exercise and feels better and less anxious in her paddock if she can leave her friends to go out for a gallop. It doesn't take long for Nala to agree with her owner, even though the owner made a different decision for her at some point.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

Just an update, I used what I would consider to be a very mild negative punishment today. Trying to teach Mav how to be sweet and groom me _without_ biting in the process... he’s a very rough groomer. So I would let him groom me a little until he started getting too rough, and then I would take my arm that he was grooming away.

Yes... I am having to teach my horse how to groom... LOL


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> I do not believe a true or real or actual partnership can exist between a rider and a horse if the training was accomplished with pressure/release training and ridden the same.


Some years back, I was visiting a friend's ranch. After pushing the sheep 20 miles, they settled into a mountain valley - to my unhorsey wife's pleasure:










A little while later, we noticed one of the horses staring intently. Me? I took a picture:









My unhorsey wife asked, "_What is he staring at so intently?_"

One of the professional herders stared where the horse was staring. Then he shouted an oath, ran to the horse and jumped on. Before his butt hit the saddle, the horse was accelerating. We looked - and saw some sheep had broken from the herd and were headed where they were not supposed to go. Happily, the horse and rider - and the rider's faithful sheepdog - got there in time to turn the breakoff herd back.

A partner is someone who does something with someone else to achieve a common goal. Seems to me that Appy/Arabian mix was truly a "partner" in sheep herding. In fact, when I mounted him at 4 AM earlier that morning, he was pacing around and ready to get to work - after having done 35 miles the previous day! But those horses had a job to do and they did their part. As did the dogs.

But it cannot be a true partnership because those ranch horses were punished some of the times. Not just pressure and release, but actual punishment.

So....how come the horse was taking responsibility for the herd? While the rest of us were lounging about?

Guess I'm either very stupid, a liar, or so steeped in abusive behavior that I cannot recognized a bitter, angry, resentful, shut-down horse when I see one.

Or...someone needs to open their eyes to evidence.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I get the feeling she has never ridden a bolter. She doesn't have a clue. Mia would have eaten her alive.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

^^^^^I have not found any information that the trainer rides. Not much concrete advice there, she hopes it might help. If I had a bolter I'd like a little more assurance than that. 

Here's a horse who decided that the partnership should be mostly skewed in the horse's direction. "Who needs a rider? I can do this on my own."





Not exactly on topic but I thought it was too funny not to share. You have to listen to the commentary on the video, which is a voice over of how the rider was feeling at the time.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> My responsibility is a bigger one, because it is not an equal partnership.
> 
> A horse cannot be an equal partner with us, because he cannot think about the consequences of every action that I can.


This pretty much sums it up.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

bsms said:


> I get the feeling she has never ridden a bolter.


On this we agree. Any horse she has and would ride will have been first properly trained before hand. And that includes riding an Orca killer whale at Sea World. Talk about a bolter. Ha ha ha!


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> If +R training was truly an equal partnership as stated, the horse would be able to decide what he wants to do and then just do it. This is not the case with training, just as when training a dog to walk off leash. Just because you do not apply a physical punishment, that does not mean a horse has a choice to do whatever he wants if you continue showing him there are only certain options.


To me, this entire line of thought is based on muddy thinking.

In the first place, +R training does NOT limit the horse to only certain options.

Why do you enjoy exerting yourself to the point of physical fatigue riding horses or running? One of the reasons among likely others is the endorphin release you get. I know this for myself. Physical exertion over extended period of time had elements of or periods that seemed almost like some trance like meditation. Absolutely euphoric. And I was not alone in this as other competitors experienced the same.

The object of properly used +R training is not to use food as an alternate type of leash but rather to teach that some crazed form of activity is actually fun as we ourselves have learned by some likely unidentified means.

Now if we want to bring arthritis into the picture, I am taking Keno on daily walks that have an appearance of arthritis although I'm also suspecting muscle damage. A vet will be coming by in two weeks to get a blood draw to test for elevated muscle enzymes.

I am now required to be more forceful and at times even using what could easily be classified as positive punishment to keep him walking enough that he doesn't go down without being able to get up.

He could not be trained to walk under these circumstances using +R. Period. No way.

But to bring this type scenario into a discussion of the +'s and -'s of +R training is simply unclear thinking or just grabbing at staws in an attempt to make an invalid conclusion.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

bsms said:


> Seems to me that Appy/Arabian mix was truly a "partner" in sheep herding.


"Seems to me" is operative here. That's only one possible perspective. Or was the horse only looking around and noticed some sheep over there? Was he really attempting to "tell" the humans that some sheep were about to escape? At which point a rider jumped on him and rode him as the -R horse he was using +P when and if needed as decided by the rider?

Now I am convinced from my own experience that horses, some horses at least, do have fun herding or droving cattle and I'm sure that extends to sheep as well. So the horse could well have been thinking that the group of sheep looked like a potential source of entertainment. But I am in serious doubt that the horse was attempting to engage in a partnership by telling the humans they were about to lose some sheep.

That's my perspective.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

bsms said:


> She doesn't have a clue. Mia would have eaten her alive.


This is so funny. Thanks for the morning levity.

This lady was a full time trainer of marine mammals for ten years before entering the would of +R horse training 27 years ago and has sucessfully worked with literally thousands of horses since. The first horse she worked with was ridden by Beezie Madden who has two Olympic golds and one silver in team jumping, and an individual bronze. She won the FEI Show Jumping World Cup twice; won two silvers and two bronzes at World Championships; and won two golds, one silver and two bronzes at the Pan American Games.

I can assure that Shawna Karrasch is advanced way way past being able to ride a horse past a garbage can.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Oh me! After leaving this thread I opened Firefox to find this topic staring at me. Somehow it fit in this discussion and I read it in it's entirety with great interest.









Persuading the Unpersuadable


We live in an age of polarization. Many of us may be asking ourselves how, when people disagree with or discount us, we can persuade them to rethink their positions. The author, an organizational psychologist, has spent time with a number of people who succeeded in motivating the notoriously...




hbr.org


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> Any horse she has and would ride will have been first properly trained before hand....And that includes riding an Orca killer whale at Sea World.


Which means you don't know anything about bolting horses. Her advice is drivel. And in Sea World, the orcas are not free to go where they choose. At best they can rush around a relatively small tank. Or sometimes kill their trainer. But it is like discussing a horse who bolts in a round pen. Not relevant. When she can ride an orca around San Diego harbor, get back with me.



trailscout said:


> has sucessfully worked with literally thousands of horses since....I can assure that Shawna Karrasch is advanced way way past being able to ride a horse past a garbage can.


Based on how clueless her advice was, she is not. She doesn't have a clue about bolting horses. And it is obvious she does not. The only area of horses that I feel genuinely competent about is bolting. I don't know jumping. I don't know dressage. I can't rope or cut cattle and neither my horse nor I know about flying lead changes on command.

But I know bolting. She does not.



trailscout said:


> "Seems to me" is operative here. That's only one possible perspective. Or was the horse only looking around and noticed some sheep over there? Was he really attempting to "tell" the humans that some sheep were about to escape?


I was there. You were not. I had ridden that horse earlier in the day. You haven't met him. But in all seriousness and without meaning to be rude, that is the problem with your theory: It only accepts "evidence" that agrees with it. It rejects the possibility of being wrong. Talk about "Persuading the Unpersuadable"! Every experienced rider I've met, and every inexperienced rider I've met - including me - has had experiences that do not match your belief. But none of those experiences count. We just don't understand the friendly, happy horse we meet and ride daily is actually bitter, angry and resentful. And suppresses his feelings to avoid our abuse. OK...whatever.

@gottatrot: Bookmarked that video for future sharing...but I had to wipe some coffee off my laptop.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Since you presume to advance yourself as a more accomplished and astute trainer of horses than Shawna, I would be more than interested in a somewhat detailed but not necessarily exhaustive description of your formula of how to train horses. Not a compilation of quotes from various sources, but your very own words, if you'd care to share.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I've said I know more about bolters. That was why, in looking at her stuff, I looked specifically for her advice on bolting horses. It is the one area where I feel confident I can spot nonsense and know it is nonsense. And no, I'm not going to work on a dissertation for you. My journal thread is here:









Bandit, Cowboy & bsms...muddling through together


Previous threads closely related here: http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/mias-last-day-bsms-580473/#post7464529 http://www.horseforum.com/member-journals/branded-brandy-final-name-bandit-mias-581034/ This post on the second thread got me thinking: It may be time to start a thread for...




www.horseforum.com





Bolting and excited horses get discussed a lot on it, over the course of 2300 posts and rising. As well as others, far more experienced than I am, who have shared their experiences.


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

What someone says and does on screen may not necessarily be what happens when the cameras are off. I didn't watch Shawn's videos because I'm plain too busy for that, but always something to think about when watching all these amazing trainers on YouTube. 
Hours of experience will beat hours of videos watched 10 times out of 10.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> This is so funny. Thanks for the morning levity.
> 
> This lady was a full time trainer of marine mammals for ten years before entering the would of +R horse training 27 years ago and has sucessfully worked with literally thousands of horses since. The first horse she worked with was ridden by Beezie Madden who has two Olympic golds and one silver in team jumping, and an individual bronze. She won the FEI Show Jumping World Cup twice; won two silvers and two bronzes at World Championships; and won two golds, one silver and two bronzes at the Pan American Games.
> 
> I can assure that Shawna Karrasch is advanced way way past being able to ride a horse past a garbage can.


It's fine to say this, but I cannot find any videos of her riding. Say what you like about Clinton Anderson or Warwick Schiller, but they have a lot of videos of themselves riding horses and fixing riding problems. How can you give advice about riding but not be willing to show yourself riding and fixing problems? Beezie Madden's riding is not in question. But the horses she rides were not trained with purely positive reinforcement methods. They used the modality to make a fearful horse think more positively about water jumps. I believe most if not all of us on here have stated we believe adding positive reinforcement to other methods is a great idea. Most of us already do this. I just don't believe that it must be used in the exclusion of all other methods or else the horse will be shut down and negative.

@trailscout I find it interesting that you both idealize having a wonderful partnership with a horse, but also speak about horses as if they are not intelligent, and that they don't want to be thinking partners with us during work even though that is very natural for them. 

I think a reason why clicker training might be less universally successful for horses is that it has been used most extensively for dogs and marine mammals. Those are all predator species. So the concept requires a bit of adapting for prey animals. I'm not saying it isn't useful, it's just not the be-all end-all method.

Per an article on Shawna Karrasch several years ago:

"Shawna tries not to call her method clicker
training, which evolved from working with
dogs. She points out that the marine world
uses whistles and verbal cues. In the horse
world, a little knowledge can be a dangerous
thing. “People experience success with
positive reinforcement and the results can
be pretty dramatic, but the basics can only
take most people so far,” said Shawna. As
On Target gets bigger, *she finds that she
is fixing more problems, which result from
training that fails to fix the initial issues*."

I'd say it is best to approach these types of results with skepticism.
Contrast that with @DanielDauphin who has many videos on his youtube channel demonstrating good horsemanship. If you think the greatest thing is bareback and bridleless, you can even see him doing that.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> but also speak about horses as if they are not intelligent


Oh excuse me please!!!!!!!!!!!! If there is anyone that advocates the intelligence of horses it would include me.

This brings to mind the second article I read this morning from the selection presented by Firefox, "Why we lie to ourselves and why and how we come to believe them.

It's useless to talk further. I'll be back in the near future with either Rico or Rita, depending. No more theorizing after that when the rubber hits the tarmac so to speak.

Edit: One more thing. I can guarantee without reservation that Shawna has little to no experience riding a bolting horse.

She would never just walk up to a horse and jump on to see what would happen. She would evaluate the horse, determine how well the horse could handle it's emotions and reactivity etc from the ground and where weak spots were found she would train them.

She's not a cowgirl and only learned to first ride when she left Sea World. But since her first experience with riding was at the Madden Ranch, I feel certain she received top notch instruction.

Hmmmm......, I wonder if Beezie has ever ridden a bolting horse? Maybe but I'll bet not often.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> She would never just walk up to a horse and jump on to see what would happen. She would evaluate the horse, determine how well the horse could handle it's emotions and reactivity etc from the ground and where weak spots were found she would train them.


That reflects a total misunderstanding of horses in general and bolting in particular. But I wish you well in your future endeavors. Horses are the best teachers. It is just some of the lessons are rough ones!


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

Since everyone is arguing about “bolters”, here’s my two cents. Pistol had that issue when I first got him, and solely spending time and bonding with him fixed it on its own. With Dixie having that problem (hers being a “bolt back home” because she’s extremely anxious away from her herd— as is normal, she’s a horse...) I have been using mixtures of +R and -R. I would like to see an only -R person attempt to work with Dixie on this issue because they would probably end up on the ground and I would laugh my butt off. Dixie is a great horse to teach you how to avoid fighting with your horse. And you would have to fight with her if you used solely -R.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

I watched the video below start to finish and will say that even without meeting Daniel I like him a lot and have a ton of respect for him.

Removing the tons of experience he has with horses our backgrounds and values from the bottom to the top are way more similar than different.

And my background philosophy with horses for the last six years, discounting the draft horses prior to the age of 14, does not diverge much if at all from what he says in the video.............until recently.

I have crawled down into a rabbit hole that feel I must pursue. I HAVE to determine for myself what is real and what is not real in this rabbit hole of +R training below threshold and how far it can be taken.

I'm pretty sure if we had a chance to sit down to a conversation it would terminate on a friendly basis without a harsh word having been spoken. At least not directed toward each other.

For soft pressure release training, I definitely don't think a person would go wrong contacting Daniel Dauphin Horsemanship.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

bsms said:


> Which means you don't know anything about bolting horses.


ROTFL And exactly how many times have you found yourself prone on the ground when a bolter removed him/herself between you and terra firma? Huh? I'm betting I'll win on that one.


----------



## untamed equestrian (Nov 16, 2020)

Ok, I haven't been on here in a while and I haven't read this whole thread, but here's my two cents on training bolting, excited, and hot headed horses with +r. I haven't watched Shawna Karrasch's video yet, but I will when I have the time. I have a mare who for the longest time was an extremely forward, spooky, no brakes mare. One of my scariest falls was off of her at a fast gallop when she bolted on me. She wouldn't calm down. She wouldn't collect her stride. All of her gaits were extremely fast. She was extremely reactive to everything. Now we are currently working on bridle less, which she has been trained to do completely with +r. Although I haven't switched everything of hers over to +r yet, I can say that it was the missing link I was searching for. I strongly believe that whatever you ask of your horse under saddle, the horse should also be able to do without your assistance or tack without you on his back. If you encounter a problem, such as bucking, bolting, or spookiness, you should immediately assess what could have caused it and not simply ride him through it. The environment? The tack? A hole in his training? Is he uncomfortable? I don't believe horses refuse to do things simply because they want to try and be boss or make things hard for you. 


trailscout said:


> She would never just walk up to a horse and jump on to see what would happen. She would evaluate the horse, determine how well the horse could handle it's emotions and reactivity etc from the ground and where weak spots were found she would train them.





bsms said:


> That reflects a total misunderstanding of horses in general and bolting in particular. But I wish you well in your future endeavors. Horses are the best teachers. It is just some of the lessons are rough ones!


I'm sorry, but what do you mean that it reflects misunderstanding on her part? I have not watched the posted video yet, (but I will) however, if your horse is barely keeping it together on the ground, I see no reason why you should be on their back yet.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Something I disagree with in horse training advice is pointing people back to vague ideas for issues they are having with a horse. For example, if you are selling a type of training, saying things like just keep the horse calm, go back to where he is comfortable, keep being positive and teaching him positivity, that sort of thing. Those are good principles, but have very little practical use when someone has a specific problem such as the horse responds well in every situation, except he runs off whenever a horse comes up behind him.

I don't believe the answer to every problem is getting a horse calm. I believe that it is important to give the horse confidence, which may lead to a calm horse in many cases, but also may lead to a very energetic horse in others. I also believe it is important to teach the horse to respond to cues that you can use in any situation, even when he is not calm. Sometimes you can't get a horse to calm down right away. 

If your only answer is to get the horse calm, then what? Energy is not our enemy. Directable energy is a beautiful thing. Even excitement can be good, as long as we are working together with the horse as a partner. Better riders get more and more comfortable with horses that are more energetic and forward. Many good riders consider forward a positive trait. 

Many horses that are rushing off with people simply do not have training to respond to cues, and/or the rider does not know how to properly communicate with the horse. That is not bolting or anything like it. 

All the best training in the world may not be able to give a prediction of whether a horse is going to bolt. I've seen very calm horses with beautiful training and soft responses end up bolting when their rider accidentally parked them on a hornet's nest and they got stung. No one trains their horse to get a sudden severe pain in the genitals and stand quietly. How the horse reacts will be based on their personality and their instinct. 

Training alone does not ensure safety with horses. Expect the unexpected is a good strategy.


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

Completely off topic but I had a good chat with a guy who has as much experience in his pinky finger than most of us can ever hope for. We were talking about how everyone wants to keep everything slow, calm and collected all the time with their horses (talking about ranch horses) so they can ride in a bosal or a bridle bit without causing harm to the horse. He said that this is causing horses and riders to fall apart and be completely unable to keep control over things and get the job at hand done when things get fast, whether it's having to run to a critter to rope it or turn it back, or any of the other million reasons things can get fast.

We sort of agreed that there is value in purposely getting a horse ramped up and dealing with it in a controlled environment. I think it would set up the horse (and rider) to be able to handle circumstances that get the energy up. I've seen and been aboard young horses that spook at something and then get even more spooked by the rider's reaction, like the snatch of the reins that is second nature to lots of us, and then bolt blindly.


----------



## untamed equestrian (Nov 16, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> Something I disagree with in horse training advice is pointing people back to vague ideas for issues they are having with a horse. For example, if you are selling a type of training, saying things like just keep the horse calm, go back to where he is comfortable, keep being positive and teaching him positivity, that sort of thing. Those are good principles, but have very little practical use when someone has a specific problem such as the horse responds well in every situation, except he runs off whenever a horse comes up behind him.


I feel like this is directed against +r training, so just going to give my thoughts on this. I completely agree with you that even well trained horses can be startled, bolt, and buck. I'm sure many of it have seen it happen. You're right that there is more than just creating a 'calm' horse, but also training. 
Energy is not our enemy, and a calm horse can still be forward, energetic, and doing his job. But a constantly anxious, tense, and spooky horse is not desirable for either there horse or the rider. Of course, some horses are more naturally easy going and others have bit more fire in them, but alot of those horses that get labeled as dominant, fiery, or stubborn and giving the rider a tough time (being over reactive, bucking, tail swishing, refusing), have underlying problems that should be addressed instead of just being labeled as "trying to get out of work", or "fiery". Alot of these problems can be traced back to a physical problem (kissing spines, poor fitting saddle, ulcers, etc.), mental (previous history with other owners, reinforcement history, etc.), training hole (does the horse know what you're asking?), or environmental (new place, windy day, etc.) We absolutely cannot expect our horses to perform like robots in all situations that we throw at them and always do what we ask of them without a hitch. We also can't just look over certain behaviors as part of a horse's personality, or as something that we need to just ride them through. 
With +r reinforcement history cannot be stressed enough, which is why we train horses and teach cues in all situations, so that when the time comes when we really need them to respond to the cue they do listen. One of my foundation behaviors is 'calm' or lowering the head. It kinda acts as a reset for my mare. It was one of the first things I taught her and I ask for it alot in all sort of situations, so now, when she does spook or see something scary in the distance, I can ask her for calm, she lowers her head, and is then usually ready to focus on what we are doing or further investigate the scary object. If someone has a specific problem, that needs a specific answer, it can be given using +r. I've overcome specific problems with my horse and heard countless stories of others who have gotten over specific problems with horses through +r. 
If a horse is not comfortable with what is being asked, then I do believe you need to step back from what you are doing. Something is wrong, forcing the horse through it is very rarely fixes things. I think we can all agree that horses are intelligent animals and they do not act eradictly for no reason. And forcing a horse through a movement does not actually teach a horse's body anything at all, it only enocurages the brain to compensate in some way, as new science on the brain and pain has pointed out. 
Bolting from a sudden gunshot on a trail ride is completely different than a horse that bolts whenever a person gets on its back. A horse being tense getting off the trailer when it arrives at a new place is completely different than a horse who is often tense running around with his nostrils flared and tail swishing whenever he is ridden. Horses really aren't that unpredictable when you get down to the nitty gritty of different situations.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

bsms said:


> ... And in Sea World, the orcas are not free to go where they choose. At best they can rush around a relatively small tank. Or sometimes kill their trainer. But it is like discussing a horse who bolts in a round pen. Not relevant. When she can ride an orca around San Diego harbor, get back with me.


This is absolutely great! 

I think it's interesting to take the bridle off a horse in an arena to see if you can have the horse follow cues in isolation. It's similar to trying to use yarn on your bit to see how light of cues a horse can respond to. However, people should not think these things can be safely taken to extremes. If we're riding with miles of open country before us, and two of the horses are ready to gallop, you should not be out there with us and no bridle on. 

Yes, I've seen Alycia Burton galloping on the beach in NZ, but I've also looked up the beach where she rides and it's fairly short, deserted and with a natural end to it. That's a far different story from taking a horse out with no bridle on a 17 mile long beach with lots of traffic. So I don't agree that if our training is good, we should be able to just take the tack off in any situation and our horse will respond nicely. If we blast by you on two thoroughbreds, I can guarantee your horse will come along if you don't have a bridle on. Perhaps after a mile or two we might slow down, and perhaps you might not.



QHriderKE said:


> Completely off topic but I had a good chat with a guy who has as much experience in his pinky finger than most of us will ever experience. We were talking about how everyone wants to keep everything slow, calm and collected all the time with their horses (talking about ranch horses) so they can ride in a bosal or a bridle bit without causing harm to the horse. He said that this is causing horses and riders to fall apart and be completely unable to keep control over things and get the job at hand done when things get fast, whether it's having to run to a critter to rope it or turn it back, or any of the other million reasons things can get fast.
> 
> We sort of agreed that there is value in purposely getting a horse ramped up and dealing with it in a controlled environment. I think it would set up the horse (and rider) to be able to handle circumstances that get the energy up. I've seen and been aboard young horses that spook at something and then get even more spooked by the rider's reaction, like the snatch of the reins that is second nature to lots of us, and then bolt blindly.


I agree. I've heard people say that galloping is wrong because horses get too excited when galloping. I've trained many horses to gallop, and it is a gait that must be practiced like any other gait. Horses are also excited to canter under saddle in the beginning. But if you practice galloping with other horses, soon it is not very exciting and horses can be very directable at high speeds if they are trained to do it. 

What you said about young horses is a big reason why inexperienced people should not be the first ones riding these horses. All the positive reinforcement training in the world will not prepare a horse for something that spooks them, and then the rider's reaction. Even just the rider falling off can be a negative experience for a green horse. What are you going to do when the horse takes off...just sit there to prevent negativity? What behavior are you going to reward here? If the horse falls into a hole, it will be far more negative than if you simply have some pressure and release cues available to use. 

I had to work with a young horse that the owner started in a bosal. Which is fine, except the owner wanted everything to be slow and controlled. The horse began trotting quickly at times, and she inadvertently taught the horse to run through the bosal by simply pulling back on the reins when the horse went too fast for her comfort level. The horse had to learn how to respond to pressure and release from the bosal, and how to turn and slow so she could learn to rate herself within gaits. 

That was all fine, except the owner could not stop herself from pulling straight back when she was anxious. Soon she had her running through the bosal again. So we had to switch to a snaffle, and the owner had to be taught to use one rein at a time and not just pull back and teach the horse to run through the snaffle. This was easier than the bosal, which requires a quicker release. The horse and owner did learn, plus I took the horse on a few rides to get her much calmer in the trail environment, so soon the horse was mostly walking and jogging anyway.


----------



## untamed equestrian (Nov 16, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> What you said about young horses is a big reason why inexperienced people should not be the first ones riding these horses. All the positive reinforcement training in the world will not prepare a horse for something that spooks them, and then the rider's reaction. Even just the rider falling off can be a negative experience for a green horse. What are you going to do when the horse takes off...just sit there to prevent negativity? What behavior are you going to reward here? If the horse falls into a hole, it will be far more negative than if you simply have some pressure and release cues available to use.


Inexperienced people should not be training young horses, but an experienced +r trainer absolutely can. Positive reinforcement training can prepare a young horse who spooks at something. With a good reinforcement history, you can quickly bring your horse's attention back to you. You would reward the horse for calming down. I've had my horse spook or even wander off during a training session. I just reward her for bringing her attention back to me, encouraging her to sniff the scary object, or redirecting her attention. If you horse goes into a huge spooking fit bucks you off and you have to jerk the rein around in the moment to prevent the horse from hurting itself or you, that's fine. It's an emergency situation, and its a green horse. However, if your horse spooked that badly I would wonder if you were maybe pushing the horse to hard. Also, if you're horse spooked so badly that it ran through all your other -r cues and your hands, and knocked you off, than I would say in the that moment your pressure and release training was just as ineffective. +r cues can be just as effective as pressure and release.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

untamed equestrian said:


> I feel like this is directed against +r training, so just going to give my thoughts on this....We also can't just look over certain behaviors as part of a horse's personality, or as something that we need to just ride them through.
> With +r reinforcement history cannot be stressed enough, which is why we train horses and teach cues in all situations, so that when the time comes when we really need them to respond to the cue they do listen...


To be clear, I am not "against" positive reinforcement training. I am a big advocate for it and use it all the time. But I don't use "pure" positive reinforcement and I believe that negative reinforcement or pressure/release training can be used thoughtfully, gently and when used properly horses do not view it as aversive training. There is really no good reason not to use it. 

Teaching cues in all situations is not something I have seen happen with pure +R training. In other words, the video of Mustang Maddy with her Thoroughbred showed a horse trying to escape the arena at first, until he got used to the situation and settled down a bit. There was no cue she could give him that worked when he was in that state. Once he grew more calm and was thinking better, she was able to get him to do some behaviors, but he still wasn't safe for her to ride with only +R methods. However, an experienced rider could have ridden the horse while he was a bit "up" energy-wise if he had been trained with -R methods. 



untamed equestrian said:


> One of my foundation behaviors is 'calm' or lowering the head. It kinda acts as a reset for my mare. It was one of the first things I taught her and I ask for it alot in all sort of situations, so now, when she does spook or see something scary in the distance, I can ask her for calm, she lowers her head, and is then usually ready to focus on what we are doing or further investigate the scary object.


This is something I've worked with also, using +R only to teach it. I've found it works for a horse that is already fairly calm. It does not help a horse that is very hot or excited. The idea behind it is that horses that are more calm have a lowered head posture. But the horse has to be receptive mentally to becoming more calm, and if they have a lot of adrenaline going they will not be. You cannot change a mental state by creating a posture. If a horse becomes more worried if they are made to stand still, attempting this may cause the horse to cross over into a panic state.



untamed equestrian said:


> If a horse is not comfortable with what is being asked, then I do believe you need to step back from what you are doing. Something is wrong, forcing the horse through it is very rarely fixes things. I think we can all agree that horses are intelligent animals and they do not act eradictly for no reason. And forcing a horse through a movement does not actually teach a horse's body anything at all, it only enocurages the brain to compensate in some way, as new science on the brain and pain has pointed out.
> Bolting from a sudden gunshot on a trail ride is completely different than a horse that bolts whenever a person gets on its back. A horse being tense getting off the trailer when it arrives at a new place is completely different than a horse who is often tense running around with his nostrils flared and tail swishing whenever he is ridden. Horses really aren't that unpredictable when you get down to the nitty gritty of different situations.


I agree, physical issues and anxiety issues need to be addressed first. Still, you may do all the training in the world and the horse still might not be ready to go to a show, for example. Horses need to work in different environments in order to adapt to them. They cannot learn every skill they need at a slow pace and in a calm environment. 
Horses are not that unpredictable, no. I can predict that a horse will bolt if he gets stung by a bee. I can predict that if I gallop by your horse, he will probably want to run too.

Horses as you are describing that can't handle being ridden or bolt do need training before being ridden. That is a different scenario than a horse that has been trained and rides very well, but rears and panics when another horse goes out of sight on the trail. That requires training in that particular environment. 



untamed equestrian said:


> ...If you horse goes into a huge spooking fit bucks you off and you have to jerk the rein around in the moment to prevent the horse from hurting itself or you, that's fine. It's an emergency situation, and its a green horse. However, if your horse spooked that badly I would wonder if you were maybe pushing the horse to hard.


If the horse was trained with only +R, how would he know what jerking around on the rein meant? Wouldn't that just panic him and cause a wreck? If he never had pressure that was released for a correct response, then pressure on a rein would be meaningless to him. 


untamed equestrian said:


> Also, if you're horse spooked so badly that it ran through all your other -r cues and your hands, and knocked you off, than I would say in the that moment your pressure and release training was just as ineffective. +r cues can be just as effective as pressure and release.


If a horse bolts, they will not respond to any cue. That is not an issue with a type of training. It might be the horse was over faced to the point of losing control over their emotions, they had some classical conditioned response kick in, or instinct. This is why I believe @bsms said Karrasch was clueless, because she was discussing teaching the horse to stay calm, when if a horse is in a panic bolt, that is irrelevant advice. 

But for an inexperienced rider, a horse might simply spook, jump forward a few steps, or have a brief reaction rather than an actual bolt. These are situations where the wrong response can create big problems.

So to follow up QHriderKE's post, as a positive reinforcement trainer, do you work with horses in fast gaits outside the arena, canter and gallop, do quick turns, jumping, run with groups of other horses, etc? How do you apply your training to those situations if you do?


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

Just a thought, but, this thread is about well defined behavioral terms. It is wise when discussing these terms to avoid using the words positive and negative as descriptive words. For instance, "I want my horse to have a positive experience."
It is far less confusing for those who aren't 100% comfortable with the technical terms to substitute other descriptive terms. May I suggest *pleasant and unpleasant?*
Just a thought, but it's plain to see that things have been misunderstood and muddled multiple times throughout this thread and the same will occur each time. 
It's similar to using the word "right" when teaching someone leads. Far better to use "Correct and incorrect" rather than right and wrong.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

loosie said:


> Lbs we are talking about behavioural terms, aka 'the four quadrants'. On that note, 'positive' means adding something & 'negative' means subtracting - so a positive punishment is say, a hit, a kick, a spurring, while negative punishment is removal of something 'good'.


The concept of removal for punishment, with regard to training a horse seems functionally undoable (unless horses suddenly become cognizant at a near human level of psychological reasoning....which non of us will live to see). If that were true I could come home after a 8 hour ride and tell my horse that the treat I give her after dismounting something she did 30 minutes into the start of the ride....and she'd understand (as oppose to thinking it was something she had done in the previous few seconds like normal horses).. The only things I could take from my horses that they would "object" (i.e. "might" see as punishment, but it's doubtful....more likely they would not understand why) to would be food and I'm not going to "send them to bed without their supper" ****. Taking a treat away would mean nothing since if they do something wrong, or don't do something right, they don't anticipate one. Not going riding will mean nothing since it means they get to just graze and enjoy hanging out with each other. I suppose if I took away their freedom to roam around the place by keeping them shut up in a stall (which will never happen since we have no stalls) might be punishment, but I doubt horses make a "punishment" connection on that level (it requires a greater ability to reason than equines have). If so, they would think whenever we take away any of their time grazing and running around playing in a large pasture that we were punishing them.

Now if you're saying (which I don't believe you are) that removing pressure when they move the direction you want is "subtracting", but that's not negative. The pressure is teaching a signal to perform an action (they might not like pressure which is why they move), but removing the pressure when they move is positive reinforcement (I press, they move, I stop). I can't think of anything I could remove that the horses would feel is a punishment. Except food and that's not going to happen with my horses. Since they don't expect anything good when they don't do something I want, they wouldn't even realize I was taking it away, so it would mean nothing.

All my punishments are negative actions performed to the horse at that moment so there's no confusion (there's nothing I could "remove" that they would treat as a punishment).


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

untamed equestrian said:


> We absolutely cannot expect our horses to perform like robots in all situations that we throw at them and always do what we ask of them without a hitch.....With +r reinforcement history cannot be stressed enough, which is why we train horses and teach cues in all situations, so that when the time comes when we really need them to respond to the cue they do listen. One of my foundation behaviors is 'calm' or lowering the head.


No one on this thread expects their horse to behave like a robot. Everyone on this thread trains horses to know and respond to cues. But a scared horse or excited horse - not being a robot! - can CHOOSE to ignore ANY cue. Teaching cues using positive reinforcement only is fine - if you wish. I prefer pressure & release, which I do NOT consider punishment (but some here do).

But there is training to understand a cue and there is training that cues are not always optional. When you use pressure of any kind to insist a horse make a different choice, that can be considered "punishment". I've been told on this thread that it is impossible to be a "partner" with a horse if you insist on overriding a horse's choice. Hmmmm...

I used to know a woman in her 50s who hadn't ridden since her teens. On her last ride, the horse bolted. He ran full speed into a barbed wire fence. She broke a bunch of bones and had scars on her arm and torso. The horse died. She had no idea what set the horse off. She wasn't expecting a problem. The horse KNEW all the cues.

I was once on a ranch horse who knew cues well. He was a darn good horse when working cattle (which, BTW, I didn't use him for because I don't know how to work cattle). On a pleasure ride in a large pasture, he took off. Why? Don't know. Had his head turned until his nose was at me knee and he did NOT turn. I had been told a horse could be turned, in an emergency, by kicking his shoulder. I tried that and got him turned just before the barbed wire fence. Once he settled, he was fine. I don't know what set him off and he didn't cause a problem on any remaining rides that summer.

Because horses aren't robots, they sometimes make bad choices. And humans OWE it to the horse to block - if possible - those bad choices. We are not fully equal partners. It is more like being a parent to an emotional young child. The parent (and rider) ought to have more knowledge and more emotional stability which in turn makes the parent (and the rider) the one who ultimately decides what happens - for the safety of all concerned. That doesn't mean you beat the tar out of the horse all the time. Maybe never. But I reject the idea that my horse is qualified to be my full, 50:50 partner. 

And when a horse makes a bad choice, we need to convince the horse to make a different choice.

No amount of ground work means the horse will behave well under saddle.

No amount of arena work will turn the horse into a robot who will behave flawlessly in the real world. And you cannot correct a problem that only happens outside the arena while staying in the arena. You have to go to where the problem surfaces and deal with it there. It has an element of danger. And it make require forceful intervention to prevent a disaster. I'm not talking about whipping a horse. I don't have a whip or crop. I'm not talking about spurring a horse. I don't own spurs. But I may need to use the reins and my legs to discourage a horse from continuing a dangerous behavior. And "discourage" is all anyone can do. You never "control" the horse because the horse has four feet on the ground and you have zero. The horse always has the option of ignoring anything you do.

Ideally, you would never get into a situation that overloads the horse. I don't live in that ideal world. nor do I know in advance what will overload a horse. It never occurred to me that Mia would spook because a Palo Verde tree she had passed a hundred times had...blossomed! 

The lowering head cue was the first thing a trainer suggested for Mia. Wasn't worth squat _*with Mia*_. When she was calm - which was 95% of the time, maybe more later on - she'd lower her head when asked with a pinkie finger. When she was excited, NOTHING was going to lower her head. The majority of her bolts were fear bolts. She thought she was saving both of our lives - from Palo Verde blossoms, space aliens, who knows what. A horse who believes she is in a life or death situation isn't going to soften her body or lower her head. The trainer had good success with the lower head cue. Until she met Mia. She soon agreed we'd need to try something else. But it worked for her on a lot of horses so maybe it will work good for you.

I guess that sums it up: What works for one horse may be worthless for another. I have zero objection to positive reinforcement but it won't handle every problem with every horse. Nor will ground work or riding in an arena or "snaffle only" or bitless, etc. And no one system works with every horse BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ROBOTS!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

untamed equestrian said:


> Positive reinforcement training can prepare a young horse who spooks at something. With a good reinforcement history, you can quickly bring your horse's attention back to you. You would reward the horse for calming down. I've had my horse spook or even wander off during a training session. I just reward her for bringing her attention back to me...


I think you are using "spook" to mean "worry". I'm thinking more in terms of: A motorcycle on a road 1/2 mile away guns its engine. Your horse immediately does a 180 and sprints away. You come around a bend and a tree has blossomed. OMG! Run away! Far away! But in an arena, she was like this:










_A man once climbed a mountain and asked the hermit at the top, "What is the best thing in life?"

"Wisdom", the hermit replied.

"How do I gain wisdom?", the man asked.

"Good judgment", the hermit replied.

"How do I get good judgment?". the man asked.

"Bad judgment", the hermit replied._​
Mia needed to go places that required good judgment, and *she needed to survive bad judgment until she learned good judgment*. Bandit was the same when I got him. He KNEW life on the Navajo Nation, where the plants are knee high and a horse could see 100 miles. He had issues in the Sonoran Desert, surrounded by cactus and needing to push through brush. It wasn't a training "hole". He had never encountered the Sonoran Desert. If I had a few hundred acres I could have let him loose and let him learn on his own. I don't have hundreds of acres. So we rode, and I sometimes rejected his choices, and we rode some more...and he stopped spooking. Mostly. And unlike Mia, Bandit NEVER lost his mind in a spook. If we had 50 feet before a cholla cactus, he'd squirt 48 feet and stop. It was that fact that made progress with him much safer and much faster. And that wasn't a training issue. I doubt Bandit has ever dumped his mind, any time, any where. Mia? Well....


----------



## untamed equestrian (Nov 16, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> To be clear, I am not "against" positive reinforcement training. I am a big advocate for it and use it all the time. But I don't use "pure" positive reinforcement and I believe that negative reinforcement or pressure/release training can be used thoughtfully, gently and when used properly horses do not view it as aversive training. There is really no good reason not to use it.


I know you're not! And I think that's great. I don't personally agree with using -r in training, but that doesn't mean I think its necessarily evil or that its wrong to use. I respect several - r trainers, and I'm not trying to shame anybody on here. However, this way of training is what I agree with and I will defend it.

There are several reasons not to use it, that have probably already been stated on one of these past 10 pages so I'm not going to go into a ton of detail. Negative reinforcement works because the horse is trying to escape something that it finds to be uncomfortable. Thats why it works. Release of pressure is not a reward. Negative reinforcement doesn't leave the horse alot of room to say no. To train with pressure and release, you must either hold the pressure or increase until you get the desired response. You can absolutely do it gently, but it still doesn't give the horse alot of say in what we are having them do with their body. Another reason that I have recently discovered that further cements my desire to train without -r comes from and pain and movement science course I am taking from Kathy Sierra. She is very much opposed to forcing the horse's body into a certain position not just because she prefers +r (although she also uses intrinsic motivation), but because its not how the brain gathers data and improves the body. If the horse is opposed to a certain movement, forcing the horse to do it or using training aids to get the horse into the desired position only encourages the brain to compensate in some way, as the brain does not have enough information about moving the body in that way to feel that it is safe to do it. So it either refuses, or, it doers the movement but compensates to perform it. With +r and intrinsic motivation the horse performs the movement because he os able to and feels comfortable doing it, and enjoys it as well.
Well that was a bit of ramble, but hopefully that wasn't too unorganized!😅


gottatrot said:


> Teaching cues in all situations is not something I have seen happen with pure +R training. In other words, the video of Mustang Maddy with her Thoroughbred showed a horse trying to escape the arena at first, until he got used to the situation and settled down a bit. There was no cue she could give him that worked when he was in that state. Once he grew more calm and was thinking better, she was able to get him to do some behaviors, but he still wasn't safe for her to ride with only +R methods. However, an experienced rider could have ridden the horse while he was a bit "up" energy-wise if he had been trained with -R methods.


I haven't seen that video, but to my knowledge mustang Maddy is not a purist positive reinforcement trainer. I really like that, but I'm just pointing that out. I think I made the 'calm' discussion a bit confusing, I guess a better way to say it is that a horse should never be over threshold. (of course something unexpected spooking a horse is out of your control) Again, I haven't seen the video so I really can't comment on her horse's behavior or my opinion on it. My horse can be alert and in a new environment or situation. Maybe a bit jumpy. After all, its perfectly normal for a horse to be a unguarded when in a new environment. But, if a horse really refuses to enter the situation than you shouldn't push it. Just the other day I was walking with my horse and she came to a dead stop with her head up like a giraffe as we went to walk around a trailer. She had passed it before but never on the side we were on. So I stopped along with her. She was not over threshold, and was paying attention to me, but if I asked for her walk on cue to walk past the trailer she wouldn't. Again, she wasn't jumping out of her skin from this but was worried about walking around it. So I just waited a few minutes next to her and asked again, this time walking farther away from her closer to the trailer. She had had a few minutes to look at the trailer bit more, and felt comfortable enough to walk past it with me. No need for me to use -r. I find that the more of these experiences she has, the more she comes to trust me to tell her its alright in situations like these. I find her much more curious and more willing it try new things with me the more I do this because she trusts me not to put her in harms way. She knows that she has control f the new situation, and her history with me has shown her that in other situations where she tried new things she enjoyed it and was safe.

As for riding a horse that is a bit up, with +r, it is possible. My horse is often up. She is a naturally more hot blooded and energetic horse, but that does not mean that she can't still pay attention to me. Through training in many varied environments and situations, she has learned to have better control over herself and trust me more. Of course, there is always the possibility of a horse ignoring a cue, but there's usually a reason for that. And even if one cue is ignored, I find a can get my horse to calm down pretty quickly in situations that do make her more nervous.


gottatrot said:


> This is something I've worked with also, using +R only to teach it. I've found it works for a horse that is already fairly calm. It does not help a horse that is very hot or excited. The idea behind it is that horses that are more calm have a lowered head posture. But the horse has to be receptive mentally to becoming more calm, and if they have a lot of adrenaline going they will not be. You cannot change a mental state by creating a posture. If a horse becomes more worried if they are made to stand still, attempting this may cause the horse to cross over into a panic state.


This is my only behavior that isn't on completely on cue. So my mare can do this without me asking and still get rewarded. Its very useful as if she's confused or unsure of what to do, or if a get caught up talking to someone during a training session, she uses it. I understand that it might not work with all horses, but over time, from teaching it in very calm situations and asking for it constantly, its bolt a very strong reinforcement history with lots of good feelings linked to her 'lowering head' cue in her head. Even when she is tense or just spooked at something, she will almost always respond immediately to this cue. It might not work for every horse, but for mine its a great reset cue. And I don't always make her standstill when I give the cue or attempt to make her stand still when she wats to move. She can lower her head and walk at the same time, or atop for a couple seconds and then carry on. If she's high in energy, I often just channel it in to a more active exercise or one that she really enjoys, such as jambette or trotting a circle.


gottatrot said:


> I agree, physical issues and anxiety issues need to be addressed first. Still, you may do all the training in the world and the horse still might not be ready to go to a show, for example. Horses need to work in different environments in order to adapt to them. They cannot learn every skill they need at a slow pace and in a calm environment.
> Horses are not that unpredictable, no. I can predict that a horse will bolt if he gets stung by a bee. I can predict that if I gallop by your horse, he will probably want to run too.
> 
> Horses as you are describing that can't handle being ridden or bolt do need training before being ridden. That is a different scenario than a horse that has been trained and rides very well, but rears and panics when another horse goes out of sight on the trail. That requires training in that particular environment.


You can still prepare them quite extensively, you can train your horse to get ready for a show by having them trailer happily and load themselves at liberty, get used to crowds and being around other horses and people in small increments, and even take them to just hang out at shows before actually competing in one with them. They may not go in as cool as a cucumber and be a bit nervous, but you can get them to happily perform a dressage test without going over threshold. Curious and alert is fine. And of course, there are always horses that genuinely don't like certain situations (often due to past experience) and that's fine. Sometimes you just have come to terms with it. I'm not saying that horses must always be taught at a slow pace and in a calm controlled environment. Its just not possible and you would move extremely slowly, if at all. Its fine for your horse to be nervous or alert in a new environment.

Just want to say that if your horse panics when being trail ridden without another horse, trail ride with another horse. They are herd animals, and although you can teach horses to be comfortable on a trail by themselves (that's a whole other topic), its also a situation that is easily managed. And yes it does require specific training.


gottatrot said:


> If the horse was trained with only +R, how would he know what jerking around on the rein meant? Wouldn't that just panic him and cause a wreck? If he never had pressure that was released for a correct response, then pressure on a rein would be meaningless to him.


This a bit of a hard situation to think up a solution to since there a lot of variables as to the particular situation at hand when a horse goes into a true bolt. First the horse is already panicked. Second, in that situation, your number one concern should be safely of you in the horse. If you were to go up to my horse and give a hard jerk on the reins, you would bet she would react. Even with horses trained with -r, in the situation of a true bolt a jerk on the rein might not stop them either. (assuming you even have the rein, lol)


gottatrot said:


> If a horse bolts, they will not respond to any cue. That is not an issue with a type of training. It might be the horse was over faced to the point of losing control over their emotions, they had some classical conditioned response kick in, or instinct. This is why I believe @bsms said Karrasch was clueless, because she was discussing teaching the horse to stay calm, when if a horse is in a panic bolt, that is irrelevant advice.
> 
> But for an inexperienced rider, a horse might simply spook, jump forward a few steps, or have a brief reaction rather than an actual bolt. These are situations where the wrong response can create big problems.


In true bolt they won't. You can still teach your horse how to remain under threshold in new situations and to new calm when they are nervous or to calm down quickly after a spook. If a horse is in a true panicked bolt where nothing will stop them, then really any training advice is pointless.

In the situations of a spook or a brief reaction the wrong response can be problematic. If my horse spooks like that its usually over within a few seconds, a reassure her and click and reward for her going to a lower threshold investigating what scared her, or continuing to walk around with her emotions under control.


gottatrot said:


> So to follow up QHriderKE's post, as a positive reinforcement trainer, do you work with horses in fast gaits outside the arena, canter and gallop, do quick turns, jumping, run with groups of other horses, etc? How do you apply your training to those situations if you do?


Of course I do! Although I'm not doing much riding atm as I wait for a saddle to arrive (only occasional bareback rides) My horse flats and jumps at liberty in arenas, outside on trails, and in large fields and pastures. I do have days were she really just wants to walk trot, but she almost always eagerly participates in cantering and jumping of her own choice. Just because a horse is at a gallop or jumping does not mean that the horse is out of control. And contrary to popular belief, horses can enjoy and even want to move faster than a walk without any prodding. I also think its worth mentioning here that I use a very low reinforcer and don't continue to pester my horse if she doesn't want to do something. If she says no, I simply do something else or let her have a break. I can go from a slow trot to a fast canter to a halt. All with ease.

Just want to end this enormous post (sorry!) by saying that I am not a professional and consider myself an amateur +r trainer. If you are on Facebook or instagram, I would highly recommend looking into some of the purist +r trainers (who are way more experienced and better at this than I am) on there or some of the communities. There are alot of amazing +r trainers who are doing some very impress things with their horses!


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

gottatrot said:


> I'm curious, does anyone use negative punishment with their horses, i.e. withhold something pleasant to shape behaviors?


I haven't read all the replies, but I think this (negative punishment) is what I've done when I first got a new horse, even mostly works with the feral chickens, and it's feeding time. New horses are usually kept right near the house. (Sometimes I feel I live in the middle of a pasture.)

I have the feed, the horse usually comes over, but I wait, until she's facing away from me. I start for the barn; if she turns, I turn and go back to the (safety of) the stairs. It doesn't take very long for the horse to figure out she's supposed to LEAD me to her feed bin, where she gets her feed.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Couple things I'd like to get off my chest:

First, the suggestion was made with the redirection technique as explained by Maddy, the suggestion was made that the horse was only given two choices. 

That is not the case or purpose of the redirection technique at all. 

First, the horse is at liberty and has either a hay mat or a field of green grass that she can simply walk off to and begin eating. That's choice three that is present at all time.

Learning to accept and understand new ideas is tiring. I read or heard that as much as 20% of our energy supply is used by our brain in those situations.

When the horse gets over stressed or over tired she may just walk off and the training session will have been lost before the planned end.......which does happen.

The redirection technique was designed and and used to give the horse a rest while hopefully remaining in the session before the horse decides she's had enough. Then when she begins to look more relaxed and rested and momentum has been built up using an activity she knows, understands, and enjoys, the training can return to the new behavior that is being trained.


Secondly:

There has been some talk about how careful I should be with an untrained and unhandled wild horse and the possibility of me actually being killed.

I appreciate the concern and advice, I really do, and there is in fact something to it.

But' and this is a big ole but, the horse's go to default reactions to fear or stress are normally in the order of flight, fight, or freeze.

When flight is denied by the use of restraining mechanisms such as ropes or any other means, the second default is fight which can be dangerous of course. I remember one quote from a popular trainer and author that said, " If you want to fight with a horse, the horse will always oblige you".

But if the horse is being worked at liberty where flight is not denied where they can simply move away from you at any speed they choose, the level of danger is substantially reduced even without protective contact. But with protective contact until the horse reaches some level, the danger can be reduced to that we all experience working with any horse.

A horse that remains under the fear threshold is not a dangerous horse. Well, not unless he's been inadvertently trained to be dangerous at all times.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

its lbs not miles said:


> All my punishments are negative actions performed to the horse at that moment so there's no confusion (there's nothing I could "remove" that they would treat as a punishment).


Maybe I can help here. 

Positive Reinforcement (reward)= buying a teenager a new iPhone. (add)
Negative Reinforcement (presure/release)= slacking the reins when the horse begins to slow (subtract)
Positive Punishment =smacking the horse when he does something we don't want (add)
Negative punishment= taking the teenagers iPhone away for coming home late. (subtract)

Negative and Positive in these uses in behavior modification are simple the arithmetic actions of adding or subtracting a stimulus to or from an event.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

QHriderKE said:


> So you are insisting I do not have a partnership of any kind with these horses? Or a good relationship with them? Or anyone who uses any pressure/release training cannot have a partnership with a horse? If you are, that is a completely ridiculous assumption.
> 
> From what I've seen of this +R training, it's looks likely to create horses that will be labeled as problem horses/useless if they end up in the hands of someone who doesn't strictly follow that method of training.


Unfortunately, IME, the beliefs & judgements from extremists(who are also often loudest, most incessant) in all walks of life tend to a) not be reasonable to anyone with any experience or not a fanatic in that way, and not backed up with evidence in 'the real world', so b)they turn off people to anything worth learning in that area, as people tend to think 'heard that, doesn't hold up', so they quit listening, if the loudest noises about it are rubbish then it all must be.

Be it from Greenies or animal activists or otherwise, I think this is a real pity, because there are lots of good points to be had, when you don't take things to extremes.



> I sleep better knowing that I've set my horses up for a good life, with or without me, than knowing I fed him treats for letting me pick his feet that day.


Yeah, same with undisciplined kids I reckon - if I teach my kids no boundaries, no manners, no consequences to broken rules, I consider I'm doing them(not just those who would have to deal with them🙄) a disservice, with will also narrow their prospects in life. And no thank you, I don't need some fanatic telling me I have a bad relationship with my kids either, not that they would be correct. But be it with horses or kids or... Goldfish, you can have 'the best of both worlds' on that front, because the underlying principles of using +r are sound and you will find they DO stand up, if it's not taken to extremes.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

LilyandPistol said:


> So I would let him groom me a little until he started getting too rough, and then I would take my arm that he was grooming away.


That right there sounds to me like a perfect eg of negative punishment... Even if we could say it's the +r that follows...

But if you believed that any punishment was 'bad', I wonder.... Would you just keep scratching him & say 'ouch'? You couldn't stop scratching him, because that's punishment.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

Just a little something in defense of the +R clicker treat training folk, 
Today I was thinking it would be a good idea to teach Dixie targeting, starting with a simple “touch” cue. I figured that I could use this in the future to help with 2 things we struggle with if we limit ourselves to -R. 
1- to redirect her focus on me when she’s scared
2- to introduce new scary objects 

Dixie is very reactive instead of responsive when it comes to either of these things in -R training. If she stays when you when she’s scared, she’s physically with you but her mind is far away.If she can, which she usually can, she also leaves the situation and runs somewhere she is more comfortable. The same goes when you try to do -R introduction of scary things to her. She might or might not be there physically, but she isn’t with you mentally at all, much of the time. 

So I taught her “touch” as a cue to touch my hand or the rope in my hand or whatever is in my hand, using treats. When she did it, she got a treat. In the dog training world they call this “targeting” I think, and I think they call it that in the +R horse world too. 

Since she caught on VERY quickly, I decided to go ahead and push a little further. She is quite herdbound, something we’ve been working on, and I have been using +R to help, but today was the first time I used targeting for it. When she would start getting too nervous while I walked her away, I would stop, hold out my hand, and tell her “touch” to refocus her on me. She would touch my hand and I would give her her treat. I would also reward her if she looked at me when she became nervous instead of her looking around at her environment.

We have never been able to accomplish this before: She got to the other end of the pasture and was calm enough thanks to the +R (instead of being forced to be there by -R or a type of punishment) to realize that the grass was pretty yummy. She relaxed enough to graze away from her herd mates. That is ginormous progress for her. I was even able to sit down and relax while she grazed for a minute.

This was not ever accomplished over years and years of -R because she knew that she could get away and because she wanted nothing BUT to get away because she really was beyond just “herdbound”, she more so had separation anxiety... Making the experience _pleasant_ helped actually address her anxiety, not force her to experience it. 

I will probably start trying to transition into using way more +R with her than I already was.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

+++++!!!

Shawna Karrasch 101


----------



## AbbySmith (Nov 15, 2020)

Yay! Good for you! That’s kinda what I do with the donks too. I want them to come to me when I come in the pen for them, but they love each other more than me, so I will walk close to them but stop a few feet in front of them, hold out my hand, and tell them to “target” when they come and bop their nose on my fist, they get a treat. 
sometimes they don’t want to come to me even though they know they get a treat. That’s fine with me. I simply walk to them and let them, and they just don’t get a treat. Darn. I don’t care either way. I want them to learn that they don’t _have_ to come to me, but either way, they will be pet, and coming to me is the better option.


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

trailscout said:


> But if the horse is being worked at liberty where flight is not denied where they can simply move away from you at any speed they choose, the level of danger is substantially reduced even without protective contact. But with protective contact until the horse reaches some level, the danger can be reduced to that we all experience working with any horse.
> 
> A horse that remains under the fear threshold is not a dangerous horse. Well, not unless he's been inadvertently trained to be dangerous at all times.


I'll start this by saying that I have personally started hundreds of horses that had had zero human contact prior to winding up in my roundpen, and worked with thousands of others. What all of those horses have made clear is that there are certainly horses of the unhandled variety that will find being in a 45-60 foot round pen with a person on the outside of it too much stimulation. I've had one (barely handled Paso Fino) who actually jumped out of the roundpen in that exact situation before anyone had even entered the pen or had addressed him in any way yet. I was outside getting the gear ready and he vamanos'd. He landed chin first and knocked himself out (only one I've ever seen knocked out).

Your _*expectation*_ of their thoughts on flight not being denied and their _*reaction*_ to your idea of flight not being denied aren't always the same. What you intended and expected doesn't matter when a wild mustang has made it down your driveway to the highway. Also, _MOST_ horses go to flight first. Some horses go straight to fight and do not pass GO and do not collect $200. It does not take a person having screwed them up to have this situation occur.

You are describing the ideal. I'm concerned about REAL. You can go to any of those Mustang adoption deals and hear horses in large pens hitting the back panel of those pens all day long simply because people walked by. If you haven't handled a bunch of horses like this, you really can't appreciate just how sensitive they can be, and how ridiculously easy it can be to over-stimulate them to the point of them about killing themselves and anyone else around them via fight or flight.

This is part of the reason that I haven't competed in any of the Mustang competitions. The BLM, whose management practices I have many problems with, are stacking the deck in a big way and acting like just anyone can take one of those things and turn it into a great horse.* All the while never making it public that nearly half of the horses that the very experienced and talented trainers attempt to get going don't turn out gentle enough to bring to town*. There are certainly exceptions and good horses among the Mustangs. Don't get me wrong. But the odds of the average lifelong horse enthusiast taking one from scratch and getting anything good done safely are very, very low. And if what's best for the horse is your litmus test, staking their life against something with a known very low likelihood of success is hardly a good game plan. IMHO

Just as an aside as to the BLM's management practices, a few facts. Guess how much they have budgeted to spend keeping a single mustang alive for the course of its life, which, btw, averages just 8 years? $50,000
In true gov't fashion, they then overspend that by 50%. So, they actually spend $75,000/head on average over the course of those horses' lives. Keep in mind that the vast majority of all mustangs are living in gov't run pens. Only a minor percentage are actually free and on the range. So, for a horse that spends its life in a corral, getting only hay and water, no farrier, no vet care like a typical backyard horse would get, they still cost us $75,000/head and then they want very talented trainers to work on them for next to nothing to help market this ridiculously mismanaged program? No thanks... Rant over. Feel free to look all of that info up, btw, on the BLM's website.


----------



## untamed equestrian (Nov 16, 2020)

bsms said:


> No one on this thread expects their horse to behave like a robot. Everyone on this thread trains horses to know and respond to cues. But a scared horse or excited horse - not being a robot! - can CHOOSE to ignore ANY cue. Teaching cues using positive reinforcement only is fine - if you wish. I prefer pressure & release, which I do NOT consider punishment (but some here do)


I didn't think anyone in this thread thought so. I was just stating that I agreed that training does not make horses 100% predictable. I do not consider pressure and release punishment (its negative reinforcement), hitting your horse would be punishment. 


bsms said:


> But there is training to understand a cue and there is training that cues are not always optional. When you use pressure of any kind to insist a horse make a different choice, that can be considered "punishment". I've been told on this thread that it is impossible to be a "partner" with a horse if you insist on overriding a horse's choice. Hmmmm...


As horses are no longer needed by most for anything more than pleasure, alot of things should be optional. Not riding a horse because he says 'no' to the saddle is not a life or death situation. The barn burning down and the horse needing to get on the trailer is a life or death situation. I'm not trying to shame anyone on this thread for using -r, as I believe it can be done gently and responsibly, however, its not the way I choose to train.


bsms said:


> Because horses aren't robots, they sometimes make bad choices. And humans OWE it to the horse to block - if possible - those bad choices. We are not fully equal partners. It is more like being a parent to an emotional young child. The parent (and rider) ought to have more knowledge and more emotional stability which in turn makes the parent (and the rider) the one who ultimately decides what happens - for the safety of all concerned. That doesn't mean you beat the tar out of the horse all the time. Maybe never. But I reject the idea that my horse is qualified to be my full, 50:50 partner.


Your whole post seems to be directed against my one statement on horses not being robots...I'm sorry it offended you so much to agree with someone that training doesn't promise 100% obedience in all situations.
In a true bolt situation, yes, do whatever you need to keep yourself and you're horse safe. But for spooking, bucking, or a forward horse, you can absolutely train and ride with +r. You can settle a horse down using +r. As for bad choices, yes, bolting and running you both into a barbed wire fence is definitely a bad choice, but not wanting to be ridden one day or not wanting to perform a certain movement is not. 


bsms said:


> No amount of arena work will turn the horse into a robot who will behave flawlessly in the real world. And you cannot correct a problem that only happens outside the arena while staying in the arena. You have to go to where the problem surfaces and deal with it there. It has an element of danger. And it make require forceful intervention to prevent a disaster. I'm not talking about whipping a horse. I don't have a whip or crop. I'm not talking about spurring a horse. I don't own spurs. But I may need to use the reins and my legs to discourage a horse from continuing a dangerous behavior. And "discourage" is all anyone can do. You never "control" the horse because the horse has four feet on the ground and you have zero. The horse always has the option of ignoring anything you do.


And you shouldn't just stay in the arena. But going back to the situation where your horse went over threshold and then dealing with it there using pressure to force them into doing whatever scared them is not the best way to deal with it.


bsms said:


> The lowering head cue was the first thing a trainer suggested for Mia. Wasn't worth squat _*with Mia*_. When she was calm - which was 95% of the time, maybe more later on - she'd lower her head when asked with a pinkie finger. When she was excited, NOTHING was going to lower her head. The majority of her bolts were fear bolts. She thought she was saving both of our lives - from Palo Verde blossoms, space aliens, who knows what. A horse who believes she is in a life or death situation isn't going to soften her body or lower her head. The trainer had good success with the lower head cue. Until she met Mia. She soon agreed we'd need to try something else. But it worked for her on a lot of horses so maybe it will work good for you.


I don't know if you train using +r at all, but if the head lowering cue was taught just using pressure, I don't think it would have the same effect on the brain when its taught using +r. Getting the 'click' and then reward releases endorphins and dopamine, and a built up reinforcement history of the head lower cue in different situations and environments solidify the behavior. But yes, you are absolutely right that the same thing doesn't work for every horse. For my horse it works extremely well, and even if she goes over threshold for a moment its easy to get her attention back on me and calm her down by giving the head lower cue. Even when she's tense or distracted she almost always listens to this cue on the first try. Each horse is its own individual and different things might not work for different horses.


----------



## untamed equestrian (Nov 16, 2020)

bsms said:


> think you are using "spook" to mean "worry". I'm thinking more in terms of: A motorcycle on a road 1/2 mile away guns its engine. Your horse immediately does a 180 and sprints away. You come around a bend and a tree has blossomed. OMG! Run away! Far away! But in an arena, she was like this


I was referring to a spook as in a sudden jump and surge forward, a spook in place, etc. Not 'worry'.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

DanielDauphin said:


> who actually jumped out of the roundpen





DanielDauphin said:


> when a wild mustang has made it down your driveway to the highway


Chill out dude. You have a habit of jumping to conclusions way before you have enough information to form a conclusion.

My newly constructed roundpen is a full 7 feet tall out of oil field drill stem and sucker rod. Hey, I have actually witnessed a bull flat footing it over a 6 foot panel and have heard about mustangs doing it. Plus the wild unhandled horse will have been in a confined pen for likely at least a couple years or more. 

And I won't be coiling up ropes and throwing it at the horse to scare him. And there will be Keno on the outside showing him that I'm not to be feared. Plus the time I spend with him on the outside reading a book or whatever. S/he'll get there just fine.

Man, you gotta get a handle on that negativity if you're gonna go anywhere at all. In your video on bits you came very close to telling anyone that didn't use a bit that they weren't welcome to even finish watching the video, which I didn't.

There's not enough money in the world to persuade me to use -R to train a wild horse. It's done, but I realize I'm not athletic enough at this stage of life to do so. +R when needed? No problem.

I'm way way smarter than you give me credit for and a whole lot of other people also. Most people I'm guessing.

Thank you for being gracious enough to allow me the freedom to look stuff up on the BLM website that I have spent tons of time on already plus tons of other stuff. Plus watching and following herds for five summers East of Carson City, Nevada.

There is no way the average horse raised in captivity can develop the bone and foot strength of a wild horse in harsh terrain and that's where I prefer to ride and is where 90% of all my riding has been done.

Rant for rant. Rant's are easy. But to speak calm reasoned thought, well, requires thought.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Wanted to mention this about spooking. In one of Grandin's books that I have, she detailed a circuit in the horse's brain that we and probably most other animals don't have since a horse is known for having one of, if not the, fastest reaction times on the planet.

Sort of a high road and low road to the brain communicating danger. It's been 3-4 years since reading it although I did read it 2-3 times. So don't hang me if I miss a word or two.

Anyhow, the low or slow road goes through a bit of a reasoning or thought place which I guess slows it down a bit. The high or fast circuit goes straight from the sensory input to the feet so to speak. Basically an involuntary action or response.

Once anything hits that circuit it's katie bar the door and hold on tight unless an emergency dismount is possible.

Surgery would be the only way to prevent that from happening, although I doubt that's possible.

But the slow circuit is pretty fast also and it can be trained to exert control over the emotions more quickly after the high road hit. My horse would go approximately 50 feet, stop, look back to ask, "are you ok?" He gradually improved on that to where it was a four legged brace most times, plus his bolts did also become less violent. In fact they pretty much stopped over time. And I got better at grabbing leather.

He never experienced an unkind action or word from me due to a bolt. On the first one about 3/4 mile from home I led him to a rock to remount, I was bareback, and when I looked at his lips they were absolutely trembling. I said, "Buddy, we'll just walk home, if what ever it was gets after you, you'll run faster without me".


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

trailscout said:


> Now if we want to bring arthritis into the picture, ...
> He could not be trained to walk under these circumstances using +R. Period. No way.
> 
> But to bring this type scenario into a discussion of the +'s and -'s of +R training is simply unclear thinking or just grabbing at staws in an attempt to make an invalid conclusion.


That strikes me as rather... Contradictory on a few fronts. One is that you have been going on about how anything is possible with +R & bagging out people who don't agree with you. And yet... 

Another is the fact that arthritis or such is but one of a multitude of egs Gotta could have chosen. And yes they are indeed incredibly valid and it seems that it is you 'clutching at straws' trying to hang onto your belief by dismissing that.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

DanielDauphin said:


> Your _*expectation*_ of their thoughts on flight not being denied and their _*reaction*_ to your idea of flight not being denied aren't always the same. ...Also, _MOST_ horses go to flight first. Some horses go straight to fight and do not pass GO and do not collect $200. It does not take a person having screwed them up to have this situation occur....


This video shows some inexperienced people with a mustang. They are not really training the horse yet, but getting him used to their presence. They thought they could use body language and wouldn't need to use any tools such as ropes to keep the horse safely out of their space. Here is where it can be very easy to make an error. At 7:30 the horse becomes aggressive toward the person. What a person might not have forseen is that the person is actually in a corner, one might not think the horse could feel trapped since he has the rest of the pen to retreat to. At this point they are feeling safe with the horse, and are past the point where they might stay outside the pen because he takes food from their hand and allows petting. 







DanielDauphin said:


> ou are describing the ideal. I'm concerned about REAL. You can go to any of those Mustang adoption deals and hear horses in large pens hitting the back panel of those pens all day long simply because people walked by. If you haven't handled a bunch of horses like this, you really can't appreciate just how sensitive they can be, and how ridiculously easy it can be to over-stimulate them to the point of them about killing themselves and anyone else around them via fight or flight.


One of the mustangs a trainer I knew gave up on... He tried putting her in a large pen next to the barn aisleway so she could get desensitized to people and horses walking by. After three weeks she still ran and crashed into the back of the pen if a horse or person walked by. He tried sitting next to the pen for several hours at a time, but she never felt safe enough to leave the back or approach. She would not eat unless there was no one in the entire barn. 

Some might have seen this pic online. It can be hard to keep some horses safe at first.








One trainer I knew lost a mustang (it died) on the highway because he was trailering in a stock trailer without a roof on it and the horse jumped out. 



trailscout said:


> Plus the wild unhandled horse will have been in a confined pen for likely at least a couple years or more.


Yes, this is something that should not be discounted. I think some people believe they will be getting a mentally healthy horse, that has been out living a natural life. When I visited holding pens during a time they were not getting ready for the public, I saw they were packed full of horses. Many were injured and had large open wounds, because there was a lot of food aggression and fighting over resources. The horse may have issues with food aggression and it is likely that they may feel the need at some point to fight a handler over food. It might actually be very stressful to accept food with another creature present for a long time, which could hamper feeding treats. 



trailscout said:


> There is no way the average horse raised in captivity can develop the bone and foot strength of a wild horse in harsh terrain and that's where I prefer to ride and is where 90% of all my riding has been done.


I hope this is not your main reason for getting a mustang. Unless you are a true riding athlete doing endurance and cantering for miles, it is very doubtful you would stress the physiology of the average domestic horse, regardless of terrain. 

It would be a sign of wisdom to listen to advice from someone with as much experience as @DanielDauphin rather than just discount it as "pessimism." I've had a friend call me a "Debbie downer," because she wished to believe that nothing bad would happen with horses if she just did things in a positive way and dreamed big. Things like pointing out that the ocean had big drop offs just off shore that could get her into trouble, or that she might realize her horse was lame and would not run off, but she shouldn't turn other people's horses loose. Those were seen as pessimism by her. 
Many times I had to hear her lament over things that happened. She ruined all the metal on her western saddle because her horse did get too deep in the ocean. She did have a horse get away, which surprised her very much. She had absolutely no sympathy from me when she tried riding my horse bareback when I was away, and got bucked off. 
I've just had so many acquaintances that thought I was overly cautious about things, and then later they begged me to help them because things were going awry with their horse. 

Experience with horses tends to teach caution and it is amazing how many things can happen that you never thought of. My friend nearly got her skull smashed when a very gentle horse spooked in a trailer and flung his head sideways, smashing hers into the metal side. I've had horses kick me badly when I did not suspect they were worked up at all, and this after many years of handling and riding many different horses, including completely unhandled ones. Another friend of mine woke up in a field with a swollen face when her very tame horse apparently kicked back as he ran off and broke her jaw. She could have been killed. She has no memory of what actually happened. Since @DanielDauphin has far more experience than I do, I suspect he has seen even more bad things happen unexpectedly. 

Experienced horse people consider that things will go differently than one might expect, with any type of training. There is no magic available for us to use, or perfect training style or formula.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

gottatrot said:


> If we blast by you on two thoroughbreds, I can guarantee your horse will come along if you don't have a bridle on.


I wish we could put that to the test! I'd have to say, it comes down to what you were saying about galloping/fast training. Yes, if you never do it, chances are your horse will not be with you, but if you set up(relatively) controlled situations & practice, you can teach your horse to stay with you even when(not that I could imagine relying solely on +R to do that). 

We can ride all our horses with a neck rope, (except the one Darcy only started under saddle recently - she's just learning & he only rides her in the house paddock at a walk so far without a halter). And more to the point, remain confidently in control. BUT it is far from non conditional, depending on their training. & there is no way I'd consider riding them in any situation like that.

When I'm riding through the property & the rest of the mob come screaming up around us & continue bolting up the hill, I can 'trust' 2 of my horses to stay at a walk, despite them wanting to bolt too(& then sometimes I say we can join in). I've been out in the bush with them, group ride with people cantering past when I don't want to, no worries. Or I might join in for part of it but pull my horse up first. Darcy also rides his main horse with not even a neckrope on the property with the other horses loose too. 

But has it taken preparation, including 'practicing' in situations where you need to be prepared the horse may well bolt, and your ability to 'correct' as well as reward... You betcha! And would I do that with any horse without ensuring extensive training? Not that dumb! And even with my 2 trustiest steeds, would I go down the main rd or through town with traffic, without a halter on my horse? I'm not suicidal! Because while I'm confident of riding them with a neckrope in any 'normal' settings, while I DO use a neckrope in those situations too, I've got that halter & reins for backup, because one thing you can always be certain of, is you can trust any horse 100%... to be a horse, first & foremost... Which means 'stuff' can happen that training has not prepared you for - you can't train for every conceivable possibility, so there are vastly more situations I would NOT ride even the best trained horse sans bridle in.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

its lbs not miles said:


> The concept of removal for punishment, with regard to training a horse seems functionally undoable (unless horses suddenly become cognizant ...


Lbs, I don't get why you're talking about doing stuff long after the fact, in order to explain it's impossible, IF you are understanding the behavioural term/concept. Negative punishment (properly done) doesn't mean it is abstracted from the behaviour, any more than any other quadrant. And I know this thread has got long & very rambling(& I'm only just up to yours & think there's heaps more already) but we have discussed the question of abstracted consequences - & we all absolutely agree on that one - & we have also discussed the question of -P being.... Muddied with +R.



> Now if you're saying (which I don't believe you are) that removing pressure when they move the direction you want is "subtracting", but that's not negative.


Um... Bit lost what you mean here. Remember, in behavioural terms, negative = minus = removal of something.Positive= plus = adding something. No I wasn't talking negative reinforcement(eg removing pressure) but punishment. We are talking behavioural terms, so yes, subtracting any stimulus does indeed mean negative in that 'language'. 



> removing the pressure when they move is positive reinforcement


No, as said your eg - subtracting - is -R while Positive reinforcement is adding something desirable - eg giving a treat, a scratching, etc.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

I know it's been a very long thread but ALL OF THIS needs repeating... 



gottatrot said:


> This video shows some inexperienced people with a mustang. They are not really training the horse yet, but getting him used to their presence. They thought they could use body language and wouldn't need to use any tools such as ropes to keep the horse safely out of their space. Here is where it can be very easy to make an error. At 7:30 the horse becomes aggressive toward the person. What a person might not have forseen is that the person is actually in a corner, one might not think the horse could feel trapped since he has the rest of the pen to retreat to. At this point they are feeling safe with the horse, and are past the point where they might stay outside the pen because he takes food from their hand and allows petting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Yes the thread is long...

@loosie, I think the way you plan and use your bridleless riding sounds well thought out. You're doing it safely, not based on fantasy. I've been on quite a few horses I would have no problem with riding with a neck rope. Especially out on a familiar trail with a group they knew.

I think trainers need to assess the horse's personality to determine what kind of training they need. Some horses are timid and need reassurance, lots of positivity.

Talking about robots, if you assume one style of training will just work universally, that is basically discounting the wide variety of horse personalities out there.

Rather than getting a fearful horse, you might end up with one with gradiose thinking. The first mustang I ever worked with was unhandled, out in a large herd. She came off the trailer with ears up, figuring out where the territory was she wanted to claim. A duck couldn't walk into her field without getting killed.

She had no horse friends. She dominated every creature with aggression. She was a happy, playful, egocentric horse who believed she owned the world. No one had ever told her differently. 

Treats? She didn't care because she felt entitled to every resource. She wasn't afraid of being touched, she just didn't see why she should allow it. She didn't need endorphins because she created her own happiness by owning space. 

We tried positive reinforcement very briefly. I have no desire to dominate a horse. This horse had to be convinced if you entered her space (as much as an acre) there was a reason why she should not attack you. Carrots or hay were not convincing.

Yes, we used ropes and halters and loud noises and lunge whips. We never whipped her body or hurt her at all. Ever. We did not exercise her until she was worn out. She hurt us a little bit. Some bruises and bites. It took three experienced handlers for safety at times. If we left her the way she was, she would have killed someone. She tried to kill several horses that did not run away at a rate of speed that pleased her or got trapped.

People did not teach this horse aggression, other horses did by letting her intimidate them. We taught her that humans could move her out of space and prevent her from kicking and biting to get her way.

It was easy to make her bomb proof. She was easy to train under saddle because she did not connect space wars with being ridden. A very nice horse after a bit. Except never nice to other horses. We taught her she could not go after them when being ridden. 

What that little horse did in the video was nothing. This horse would try to bite you in the jugular. She almost got me once. I felt her teeth snap right at my neck while a friend pulled me to safety.

Horses don't always present us with lovely, open, malleable minds. Sometimes they already have very strong opinions about life and their role within it. An older mustang is more likely to have well-established thinking patterns that you may need to work around.


----------



## DanielDauphin (Mar 11, 2014)

@gottatrot that video was a great example of exactly what I fear. Those people's pen was no where near what it should be to work an unhandled horse. They are obviously still in "the unicorn stage" of horse ownership. They can't read a horse much at all, as that colt warned them a bunch of times. There should not be 2 people and lawn chairs in that pen, and on, and on, and on. There were simply soooooo many red flags in that video it's amazing that it went as well as it did. I guess I commend them for putting it up as an example of what not to do for the rest of the world. IMO, though, they were no where near prepared, on multiple fronts, to possess a mustang in the first place.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

DanielDauphin said:


> @gottatrot that video was a great example of exactly what I fear. Those people's pen was no where near what it should be to work an unhandled horse. They are obviously still in "the unicorn stage" of horse ownership. They can't read a horse much at all, as that colt warned them a bunch of times. There should not be 2 people and lawn chairs in that pen, and on, and on, and on. There were simply soooooo many red flags in that video it's amazing that it went as well as it did. I guess I commend them for putting it up as an example of what not to do for the rest of the world. IMO, though, they were no where near prepared, on multiple fronts, to possess a mustang in the first place.


Exactly. And in describing one of the mustangs I had worked with, some can even be very challanging for people who are quite a bit more prepared.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

loosie said:


> I wish we could put that to the test! I'd have to say, it comes down to what you were saying about galloping/fast training. Yes, if you never do it, chances are your horse will not be with you, but if you set up(relatively) controlled situations & practice, you can teach your horse to stay with you even when(not that I could imagine relying solely on +R to do that).


I’d also be interested in putting that to the test. Granted, Maverick is the horse I use the least +R with. But nevertheless, if the argument is simply over whether or not you can stop a horse in just a neck rope (I don’t know because it is too early in the morning for me to read _all_ this, lol), one time Maverick spooked over a little golf cart while I was riding him and just as I started to try and stop him with my _hands_, his hack broke right at the noseband and came off his head— and he was having a buck-spook too. But when I asked him to stop, he did, once he had a moment to gather his thoughts and realize I was asking him to stop. It really helps to remain calm and just ask the same way you would in a normal situation.

edit: including a picture of the broken hackamore. Thing was a piece of junk. Mav was a good boy, we went back home after that with me on his back and no bridle to get a different bridle.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> At 7:30 the horse becomes aggressive toward the person. What a person might not have forseen is that the person is actually in a corner, one might not think the horse could feel trapped since he has the rest of the pen to retreat to.


What a person might not have foreseen???? Good golly. She was absolutely picking a fight starting about 6:30. Before that the horse even pawed with one foot with an invitation to duel.

What a nice horse for putting up with what it had to deal with.

And by the way, I have not in anyway advocated that someone without a clue go into a pen with a mustang with the intention of making the horse submit. I was surprised the horse held back as long as s/he did.

Also, I never did see a brand on the horse. Plus the pen was not up to BLM requirements.

That the horse attacked her while she was in the corner with room behind the horse came as no surprise to me based on the degree of torment she had deviled the horse with.

If I had treated the wild jersey heifer with sharp horns that put her owner in the hospital I'd have been gored to death. Instead she eventually would lay her head on my shoulder to be scratched under her neck and eventually was trained (by me) to enter a very noisy and scary milking parlor where I eventually applied milking machines without a hitch.

If I am being compared in any way to the people in that video, I am deeply offended. Very deeply.

The second picture is one I have seen and along with seeing a bull flatfoot over a 6 foot panel and advice from my very experienced friend, (more experienced than anyone on this forum for certain!), who built a 7 foot tall round pen, caused me to build a 7 foot tall pen even though the BLM only requires 6 foot with rails a maximum of 1 foot part with no rail on the ground. Mine then has 7 rails.



gottatrot said:


> My friend nearly got her skull smashed when a very gentle horse spooked in a trailer and flung his head sideways


Yeah, lady I know raised on a ranch, around a 60 YO, very experienced and trained the horse she was riding walked between her mare and the side of the inside of the trailer the mare was tied against. The mare spooked every time she tried to reach for the safety release. She liked to have never gotten out of there.

Again, if you're suggesting I'm as errant as her and the other ladies you mentioned, I continue to be deeply offended.



gottatrot said:


> Unless you are a true riding athlete doing endurance and cantering for miles, it is very doubtful you would stress the physiology of the average domestic horse, regardless of terrain.


Hogwash! You know nothing of the terrain I ride in. Blather on.............


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:

If we blast by you on two thoroughbreds, I can guarantee your horse will come along if you don't have a bridle on.

Is that so??!! How about a cooks bitless? If you think so, I have a story for you about a herd of 20 horses stampeding past a horse in a bitless that was a member of the herd when loose.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

The lady tormenting the mustang was a clear example of Rashid's comment/claim that, "If you want to start a fight with a horse, the horse will always oblige you". Even one as UN-aggressive as the poor mustang in the video.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

I don’t know if those of you talking about this mustang situation as if the mustang was at fault or talking about a horse bolting alongside its partners as if that would be the end of the world consider yourselves to be “natural horsemen”, but fearing a horse’s responses doesn’t feel very natural to me 
Off topic side note... does it bother anyone else when some so-called natural horsemanship trainers blame things on the horse? If natural horsemanship is learning to speak the horse’s language, you can’t just decide the horse is speaking it’s own language wrong. It’s been a horse it’s whole life! Not to mention, some _cough_ Clinton Anderson _cough_ blatantly ignore their horses’ every signal when “sacking out” until the horse blows up from fear, that doesn’t feel natural to me either.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

untamed equestrian said:


> But going back to the situation where your horse went over threshold and then dealing with it there using pressure to force them into doing whatever scared them is not the best way to deal with it.


But NO ONE on this thread is suggesting doing that! You don't punish them into doing something scary. But when one freaks out over...a Palo Verde tree?...your response WILL need to be much more firm than just "_I'll give you a treat!_". I am not and in no post have I ever promoted "Beat them past it!" 

When Mia first arrived on the Navajo Nation, they took her out in open country with some racing-fit horses. Mia hadn't had a place where she could run 1/4 mile in her life. She held the lead for 2 miles, and stayed close another 2 miles. The Navajo who took her HAD open land going for many miles in all directions. I did not, which is part of why I agreed to trade her. Her subsequent training there included being in a herd with a genuine herd stallion roaming hundreds of square MILES. That was a fantastic experience for her. Wish all horses could have it. Almost none ever will.

When Bandit arrived, the BEST way to get him past his fear of his new environment would have been to turn him loose on hundreds of acres and let him figure it out on his own. Not an option. He had to be ridden into the desert to learn the desert. Which included him being, sometimes, ridden while the environment was too much for him. Because there were no intermediate steps!


untamed equestrian said:


> Not riding a horse because he says 'no' to the saddle is not a life or death situation.


It kind of is. Why? Because most horses will not go "_Yippee! I get to be ridden again! 3 days in a row!_" Like me with jogging, it is good for them. And like me with jogging, they may well enjoy it once they've gotten the first 1/2 mile behind them. Like people, lots of horses will choose donuts over jogging. I've only met two people who were willing to let their horse truly choose if they were ridden on any given day. Both of them never rode, actually. But they'd tell me about their great relationship with their horse!


trailscout said:


> He never experienced an unkind action or word from me due to a bolt.


How nice. Oddly enough, I never beat Mia after a bolt either! Aren't we great people! But seriously....DURING a bolt, unless you have unlimited flat land, you will almost certainly use the reins in a way that creates some pressure. Assuming the bolt lasts more than 50 feet. If you are running out of trail while using a snaffle, I suggest using a "pulley rein", which is not pleasant for the horse. But it may save one's life. If all you've experienced is a horse who "_would go approximately 50 feet, stop, look back to ask, "are you ok?"_ "- then you don't know what I'm talking about. One nice thing about the mustangs I've got - one BLM mustang and one half-mustang, half-Arabian - is that mine NEVER lose their minds. Unlike Mia.



trailscout said:


> Is that so??!! How about a cooks bitless?


Got one. I've used it a lot. But if you think it is the answer for a horse with a competitive spirit, you need to MEET a horse with a competitive spirit! BTW - I also rode Mia in a rope halter sometimes and Bandit logged plenty of miles in a Dr Cook's. But it sure as heck is NOT the answer for a competitive horse.



gottatrot said:


> Experience with horses tends to teach caution and it is amazing how many things can happen that you never thought of.


Amen! And experience around horse riders teaches one that no experience can stand up against a YouTube belief system.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

bsms said:


> But NO ONE on this thread is suggesting doing that! You don't punish them into doing something scary. But when one freaks out over...a Palo Verde tree?...your response WILL need to be much more firm than just "_I'll give you a treat!_". I am not and in no post have I ever promoted "Beat them past it!"


I don’t know what you mean by “firm” here exactly, but I assure you whatever it is that Dixie would probably not put up with it regardless of what she is spooking at. A _soft_ request for her to not run off would yield vastly different results, however.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

DanielDauphin said:


> They are obviously still in "the unicorn stage" of horse ownership.


While it may serve you in some way to label people as such, it will not contribute to those being labeled as such to seek your advice.

Making supportive statements on the order of, " I respect am and happy for fact that you are drawn to horse ownership. That is something that we both share. There were many things I now know that I did not know early on that could have resulted in my serious injury or even worse. If you would allow me, I would like to share some of what I have learned through experience if you wish", would be much more productive and helpful to both you and them.

My perception of your treatment on people online, and hopefully not off line in real life, is the same treatment that the nueby woman with the nice little mustang was doing starting about 6:30.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

gottatrot said:


> She didn't need endorphins because she created her own happiness by owning space.


One of the challenges is that horses decide what is scary. And what is a "reward". Running fast is a powerful reward to some horses. Dominating others is a reward to some horses. 


LilyandPistol said:


> talking about a horse bolting alongside its partners as if that would be the end of the world consider yourselves to be “natural horsemen”, but fearing a horse’s responses doesn’t feel very natural to me


Maybe you haven't experienced the genuine danger a horse's responses can create.


LilyandPistol said:


> I don’t know what you mean by “firm” here exactly, but I assure you whatever it is that Dixie would probably not put up with it regardless of what she is spooking at.


I mean like....using the reins to strongly encourage a turn before hitting a barbed wire fence? If Dixie wouldn't put up with it, Dixie might die. And kill you too. If your horse hasn't learned you can argue back, your only alternative is to submit to the horse. If Dixie freaks out when you use leg or reins to limit her options, I suggest you not ride Dixie outside a round pen.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

Note: Fear of a Palo Verde tree to the horse is experienced the same as a charging tiger. The degree may be different, but the experience is the same. This needs to be understood.

Also, to give a horse a treat when frightened, would encourage the horse to be frightened. The first rule for +R training is to click and treat the behavior you would like to see more of.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

trailscout said:


> Fear of a Palo Verde tree to the horse is experienced the same as a charging tiger.


I know. My point is that no one can PREDICT what a given horse will be afraid of on a given day, which makes the plan to not overload the horse an impossible one to follow. There have been ample spooks where I never had an idea what sparked it.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

bsms said:


> But when one freaks out over...a Palo Verde tree?...your response WILL need to be much more firm than just "_I'll give you a treat!_".





bsms said:


> I know.


I may have mis-decoded your comment which I read to suggest a Palo Verde tree should not be feared. Mostly because of the question mark.

I agree that we can never know what distant odor, sound, or sight that we are unable to detect can set a horse off. But I do believe they can be trained to respond to a settling cue based on +R training. But If the fear hits the high road circuits, all bets are off.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

bsms said:


> I mean like....using the reins to strongly encourage a turn before hitting a barbed wire fence? If Dixie wouldn't put up with it, Dixie might die. And kill you too. If your horse hasn't learned you can argue back, your only alternative is to submit to the horse. If Dixie freaks out when you use leg or reins to limit her options, I suggest you not ride Dixie outside a round pen.


The problem isn’t not being able to “argue back”. Thinking of your interactions with your horse’s fears as an argument is BAD. That would be like if your child had a panic attack in response to something and you yanked them over by the hair and just forced them to have the panic attack _in_ the scary situation. Which would indubitably be child abuse.

That’s a lesson that I learned very quickly about reactive horses and I am surprised what with your experience that you haven’t yet. The problem is not that Dixie is trying to _argue_ when she spooks. The problem is that some awful person I’d like to punch in the mouth manhandled her around her fears in such a way as to (perhaps metaphorically, perhaps literally) beat the curiosity out of her. She still expects to this day for it to be such a negative experience— she still expects a _fight_, so she makes the fight as quick as possible with some quick movements and giving you no reaction time (because she’s learned reaction time gives you more of a chance to manhandle her) and gets out as fast as she can— which is why positive reinforcement is _vital_ for Dixie. Overriding those traumatic experiences with pleasant experiences.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

LilyandPistol said:


> Overriding those traumatic experiences with pleasant experiences.


YES! This is called building a desireable reinforcement history that is stronger than the previous undesirable history.

But in plain ole english of course, just learning that things have now changed from the past. But methodical +R training speeds that up considerably.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

LilyandPistol said:


> Thinking of your interactions with your horse’s fears as an argument is BAD. That would be like if your child had a panic attack in response to something and you yanked them over by the hair and just forced them to have the panic attack _in_ the scary situation. Which would indubitably be child abuse.


That is just silly. The argument is NOT over "_Is it scary?_" And no one is suggesting forcing them to have a panic attack. But if the horse's choice is to spin and race away for 1/2 mile, then that choice needs to be "blocked". It is a bad choice. A dangerous choice. And in that situation - having been there - it does become an argument with the horse. The horse REALLY wants to spin and race away. The rider does not. He's not insisting the horse go up to the scary object. He isn't whipping the horse past the scary object. But he - as in bsms - IS rejecting the horse's solution and insisting a different solution be found.

"*Mutually Acceptable Compromise*". I've been arguing for it for years. *Mutually* acceptable. But that requires sometimes saying, "_Your offered solution is UN-acceptable! Pick a different one!_" And the horse may not want to listen to that. Unless you insist. Or at least strongly discourage the horse from ignoring you entirely.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

Off topic side note just about the kind of trauma that horses who are used to being _fought with_ sometimes endure...

I’m not gonna lie, it might be difficult to work with, but I’m actually really glad that that’s her response to that form of trauma compared to what it could be... I’ve seen the polar opposite from Pistol. Sometimes when he gets overwhelmed, he just stops and stands there frozen in place, and sometimes trembles. When he’s in that state he doesn’t even react to a treat. He may or may not react to pressure. Sure, Pistol’s reaction might be less dangerous to me... but it’s more dangerous to him. Because if someone who didn’t understand or didn’t care was working with him in that situation, they’d think he was being bad and ignoring them, when in actuality he’s having a freeze reaction. It makes me think of an overwhelmed person sitting in fetal position and rocking back and forth.

Pistol’s reaction to being overwhelmed is to give up... Dixie’s is to fight (or now, after a long time of working on her with her distrust and trauma, to wait and see if you’re going to pick a fight) and do it well. I sympathize with both, but Pistol’s, when I have seen it before, (and thankfully, he hasn’t done it in a while— he was at least easier to earn the trust from) shatters my heart.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

bsms said:


> That is just silly. The argument is NOT over "_Is it scary?_" And no one is suggesting forcing them to have a panic attack. But if the horse's choice is to spin and race away for 1/2 mile, then that choice needs to be "blocked". It is a bad choice. A dangerous choice. And in that situation - having been there - it does become an argument with the horse. The horse REALLY wants to spin and race away. The rider does not. He's not insisting the horse go up to the scary object. He isn't whipping the horse past the scary object. But he - as in bsms - IS rejecting the horse's solution and insisting a different solution be found.
> 
> "*Mutually Acceptable Compromise*". I've been arguing for it for years. *Mutually* acceptable. But that requires sometimes saying, "_Your offered solution is UN-acceptable! Pick a different one!_" And the horse may not want to listen to that. Unless you insist. Or at least strongly discourage the horse from ignoring you entirely.


Sure. And if Dixie was to spook and start to run off, I could still ask her to move another way or ask her to slow up and she would listen. But that’s only AFTER starting to address her trauma and show her that it doesn’t have to be a fight. And she’s also not stupid and doesn’t run into things...


----------



## QHriderKE (Aug 3, 2011)

trailscout said:


> There is no way the average horse raised in captivity can develop the bone and foot strength of a wild horse in harsh terrain and that's where I prefer to ride and is where 90% of all my riding has been done.
> 
> Rant for rant. Rant's are easy. But to speak calm reasoned thought, well, requires thought.


98% of people today do not ride enough hard miles to actually wear out the average horse (QH/Paint/TB, whatever). I am almost certain you do not fit into that 2%.




trailscout said:


> My horse would go approximately 50 feet, stop, look back to ask, "are you ok?" He gradually improved on that to where it was a four legged brace most times, plus his bolts did also become less violent. In fact they pretty much stopped over time. And I got better at grabbing leather.


If you are so exceptionally experienced riding in harsh terrain (which is why you needed a mustang?), you wouldn't be comfortable with a 50 foot bolt. It wouldn't be something that's just okay and you'll slowly work on it at the horses own pace. In actually nasty terrain, out of control for 50 feet could kill both of you. 

I know horses seem all sunshine and rainbows for you because you've watched a lot of videos that make it seem possible but fact is, it's just NOT SAFE to let horses do whatever they please and if it's undesirable, I guess you just feed him a treat if you make it to the other side of whatever happened, and hope it doesn't kill you that day and work on it some more in the arena? No matter how much you prepare him in the arena or the roundpen, horses are always unpredictable. I'd much rather rely on a method of training that has a pretty predictable outcome every time.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

LilyandPistol said:


> The problem isn’t not being able to “argue back”. Thinking of your interactions with your horse’s fears as an argument is BAD. That would be like if your child had a panic attack in response to something and you yanked them over by the hair and just forced them to have the panic attack _in_ the scary situation. Which would indubitably be child abuse.


No, it's actually like dragging your child away from trying to run in front of a car. The child will not agree, and may come kicking and screaming, but in that moment you do what it takes to keep them safe.



trailscout said:


> ...That the horse attacked her while she was in the corner with room behind the horse came as no surprise to me based on the degree of torment she had deviled the horse with....
> 
> If I am being compared in any way to the people in that video, I am deeply offended. Very deeply.


It is good that you could see the horse's body language was stressed. All I can base my assumptions on is the info you have given, that you are a senior citizen who has never started a horse before, wanting to try out a training method you haven't used before, on an older, unhandled mustang. If you think that doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster, well, can you tell how that sounds? I mean even non-horse people might think that sounds rather risky. 

There would be many things that would make this better. If you had used the method starting a few horses before, ones that had been raised by people. If you had many years of horse experience behind you. If you were much younger, so more resilient if the horse kicks and bites you a few times. If you had worked in person with a trainer who had used the method quite a bit, or spent a lot of time around trainers working with unhandled mustangs. All of those things would give you more to work with.



trailscout said:


> Hogwash! You know nothing of the terrain I ride in. Blather on.............


Let's just say that those who canter horses for 100 miles across deserts can meet the challenge with domestic bred and raised horses. Otherwise only Mustangs would be used for endurance rides such as the Tevis cup.



trailscout said:


> gottatrot said:
> 
> If we blast by you on two thoroughbreds, I can guarantee your horse will come along if you don't have a bridle on.
> 
> Is that so??!! How about a cooks bitless? If you think so, I have a story for you about a herd of 20 horses stampeding past a horse in a bitless that was a member of the herd when loose.


Bitless bridles do offer some control, and if a horse has the right mentality, training and experience, they can face some serious challenges in them. I've known horses that could go cross country in them, but not without a bridle. 

In my scenario, I was thinking of a person riding their horse bridleless and having someone come galloping by. It is quite possible you could take a horse like a Friesian I know that was very lazy, and gallop by her a few times with horses she knew, so it became a routine. Then you could probably take her bridle off and she'd probably still stand there.

Something I should say, and this is very important. There is no such thing as pride with horses. Horses will always show us all how little we know, all throughout life. You are a new member here. Everyone will debate things and may disagree with you, but everyone has horses' best interests at heart. *If you do run into problems, please don't feel as if anyone will say "I told you so," or not offer help. Please ask if you need opinions and you will get some potentially very helpful answers.*



LilyandPistol said:


> I don’t know if those of you talking about this mustang situation as if the mustang was at fault or* talking about a horse bolting alongside its partners as if that would be the end of the world consider yourselves to be “natural horsemen”, but fearing a horse’s responses doesn’t feel very natural to me*


I don't fear a horse's responses. Those that have no concern about a horse's responses have not had enough experience yet to understand what can happen. Maybe for some it has to happen to them personally to create respect. 
I have literally galloped on horses for miles at a stretch. Galloped, not cantered. Horses running off or doing unexpected things has happened to me many, many times. I've also fallen off many times. That does not concern me.

What does concern me is what might happen to the bridleless horse if someone does gallop past and my horse goes along. Now I may be dependent on someone else to stop before I can. That might mean this other person gallops for a mile or two, and my horse is not in shape, is healing from a tendon issue, has weak pasterns and the footing is bad, or etc. Maybe the other horses will jump over logs and that will traumatize my horse, who does not know how to jump. Maybe my horse will trip when he gets tired because he is out of shape, and I will fall, and then he will be loose on a highway and get hit by a car. Those are the reasons I fear the response of the out of control horse.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

LilyandPistol said:


> Sometimes when he gets overwhelmed, he just stops and stands there frozen in place, and sometimes trembles.


That is just so sad sad sad. Reminds me of my horses first spook and bolt with trembling lips afterward. A horse is such a sensitive sensitive soul.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

QHriderKE said:


> If you are so exceptionally experienced riding in harsh terrain (which is why you needed a mustang?), you wouldn't be comfortable with a 50 foot bolt.


First, I feel you are over dramatizing the fact that I do and have ridden in terrain that is far more harsh than most experience simply because that was all that was available. 

Second, the bolt mentioned was prior to me even owning my first saddle horse and only about 3 months after I began really riding.

OK?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

QHriderKE said:


> I'd much rather rely on a method of training that has a pretty predictable outcome every time.


Some of the standard methods of training are not only have a good track record of dealing with harmful behaviors, but also - as you know QHriderKE! - have an excellent track record of creating a genuine partner on the trail. Or ranch. Or arena, if that is what the rider prefers. I think that is what bothers me the most on this thread. It is assumed you and I and gottatrot and Daniel and loosie and others have shut-down horses too intimidated by us to be our friends and partners. The assumption that because of how we train, we are child abusers on horseback. And we are just not smart enough to know our horses tremble with fear at our approach....


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> I mean even non-horse people might think that sounds rather risky.


I agree. It is risky and is why I am taking precautions. I'm not averse to risky. In fact, I have for most of my life seem for some reason to be drawn towards it.



gottatrot said:


> Otherwise only Mustangs would be used for endurance rides such as the Tevis cup.


Ha! I've both ridden dirt bikes and hiked on the Tevis Cup trails. Piece O' Cake compared to the trails (and off trails) I recently cut my teeth on. Recently in this case goes back a few years.

Physical endurance on a 100 mile'r requires, well, endurance which is not necessarily associated with strong heavy bones and feet.

Try going for a barefoot ride with Hero on the trails on and off where I cut my teeth and he'll go lame in short order if he's even able to negotiate the terrain.

Maybe someone should start a pool on my success/failure


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

trailscout said:


> Try going for a barefoot ride with Hero on the trails on and off where I cut my teeth and he'll go lame in short order if he's even able to negotiate the terrain.


Arabs are much better at that sort of thing than Thoroughbreds. But many Thoroughbreds can do pretty much any terrain with boots on. If you want a barefoot horse...the ones I've seen that came out of the corrals would not have been able to do rough footing barefoot either, because they didn't have good hoof care for the months they were in there, and lacked the movement to wear down their hooves, so this degraded their hooves. Also several I knew got laminitis pretty quickly from being overfed hay. That is quite common in mustangs, with genes that have selected for staying alive on a poor diet.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Trooper is a former ranch horse who did up to 50 miles a day regularly from the deserts of Utah to nearly 10,000 foot mountains. Not a mustang. Actually has the weakest feet of my three. Mia had great feet. Purebred Arabian. Better feet than half-mustang Bandit, although 6 years of barefoot riding has improved Bandit's feet. BLM mustang Cowboy has great feet but he's never been ridden as much as Trooper and Bandit. The terrain around here is very rocky, including their corral. I've been all over the western USA and feel qualified to discuss terrain that is rough on a horse's foot. Or mine. Although WET terrain may be harder on a horse's hooves than the desert.

The ranch Trooper came from used horses on rough terrain for more miles/day than 99% or recreational riders ever will. They preferred Arabian/Appy mixes. The sons are taking over and don't want to deal with breeding their own horses, so they are buying what is available. More QHs now. They say good feet are good feet. Bad feet are bad feet. And you buy the horse, not the breed.

PS: I like mustangs. But I would be very concerned about trying to work with a horse fresh from the BLM pens. Little Cowboy had years of riding before he came to us. Not at all like trying to start one from the pens.


----------



## LilyandPistol (Dec 2, 2014)

Comparing your horse spooking to a child running out in the road is... a very weird comparison. Yes, if my horse was going to run into something, I would need to stop it. But 99 times out of 100 that doesn’t happen, and there’s no reason to get so panicked. Most of the time I have found that remaining calm even in the most dramatic of spooks (such as the one described earlier where Mav spooked and bronc’d out for a second and his hackamore broke, but he still stopped when I asked calmly anyway) does 100x more than “fighting”... Redirection is not the same as a fight. If you can’t get the horse to stop or it isn’t safe to stop, you _redirect_ until you can— You don’t _fight_. Fighting is what will cause the horse to panic more and become “out of control”. Keep him safe until he’s calm enough to listen. Don’t fight.


----------



## trailscout (Nov 23, 2020)

gottatrot said:


> Arabs are much better at that sort of thing than Thoroughbreds.


Yes, I know. I would not have presented that challenge with Amore was she still rideable. Hee

Gottatrot, I'll have to be away from my computer for the rest of the day but first I wanna say this:

I have read that you are a nurse and that you often work with older people. I do believe that you have very serious, genuine, and caring concerns for my safety and I do, regardless of my brashness at times, very deeply appreciate that.

My recognition of the real possibilities of failure is what persuaded me to adopt rather than purchase outright which gives me an out to return the horse. But that will only be considered as an absolute last ditch effort.

If you spoke with any that have been acquainted with me for years they would tell you that he's gonna do what he's gonna do and that the best that can be done to help him is to point out things that might prevent failure such as an adequately constructed round pen and such. Advice to just don't do it won't help this guy at all. We know him. It won't. We know 'cause we're somewhat like him also.

Daniel started out with a single viewing of VHS training videos by the guy that throws coiled up ropes at horses and started training without any more experience than that.

I just think you're cutting me a little short. If there were more years left I might angel off in a little different angle, but there's not, so I'm not.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Closed for review


----------

